Original source · versioned page text
2021-06-16 Special Meeting Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
Special Meeting
Wednesday, 16 June 2021
commencing at 10.00am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Crs Clare Stewart (Chair), Karen Finzel, Joe Jurisevic, Amelia Lorentson,
Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie
“Noosa Shire – different by nature”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 46 sections
Section 2
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
REPORTS 3
1 2021/22 NOOSA COUNCIL DRAFT BUDGET CONSULTATION FEEDBACK 3
MEETING CLOSURE -
Page 2 of 47
Section 3
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
REPORTS
1 2021/22 NOOSA COUNCIL DRAFT BUDGET CONSULTATION FEEDBACK
Author Director Corporate Services, Michael Shave
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM/ 7.29 - 2021 – 2022 Budget
Attachments 1 Your Say Noosa Submitted Ideas
2 Summary of Email Submissions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the Special Meeting dated 16
June 2021 regarding the 2021/22 Draft Budget consultation outcomes and:
A. Note the submissions received as summarised in Attachments 1 and 2 and thank the
submitters for their input into the Council 2021/22 budget process.
B. Note that Councillors will consider the feedback received to finalise the development and
adoption of the 2021/22 Council budget.
C. To address transparency concerns regarding the discontinuation of the Tourism and
Economic Levy, agree to include in the 2021/22 budget and all future Council adopted budget
documents and monthly financial reporting, details of the level of budget investment and
funds management for tourism and economic development.
D. Request the Chief Executive Officer to report back to the next round of Council meetings
regarding the process to develop a new partnership funding agreement with Tourism Noosa
which will commence on 1 July 2022 following the expiry of the current agreement on 30
June 2022.
E. Note that a review of Council’s inaugural budget engagement process will be undertaken and
reported back to a future Council meeting.
REPORT
Under sections 104 and 107A of the Local Government Act 2009 and section 170 of the Local
Government Regulation 2012, Council is required to adopt, for each financial year, after 31 May
before the financial year and before 1 August in the financial year, a budget and revenue statement.
Council’s budget process runs from November through to June each year and is a significant
annual project for Council, requiring considerable organisational and Councillor input to ensure
that budget decisions align with Corporate Plan objectives, Operational Plan targets and Financial
Sustainability Policy requirements.
Page 3 of 47
Section 4
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Council has commenced its inaugural community engagement process for its 2021/22 budget
development, with a number of channels offered to elicit community feedback regarding budget
priorities. The engagement approach has involved the following to date:
1. General communication of the process through Council social media channels, website and
local newspapers.
2. Establishment of an online Council Budget Engagement Process project page via the Your
Say Noosa tile on Council’s website.
3. Introduction of the Balance Your Noosa Council Operating Budget participation tool where
residents had the opportunity to change budget spending priorities whilst still having to
balance the budget.
4. Encouraging general submissions regarding community budget priorities on the Council Your
Say webpage via ideas, and also via email to Council’s budget feedback email address.
5. Publishing of Council’s 10 year capital plan for feedback.
6. Face to face sessions to allow residents to discuss budget priorities directly with Councillors.
7. Publishing of Council’s draft budget for community feedback for a 2 week period ending 7
June 2021.
Feedback from the earlier budget engagement process was considered by Council at the Special
Meeting on 23 April 2021.
DRAFT 2021-22 BUDGET CONSULTATION 24 MAY 2021 TO 7 JUNE 2021
The draft budget was finalised and published for community feedback on Council’s Your Say
Noosa webpage for a 2 week period ending 7 June 2021. The following documents were provided
for review and feedback:
Information Sheets
2021/22 Draft Budget Information Sheet 1 – Budget Overview
2021/22 Draft Budget Information Sheet 2 – Budget Financial Summary
2021/22 Draft Budget Information Sheet 3 – Proposed Changes to General Rates & Levies
2021/22 Draft Budget Information Sheet 4 – Proposed Capital Plan
Budget Documents
2021/22 Draft Financial Statements
2021/22 Rates and Charges Comparison
2021/22 Schedule of Levies and Separate Charges
2021/22 Capital Plan and 10 Year Capital Program
Engagement and Feedback Received
1 Your Say Noosa Interactions
The draft budget documentation and information sheets were provided on the Your Say Noosa
webpage on 24 May 2021. For the 2 week period the site was visited 453 times by 364 visitors.
Over half of the 1,030 page views occurred in the last 3 days of the consultation period.
Page 4 of 47
Section 5
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Visitor - anonymous visitor to the Your Say webpage
Visits- a single browsing session which can include the same visitor
Page View - total number of times the webpage is viewed or refreshed
A summary of the feedback received on the draft budget is outlined below.
2 Your Say Noosa Submitted Ideas
Council encouraged residents and ratepayers to take the opportunity to send in specific
suggestions and / or submissions on the draft budget via the Your Say Noosa webpage. 22
contributions occurred on the Your Say Noosa webpage with the majority of ideas and comments
relating to the proposed transitory property rating category changes and discontinuation of the
Tourism and Economic levy, with a mix of comments both supporting and opposing the proposed
rating changes. The full list of ideas are provided as Attachment 1 to this report.
3 Direct Feedback to Council’s Budget Email Address
Residents and ratepayers were also encouraged to email any specific budget priorities directly to
Council’s budget email address [email protected]. 93 email submissions were
received which are summarised in Attachment 2 to this report. Feedback was received by a cross
section of the community including residents and ratepayers, resident and ratepayer groups, and
also businesses and business associations. The majority of emails received were focused on the
proposed transitory property rating category changes and proposed discontinuation of the Tourism
and Economic levy.
4 Proposed Introduction of Transitory Accommodation Rating Categories
A number of responses (6 ideas and 17 emails) were received relating to the proposed introduction
of transitory accommodation rating categories for approximately 4,300 properties currently offered
for short stay accommodation. Responses were received from both impacted property owners
(currently offering their property for short stay accommodation) objecting to the proposed increase
for their property, and residents / ratepayers supporting the proposed transitory accommodation
rating changes. A submission was also made by Stayz, an Expedia Group company (who along
with Airbnb are one of the online short term and holiday rental market leaders) outlining concerns
with the proposed rating changes.
Page 5 of 47
Section 6
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
5 Tourism and Economic Levy Discontinuation
A number of responses (12 ideas and 64 emails) were received relating to the discontinuation of
the Tourism and Economic levy (currently funded by 6,000 property owners), arising (in part) as a
result of a concerns raised by Tourism Noosa about the proposed changes. The issues raised by
Tourism Noosa (facilitated by emails to their customer database on 4 and 6 June 2021) contained
a number of assumptions regarding the purpose of Council’s proposed rating changes, in particular
suggesting that tourism destination funding would be jeopardised, stating that the current levy
allows a level of protection and transparency of funding for tourism promotion, and also confusing
the proposed rating changes and reason for the changes with future responsibility of providing
tourism promotion activities (i.e. Council would be taking direct responsibility for tourism promotion
activities which in hindsight, wasn’t communicated well in Council’s draft budget documentation).
As a result, a number of responses received included concerns that tourism funding would
decrease as a result of the change, and also concerns that tourism promotion and management
activities were going to be reduced or removed altogether from Tourism Noosa in the future. Some
responses supported the discontinuation of the levy, suggesting a review / reduction of tourism
funding levels and a review of the current levy arrangements.
As Councillors are aware, the allocation of funding to Tourism Noosa is the subject of a specific
funding agreement between Council and Tourism Noosa. Regardless of whether revenue is
collected via a Tourism & Economic Levy or via General Rates, the annual funding to Tourism
Noosa is always determined by the funding agreement. The 2021/22 draft budget includes $2.52
million required to be provided to Tourism Noosa under the current agreement. The current 5 year
agreement, in place since 2017, has allocated a total funding amount of $12.6 million to Tourism
Noosa. As an example, the Tourism and Economic Levy was reduced by 5% in 2020/21 to reduce
the financial impact on local businesses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic - but that had no
impact on the $2.52 million funding budgeted for and provided to Tourism Noosa.
Councillors will note that concerns have also been raised that there will be reduced transparency
should revenue not be collected and constrained via a levy. Council’s current funding agreement
with Tourism Noosa specifies the required reporting mechanisms to ensure that Council can be
satisfied that ratepayers funds provided to Tourism Noosa are being spent appropriately to deliver
its business plan and strategy. Whether revenue is collected via a Levy or via General Rates,
Council is obligated to ensure that the significant amount of ratepayers funds provided to Tourism
Noosa are being managed efficiently and they will be required to provide ongoing reporting to
Council in this regard.
To provide an additional level of transparency and to satisfy any concerns raised regarding the
level of annual economic development investment from general rates (including tourism), it is
recommended that Council’s adopted budget include specific details of the annual budget
investment in these activities in addition to monthly reporting of actual expenditure performance
through Council’s financial performance report.
It is also recommended that the Chief Executive Officer report to the next round of Council meetings
outlining a process to develop a new partnership funding agreement with Tourism Noosa, to allay
concerns raised in the feedback regarding Tourism Noosa’s future funding allocation from Council.
Page 6 of 47
Section 7
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Previous Council Consideration
Special Meeting Minutes, 23 April 2021, Item 1, Page 3
That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the Special Meeting dated 23
April 2021 regarding the 2021/22 budget process community consultation outcomes and note that
Councillors will consider the feedback received during the continuing development of the 2021/22
Council budget.
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 18 February 2021, Item 4, Page 6
That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the Services & Organisation
Committee Meeting dated 9 February 2021 and endorse the proposed engagement process for
the 2021/22 budget which includes the use of both online and face to face solutions to maximise
feedback.
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 15 October 2020, Item 7, Page 23
That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the General Committee Meeting
dated 12 October 2020 and:
A. Note the outcomes of the community budget consultation undertaken between 7–27
September 2020, provided as Attachment 1 to the report;
B. Note that Council will consider the priorities identified in the feedback when undertaking
future 2020-21 budget reviews; and
C. Note the community’s preference for online community budget engagement process for
future budgets and request staff to report back to a future Council meeting with options.
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 18 June 2020, Item 6, Page 10
That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the Services & Organisation
Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2020 and:
A. Following Council’s adoption of the 2020/21 Budget, agree to engage with the community
via Your Say Noosa on:
1. How the allocation of any additional funding should be prioritised if it becomes available
through the financial year; and
2. Where services/expenditure should be reduced if further budget reductions are
required.
B. Agree to engage with the community on their preferred public consultation model for the
2021/22 budget process; and
C. Request the Chief Executive Officer to provide a report to Council on the outcomes of both
public consultation processes for Council’s consideration before it meets to consider its
scheduled Budget Review 2 in November 2020.
Finance
The costs incurred to date to undertake the budget engagement process include software licencing
and advertising as well as staff time. These costs have been absorbed in the current operating
budget.
Page 7 of 47
Section 8
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Risks & Opportunities
Risks
Reputational – Council has progressed down the path of consultation on future Council budgets.
Community trust will likely be eroded should Council determine to abandon future budget
consultation.
Priorities – Engagement processes with the community can achieve sub optimal outcomes and
priority misalignment should wide engagement not occur as intended.
Opportunities
A budget consultation process is an opportunity to understand the spending priorities of our
community and ensures that effective engagement continues to retain community confidence in
Council processes and decision making.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
The purpose of the process was to elicit feedback from the general community regarding budget
priorities for consideration for the development of the 2021/22 budget.
Internal Consultation
Community Engagement.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director X Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
X Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
X Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 8 of 47
Section 9
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
Summary of Your Say Noosa Draft Budget Ideas
No. Contribution
1* RE: Noosa Council Draft Budget 2021-22
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget papers, and
disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core Council business".
Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an organisation that professionally,
transparently and strategically promotes the destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor
spend (reaching a record $1.2 billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top
Tourism Town Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations well into the
future.
2* RE: Noosa Council Draft Budget 2021-22
The proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General Rates is
alarming for the tourism industry. Where will we see the current transparency around how our
Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual Reports? With protection
removed, there is no guarantee that Council or future Councils will continue to use the funds for
their purpose, or will even fund Tourism Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this
uncertain Covid world, now more than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the work
of Tourism Noosa.
3 Rate increase for short term stays
Surely it must get to a point for some people renting a unit or flat or room, that it is no longer
financially viable. With levies, rate increases and now having to pay a local agent, the costs
associated are prohibitive to short term letting for some. Less accom options = less tourists = less
dollars!
4* Re. proposed changes to the Tourism Levy
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget papers, and
disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core Council business".
Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an organisation that professionally,
transparently and strategically promotes the destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor
spend (reaching a record $1.2 billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top
Tourism Town Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations well into the
future.
5* Protect Tourism!!
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget papers, and
disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core Council business".
Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an organisation that professionally,
transparently and strategically promotes the destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor
spend (reaching a record $1.2 billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top
Tourism Town Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations well into the
future.
6 re proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, I disagree with the statement that "Tourism
promotion has evolved into core Council business"
Page 9 of 47
Section 10
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
No. Contribution
7 New rating categories for transitory accommodation (short stay) properties supported
The introduction of new rating categories for transitory accommodation (short stay) properties is
supported, but the rise is not commensurate with the nature of the properties and should be more.
They are a business and should be paying commercial rates. The rise should be commensurate
with the costs Council will incur when the new local law is adopted, as well as the increased demand
on Council services and infrastructure.
8 The notion that tourism ‘promotion’ is core Council business is not supported
The notion that tourism ‘promotion’ is core Council business is not supported. The ‘levy’ or a
differential rate for tourism businesses needs to remain as a recognition of the burden tourism
places on services and infrastructure for the Council as destination manager, but promotion should
be the realm of a non-Council tourism organisation self-funded from membership fees.
9 The current arrangements for the Tourism Levy certainly need review
The current arrangements for the Tourism Levy certainly need review, and it is hoped that the
agreement with Tourism Noosa will be significantly changed when it comes up for review.
Transferring these levy funds to a self- interested, industry organisation that has no transparency or
responsibility to the community and no Council input might have been appropriate in a time when
tourism in Noosa was struggling to gain its footing, but inappropriate in 2021/22 when little promotion
is necessary, when the tourism industry is placing a massive burden on liveability and services and
infrastructure in the shire, and where changes in direction in promotion might have adverse impacts
on Council and community.
Council’s ‘core business’ in relation to tourism is its role as destination manager, and this uses a
very significant portion of its resources, primarily paid for by non-tourism ratepayers. The tourism
levy and the tourism industry should contribute more to that purpose than ordinary ratepayers.
Applying the levy funds to more than just granting them to an opaque organisation for tourism
promotion would be a beginning.
10 Tourism Noosa has been operating without Council input and without residents having a say
in how funds are spent. It's time for a change
Time for Tourism Noosa to stand on their own two feet.
11 Support increased rates for STAs
The introduction of new rating categories for transitory accommodation (short stay) properties is
supported, but the rise is not commensurate with the nature of the properties and should be more.
They are a business and should be paying commercial rates. The rise should be commensurate
with the costs Council will incur when the new local law is adopted, as well as the increased demand
on Council services and infrastructure.
12 SUBMISSION POINTS Tourism Noosa should fund its own promotion. Council read should
fund infrastructure costs
13 Tourism Levy - should not be used for promoting Noosa. Use to establish cap on tourist
numbers. Constant growth will kill Noosa’s uniquenes.
Noosa has too many tourists and over scale events which is leading to a decline in the quality of the
environment and decline in amenity to local residents, The levy should be used to fund high quality
infra structure, environmental protection and free public transport, The levy also needs to fund
serious research in to a tourist number cap to ensure Noosa retains its unique environmental
qualities and market niche. Overcrowding reduces the resident and tourist experience. Be radical.
Rather than say we need big tourist numbers to support businesses like restaurants, time to say we
have too many restaurants and limit them, limit STL etc Quality always wins over quantity in the
long run.
Page 10 of 47
Section 11
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
No. Contribution
14 Shame on you Noosa Council for planning such extravagant rate increases on holiday
property investors.
Shame on you Noosa Council for planning such extravagant rate increases on holiday property
investors. My family and I have been investing in and enjoying holidays in Noosa for over 40 years.
In late 2019 we invested in a holiday unit (a strata of 8). In our first year 2020, we had almost no
visitors due to Covid and we made a significant loss on the property. The Covid pandemic is still
seriously impacting Australia and you want to introduce a major rate hike and, significantly above
CPI. Shame on you! Why are you gouging the small investment property owners, at this time, who
have made a significant contribution and investment in Noosa for over 40 years helping to make it
the wonderful Australian iconic tourist destination it is today. Shame on you Noosa Council
15 STL whole house rates should be higher than proposed in budget
Given that whole house STL is a commercial accommodation business, rates should be higher than
those proposed in the budget. Perhaps a sliding scale should be imposed so that the very expensive
STL bears more of the burden. . Rate on owner occupied room rent is fine. Rates should be set so
that all cost to the Council of approval and compliance should be borne by STL owners.
16 Fire Levy should be in General rates
The introduction of a bushfire resilience and response levy is not supported. This is not new Council
business and should be funded by a rise in general rates if there is a need to improve or expand
services. Levies increase complexity and administration costs and hide rate rises. While recognising
this and simplifying some aspects of the rates in other parts of the 2021/2 budget Council is
simultaneously adding more complexity by introducing yet another levy.
17 Time for an overhaul of tourism marketing for Noosa. The goals should be sustainability and
resident amenity
Council will now be able to make tourism in Noosa more on the terms that suit Shire residents, and
should call tenders for tourism marketing services that meet these aims. Tourism Noosa can fund
itself through member contributions like other industry bodies.
18 Traffic Risk Mitigation for the Hinterland
With the known safety issues the recent expansion of Cordwells Quarry has introduced to the Noosa
Hinterland region, I believe it it more important than ever to be allocating appropriate funding to the
affected towns (including Kin Kin, Pomona and Cooran) to mitigate the increased traffic concerns
and community safety concerns resulting from truck convoys travelling through these small towns.
Already these towns are severely underfunded, with basic traffic management systems lacking,
including enough pedestrian crossings, footpaths, school traffic management, carparking, patrolling
etc. So adding increased quarry operations on top of a lack of traffic management is a recipe for
disaster. Pomona is in need of multiple pedestrian crossings (Hill St at the train station, School St
and Station St T-intersection, Reserve St near railway crossing and IGA, Factory St near railway
crossing and T-intersection). Also footpaths are required on Factory Street near the railway
crossing, School St, Pine St, the bottom of Hill St near the railway station and new bustop (the
footpath runs out). The Pomona State Primary School has multiple issues with school traffic overflow
into Pine St creating long parallel lines of cars parked illegally on grassed verges, restricting walking
access to pedestrians and restricting road width, often to less than 3 metres (impeding emergency
vehicle access to the street). This street is also lacking any pedestrian footpaths, designated street
parking or street guttering. In combination, this creates a severe safety concern for students,
parents, residents and drivers alike, especially with so many cars using the street for carparking.
The Pomona State Primary school is expanding at a rapid rate, with a recent enrollment
management plan needing to be introduced due to this growth. If these safety and traffic
management concerns are not attended to asap, these streets and areas surrounding the school
will only become more congested and increase the likelihood of a serious accident occuring.
Page 11 of 47
Section 12
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
No. Contribution
19 The DRAFT 10 YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAM does not appear to contain funding for the
expansion, renewal or upgrade of the Noosa Botanic Gardens.
In 2017, Noosa Council conducted extensive community consultation on the Noosa Botanic
Gardens Master Plan, with 147 surveys completed and numerous stakeholders interviewed. At the
time, Council announced that the plan would outline the vision for the Gardens for the next five
years. Four years later, does a Master Plan (or even a Vision Statement) exist? Over the next ten
years, $4,582,000 will be spent on the Cooroy Hinterland Playground and a further $10 million on
19 other parks and playgrounds, but it looks like our beautiful Botanic Gardens misses out again.
20 21/22 Draft Budget
For too long Tourism Noosa has been dependent on rate payers to fund the running of their
organisation. The levy needs to be phased out. I understand that Byron Shire has no such
organisation and they have no trouble attracting tourists. Rate payers of Noosa Shire would like to
see that money spent on roads and other infrastructure in the hinterland.
21 Short stay letting
Increase the cost of whole house short stay letting to deter whole houses from being removed from
the rental market. The whole cost to rate payers should be covered by the fees.
22 Budget
The Noosa Botanical Gardens need extra help re maintenance of the garden beds. I hope that this
is covered in the 20/21 budget.
*Idea submission based on the standard template wording promoted by Tourism Noosa through its marketing database
on 2 June and 4 June 2021.
Page 12 of 47
Section 13
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
ATTACHMENT 2
Summary of Email Submissions
Submission Topic Detail
Capital Program Submission 1:
As an interested community member, rate payer and Treasurer of the Kin Kin
(1 submission Community Group Inc. I recently reviewed the ‘draft’ Noosa Council 10 year Capital
received – note Works Program with anticipation and too gain an understanding of what Council may
previously had considered as important capital works projects to improve our community
submitted and infrastructure in Kin Kin over the next decade.
reported to Special
Meeting on 23 April Other than rural road maintenance and the replacement of Wahpunga Lane bridge
2021) (which was in the pipeline for some years), there is no ‘other’ programmed capital works
for Kin Kin ie, skatepark expansion, streetscaping, footpaths, improvements. It is very
disappointing that Council have not embarked on a relationship with the Kin Kin
Community to gain an understanding or listen to what ‘we’ suggest would be promising
projects for our town moving into the future. The KKCG Inc. expressed an interest with
Council to be involved in Strategic Planning for Kin Kin (which we were told we had
missed out’ and have communicated through various liaison, emails and discussions
with Council over a period of time, which all but seem to have been ignored. It has been
over 15 years since we received our first roundabout in Main Street and over a decade
since KKCG Inc. instigated the request and led community consultation for our
skatepark on the oval. Other than these two works, there is little that has been provided
for our community.
Well, to say the least, the proposed (or lack of) capital works projects reflects broadly
on the relationship that Noosa Council lacks with our community. The KKCG Inc. has
worked tirelessly to express (with many levels of Council; Councillors, Property Officers
and Administration) our community need for the Kin Kin Sportsground Community
Centre to be made available to the community to support the wellbeing, cultural,
sporting, social aspects and facilities that it once did, since it has been closed by council
by a Public Health Order on 18 September 2019. Numerous engagements, meetings
with council about this issue has provided little to NO support, understanding or
acknowledgement of our community needs. We have been asking for answers for over
18 months, ‘a way forward’ with no resolve. On Friday 9 April 2021, a resident of Kin
Kin posted the question on social media to the Mayor ‘asking why the community house
has been closed for so long and why the water supply was turned off instead of putting
filters on taps’, that same afternoon the Major was able to respond with ‘It has been
closed because of a bat infestation and money has been allocated by our property
department in this year’s budget to clean up the mess left by the bats and as well as
the addition of a new water supply system’. How is it that we have been waiting for
answers for some time and as soon as the question is posted on social media, an
answer is provided by the Major.
Whilst I appreciate that this issue is ‘finally’ moving forward, why isn’t the proposed
funding for ‘Expansion Upgrade to Oval Facilities and Amenities’ programmed for
delivery in the 2027 / 2028 be given immediate priority so that sportsground buildings
works can be undertaken at the same time so that the facilities are adequate for our
community and not just a ‘fix up job’ proposed this year
I urgently request that Council reassess their priorities for Kin Kin capital works and
create a relationship with the community, an opportunity to provide input, suggestions
and ambitions for our town. Simply, to wait another 10 years is not fair, nor responsible
of Council. What can Council provide to enhance the town for our children, elderly and
visitors?. Why is funding for projects to the north of the shire, non existent.
We deserve an explanation and further consideration prior to Council finalising the
capital works for next 10 years.
Page 13 of 47
Section 14
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
Climate Emergency Submission 1:
/ Climate Change I am largely supportive of Council’s draft Budget but I would like more funds allocated
preparedness to addressing the issue of climate change and the threat this poses to our communities
and our life styles. Council’s 2019 Climate Emergency Declaration needs to be more
(4 submissions effectively promoted and specific actions identified to address potential impacts. I
received) support the application of a special levy, if necessary, or a small increase the rates.
Submission 2:
While I think the draft budget is generally reasonable, I would like to see additional
funding to address Council’s Declaration of a Climate Emergency. We currently face a
global climate and ecological emergency that is increasing in severity with each
passing day as the impacts of global warming increase in both frequency and severity.
Ultimately, we will see global warming creating complex emergencies that result in food
shortages, the failure of nation states, and resulting extreme responses by government.
Council needs to build on what they have already decided and step up to the mark with
regards to the Declaration.
Submission 3:
In response to the CHAP draft & the request for Budget feedback I write requesting
more consideration be given to the funding of the ongoing management & rehabilitation
of our coastal dunes & dunal bushland. Whilst I agree in the Draft’s support for the
revegetative approach to build resilience at the beachfront, I believe that in an era of
increasing climate change & impacts on the frontal dunes at the forefront of sea level
rises will need additional funding to reach the resilient standards the science tells us
we will depend.
Submission 4:
Please find attached a copy of the email I sent early in April seeking funds to implement
the recommendations made in the CHAP and our additional recommendation plus the
PBCAI Submission on the Coastal Adaptation Plan and an article in the Financial
Review : Australian insurers say 'act now' on climate change.
This upcoming budget represents the perfect opportunity for Noosa Council to
demonstrate commitment to dealing with at least some of the impact of climate change,
as well as demonstrating support for the bush care groups
We would hope to see the inclusion and funding of these recommendations in the
upcoming Budget.
General Rate Submission 1:
I realise that the cost of providing goods and services is going up however this does
(1 submission not mean that the rates have to be increased even if it is below or equal to the c.p.i.
received) The increase in cpi is partly caused by higher charges from all level of government .
Better financial management, improvement in tendering and purchasing practices ,
cost saving investigations are some of the areas where money can be saved by the
council . For instance i am always amazed at the cost of building a round-about when
you compare this to the cost of building a house . Something is wrong here !!!!!
Increases above the cpi are unacceptable , such as heritage levy , transport levy and
the environmental levy . If one lives outside the residential areas these items have no
benefit to the land owners.
Peoples whom are on the old age pension ( like us ) can not cope with all the cost
increases . The latest pension rate has been put up to $ 718.10 per week for a couple
. This augmentation of $ 6.30 ( 0.9 % ) per week does not cover the real inflation cost
of living .
Page 14 of 47
Section 15
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
One example is my car insurance is up $71 or 15% . Other increasing costs such as
private health insurance , petrol price and many others are way above our pensions
increase .
The council should ensure that the pensioners will not have their living standard
lowered , this council should increase the rate discount given to the elderly .
Heritage Levy Submission 1:
Noosa Council took appropriate action to reduce the impost of levies on ratepayers
(1 submission during the COVID-19 pandemic and is on the right track to lift those levies back up in
received) 2021-22. In particular, I note that, having being lowered to $5 last year, the Heritage
Levy will rise to $8.50 in the draft budget to be adopted at the end of the month.
In this submission, I propose that this particular levy be increased even further, back
to $10 per property per annum.
It is disappointing that the Heritage Levy is of little assistance to the Noosa Shire
Museum and there is no hypothecation of levy monies to that institution. It is my
contention that the extra $1.50 on the levy would not be felt by most ratepayers.
Directing that money to the museum would be of great assistance – especially if the
additional money raised was used by Noosa Council to engage consultants to consider
the future location of the building, while retaining this important institution in Pomona.
Such action would mirror the steps the council is taking to consider the future scope
and location of the Noosa Regional Gallery.
Such ‘visioning’ by the existing Cooroora Historical Society is not possible currently.
Obviously, the existing committee would need to be consulted in any such process, but
great strides could be made to consider a possible future site for the museum relative
to The Majestic Theatre and the Old Railway Station Gallery to form a ‘cultural precinct’
at Pomona, consistent with the objectives of the Noosa Cultural Plan 2019-23.
There are people at Pomona who would provide their support for the museum, and
revitalise its management, if Noosa Council were able to provide through a consultants’
report details of where the museum could be relocated. The existence of such a report
- funded by an extra $1.50 on top of the $8.50 proposed Heritage Levy - could also be
used to source state and federal funding for a purpose-built facility on the new site,
complete with additional gallery space, refurbished and better displays telling the
shire’s history, humidity control and better storage and research spaces; and
prominence in relation to the other arts and cultural institutions in the town. Please note
that I am not suggesting that the $1.50 extra paid by each ratepayer be consolidated
and provided to the Cooroora Historical Society as a grant, but retained by the council
and used for the purpose stated, in consultation’ with the Noosa Shire Museum
management committee.
Multiple Issues Submission 1:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft budget. My comments are as
(5 submissions below.
received) 1. The introduction of a bushfire resilience and response levy is not supported. This
is not new Council business and should be funded by a rise in general rates if
there is a need to improve or expand services. Otherwise the community needs to
know just exactly what is this levy paying for over and above the existing fire and
response services and budget? Levies increase complexity and administration
costs and hide rate rises. While recognising this and simplifying some aspects of
the rates in other parts of the 2021/2 budget Council is simultaneously adding
more complexity by introducing yet another levy.
2. The introduction of new rating categories for transitory accommodation (short stay)
properties is supported, but the rise is not commensurate with the nature of the
Page 15 of 47
Section 16
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
properties and should be more. They are a business and should be paying
commercial rates. The rise should be commensurate with the costs Council will
incur when the new local law is adopted, as well as the increased demand on
Council services and infrastructure.
3. Council’s intentions regarding tourism budget are unclear in the material provided
online, which raises more questions rather than providing information.
The current arrangements for the Tourism Levy certainly need review, and it is
hoped that the agreement with Tourism Noosa will be significantly changed when
it comes up for review. Transferring these levy funds to a self- interested, industry
organisation that has no transparency or responsibility to the community and no
Council input might have been appropriate in a time when tourism in Noosa was
struggling to gain its footing, but inappropriate in 2021/22 when little promotion is
necessary, when the tourism industry is placing a massive burden on liveability
and services and infrastructure in the shire, and where changes in direction in
promotion might have adverse impacts on Council and community.
Council’s ‘core business’ in relation to tourism is its role as destination manager,
and this uses a very significant portion of its resources in the form of infrastructure
and maintenance costs, which are primarily paid for by non-tourism ratepayers
who are increasingly affected adversely by the expansion of tourism. The tourism
levy and the tourism industry should contribute more to that purpose than ordinary
ratepayers. Applying the levy funds to more than just granting them to an opaque
organisation for tourism promotion would be a beginning.
The notion that tourism ‘promotion’ is core Council business is not supported. The
‘levy’ or a differential rate for tourism businesses needs to remain as a recognition
of the burden tourism places on services and infrastructure for the Council as
destination manager, but promotion should be the realm of a non-Council tourism
organisation self-funded from membership fees.
Submission 2:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide final comment on the draft Noosa Council
Budget documents. These are as follows:
1. Funds to deliver emissions reductions as committed to by Council policy.
The 2019 Noosa Environment Strategy set as a target: “Noosa Council operations and
service activities, and the Noosa community as a whole, will reach zero net emissions
by 2026.” In addition, Council has recently concluded its consultation on the Climate
Change Response Plan (CCRP). We note that the draft Budget overview states that
$400 000 is to be committed for the continuation of the Zero Emissions Noosa Strategy.
However, there is no specific reference in the draft Budget to funding either the
Environment Strategy target, or the CCRP. If Council is genuine about committing to
the goals identified, there should be specific reference in the Budget documents to
funding these objectives, as has been done for the Cycling and Walking Strategy and
Noosa River management initiatives. Please see (2) and (3) below for proposals for
specific initiatives to deliver on these commitments.
2. Proposal for Business Energy Transition Officer
We note that Council has created positions of Community Development Officer and
Heritage Officer. We respectfully submit that an equally important priority should be the
creation of a Business Energy Transition Officer to work with local small business for
economic development and environmental benefits. In this regard, we note that Theme
3 in the CCRP states (p. 31):
3.1 Through targeted initiatives, create an environment that supports business
development, innovation and investment shift to clean, green low emission industries
and technology
Page 16 of 47
Section 17
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
3.2 Utilise business support tools to work with industry, business associations and
government agencies to facilitate emissions reduction and environmental sustainability
for local businesses Our estimates are that business exports $27M per year in grid
electricity costs. If a significant proportion of these costs were avoided through energy
efficiency and renewable energy, these funds could then be reinvested in the business.
Such investment would also lead to growth in the environmental industries sector as
prioritised in the Local Economic Plan. ZEN has developed considerable research data
with respect to the economic benefits to be derived by a business investing in energy
efficiency and renewable energy. This data is derived from actual case studies in the
Noosaville industrial estate and beyond
In many cases overall payback period is little more than 3 years and businesses can
then continue to reap the rewards of their initial investment. If Noosa Council is serious
about emission reduction and economic development, it must work with businesses to
keep this revenue in the shire.
However, we also know that there are real barriers for small business in accessing
these benefits. To overcome these barriers, we are proposing the creation of a
Business Energy Transition Officer, either employed directly by Council or funding to
ZEN to implement this proposal, based on an approved Business Plan.
This position would work closely with local business (and possibly strata) to assist with
assessment of current energy usage, opportunities for energy efficiency, costs and
benefits of renewable energy such as rooftop solar, and financing options. For small
business, investigation of this nature invariably goes in the too hard basket due to lack
of time to devote to researching and implementing solar, including accessing/assessing
credible information, (including regulation); challenges of installing solar in multi-
metered businesses; difficulty in negotiating through approvals process (with landlord,
body corporate, board, management). Having a Business Energy Transition Officer is
a real and practical way in which Council could work with its small business sector to
deliver real economic and environmental benefits.
A similar award-winning initiative was implemented by Waverley Council to work with
strata apartments. Round one of the free program had helped 10 residential strata
buildings reduce their annual carbon emissions by 651 tonnes as well as reduce
running costs in each building by an average of $13,000 each year. We are confident
similar benefits could be available to Noosa businesses through the employment of a
Business Energy Transition Officer.
3. Pre-feasibility Study into Costs and Benefits of Community Batteries
We propose that Noosa Council and ZEN partner in a pre-feasibility study on the costs
and benefits of one or more community batteries within the shire. There are several
trials and pilots now in operation across Australia, and it is important that our
businesses and households not be locked out from the economic and environmental
benefits of renewable energy as emerging grid stability problems lead to unacceptable
policy proposals.
It is now being recognised across Australia that the extraordinary growth of rooftop
solar is leading to emerging stability problems for a distribution network designed for
one-way, not two-way electricity flows. ZEN is already aware of Noosa businesses who
are unable to export solar due to distribution system inadequacies. This problem will
grow, both for business and households, with various response strategies being raised,
such as the recent proposal for an export charge (‘solar tax’).
However, it is clearly important not to disincentivise investment in renewable energy,
and an important strategy emerging is to grow capacity for energy storage, to be used
at times of peak demand not able to be met by wind or solar. While many will have
heard of the South Australian ‘big battery’, a middle way solution of community batteries
is now emerging, with several initiatives now in place and operational.
Page 17 of 47
Section 18
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
We believe it is critical for Noosa Council to show leadership on this issue on behalf of
its businesses and households. Once a pre-feasibility study has been completed, this
would enable the development of an implementation coalition which could include
Regional Development Australia, Energex, the University of the Sunshine Coast,
Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation and our business and community associations.
Noosa would then be in a strong position to seek funding from external sources
including ARENA or the Federal Government Regional and Remote Communities
Reliability Fund. Rounds One and Two have already closed, so it is important that
Noosa position itself for the next round.
4. Bushfire Resilience and Response Levy or Climate Response Levy?
We note the proposal to introduce a Bushfire Resilience and Response Levy. Clearly
climate change is leading to increased and more intensive bushfire risks and it is
appropriate to identify a strategy and funding source to do this. However, we would
submit that just identifying bushfire risk is a piecemeal approach to the overall climate
change risks faced by our community, which have been documented in both the
Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan and the Climate Change Response Plan. Bushfire is
just one of the risks posed to our community from climate change. Therefore we believe
that either a separate Climate Response levy should be introduced to fund Council’s
identified goals and targets, or that the Bushfire Resilience and Response Levy
becomes a subset of the overarching Climate Response Levy.
5. Failure to include Operational Plan in public documents
This is a significant omission. The Operational Plan is a key component of the suite of
Budget documents, and is where the community can assess Council progress on non-
capital commitments in a range of Council policy documents, such as the Climate
Change Response Plan. In addition, while $460 000 has been allocated for Economic
Development, there is no detail on funds available for economic development
initiatives, such as our proposed Business Energy Transition Officer (see 2 above). We
are assuming that non-tourism businesses which previously contributed to the Tourism
and Economic Development Levy will now be rated at a higher rate (with the former
levy amount bundled into this) but again have no information on how those additional
rate funds are to be invested.
6. Deletion of Tourism and Economic Development Levy
This is a huge change in Council policy but almost seems an afterthought. There is a
very significant difference between funds raised by a levy and funds raised through
general revenue. Funds raised by a levy must be used for the specified purpose. Funds
raised through rates and going to general revenue have no such protection and can be
used for any purpose, despite assurances that may be given.
The proposal to bundle the levy costs in with the general rate means that there is no
clear delineation of funds committed for tourism or economic development. The
Tourism and Economic Development Levy is an amazing success story and has over
two decades delivered extraordinary runs on the board for the Noosa tourism industry
and its employees. The casual deletion of this levy seems unbelievable especially in
an era of COVID-19 uncertainty.
Submission 3:
Two issues in the Noosa Council budget give us some optimism that Council may be
at last recognising existential threats to Noosa:
- the provision to require owners of properties being let for Short Stay Accommodation
to be levied; and
- reduced funding for Tourism Noosa.
Page 18 of 47
Section 19
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
Short Term Accommodation costs: No cross subsidy
Council estimates there are 5000 dwellings available for Short Term Accommodation.
From published data it would seem that about 1000 of these are paying Council’s
Economic Development and Tourism Levy. Extrapolating from available data suggests
Council is foregoing at least $3m in revenue because of this levy collection failure.
Continuation of a Council grant to Tourism Noosa implies a cross-subsidy from
property owners not benefitting from STA income to those that are. This is unfair.
So it is with satisfaction that we note council’s intention to require owners of properties
available for STA to be levied - presumably to address this shortfall and to recover
other additional administration and garbage collection costs these properties are
incurring. While satisfied with the principle you are proposing to address, we are not
satisfied with the proposed quantum. Using rates advertised on Air BnB for a Mitti St
property suggests the levy you are proposing amounts to about one night’s
accommodation/year - a paltry cost against the revenue being generated by this
commercial venture.
We want the council to achieve full recovery of STA administration and regulation costs
from the owners of the dwellings being used for STA. There should be no cross-subsidy
from the rest of Noosa’s residents.
To allow STA growth to continue at its present rate will produce fundamental changes
to Noosa, converting it from a thriving permanent community to a hollowed out tourist
destination for ort term renters. An increase in costs has the opportunity of causing
Investors to adjust their ambitions in this regard.
Tourism Noosa
We applaud the proposed reduction to Tourism Noosa’s annual Council grant, and
encourage further and deeper reviews of rate-payer support for it. Tourism Noosa, and
other business lobby groups, promote the misleading notion that Noosa is exclusively
dependent on tourism.
Revenue: According to the National Institute for Economic and Industry Research
(NIEIR) Noosa’s total tourism revenue is declining.
Value added: Looked at another way, tourism’s value-added contribution to the Noosa
economy, although significant at $165.1m, ranked 6th. The health sector delivered the
greatest value-added contribution with growth exceeding 40%.
Statistics show that Noosa Council’s economic diversification plans are working. While
tourism has ‘flat lined’ pre-Covid, the Noosa economy outperformed the State and SE
Qld on key economic indicators over the previous five years
Over the past decade ‘natural growth’ in tourism has been strong with a 58% increase
in day trippers. This will continue regardless of promotional spend, and probably
accelerate. Tourism Noosa’s operating budget is about $3.3m; that is about $60/Noosa
resident/year. The Gold Coast spends less than half that, and the Sunshine Coast
about a quarter. Tourism results in Noosa are mixed with 27% growth in domestic
tourist numbers over the five years to 2018, but a 3% decline in international visitor
numbers. Yield is down. Visitors appear to have tightened their wallets and average
spend per visitor has fallen.
To cut funding for Tourism Noosa is a pragmatic response. Not only does it recognise
the reduced contribution of tourism to GRP, but it also recognises the issues of traffic
congestion that must be addressed before more tourists (particularly day trippers) are
drawn to this area.
Page 19 of 47
Section 20
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
Submission 4
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft budget. My comments are as
below.
1. The introduction of a bushfire resilience and response levy is not supported. This
is not new Council business and should be funded by a rise in general rates if
there is a need to improve or expand services. Otherwise the community needs
to know just exactly what is this levy paying for over and above the existing fire
and response services and budget? Levies increase complexity and
administration costs and hide rate rises. While recognising this and simplifying
some aspects of the rates in other parts of the 2021/2 budget Council is
simultaneously adding more complexity by introducing yet another levy.
2. The introduction of new rating categories for transitory accommodation (short
stay) properties is supported, but the rise is not commensurate with the nature of
the properties and should be more. They are a business and should be paying
commercial rates. The rise should be commensurate with the costs Council will
incur when the new local law is adopted, as well as the increased demand on
Council services and infrastructure.
3. Council’s intentions regarding tourism budget are unclear in the material provided
online, which raises more questions rather than providing information.
The current arrangements for the Tourism Levy certainly need review, and it is hoped
that the agreement with Tourism Noosa will be significantly changed when it comes up
for review. Transferring these levy funds to a self- interested, industry organisation that
has no transparency or responsibility to the community and no Council input might have
been appropriate in a time when tourism in Noosa was struggling to gain its footing,
but inappropriate in 2021/22 when little promotion is necessary, when the tourism
industry is placing a massive burden on liveability and services and infrastructure in
the shire, and where changes in direction in promotion might have adverse impacts on
Council and community.
Council’s ‘core business’ in relation to tourism is its role as destination manager, and
this uses a very significant portion of its resources in the form of infrastructure and
maintenance costs, which are primarily paid for by non-tourism ratepayers who are
increasingly affected adversely by the expansion of tourism. The tourism levy and the
tourism industry should contribute more to that purpose than ordinary ratepayers.
Applying the levy funds to more than just granting them to an opaque organisation for
tourism promotion would be a beginning.
The notion that tourism ‘promotion’ is core Council business is not supported. The ‘levy’
or a differential rate for tourism businesses needs to remain as a recognition of the
burden tourism places on services and infrastructure for the Council as destination
manager, but promotion should be the realm of a non-Council tourism organisation
self-funded from membership fees.
Submission 5
RE: Noosa Council Draft Budget 2021-22 Draft Budget information sheet 3 - Proposed
changes to General Rates and Levies, and section 2 under Levies:
NSRRA supports this proposal but has some concerns. NSRRA concerns relate to:
‘Tourism promotion and economic development activities have evolved into core
Council business. As such it is now considered that tourism and economic
development activities should be funded by general rates (applied only to those
properties who are currently paying the levy) rather than through the continuation of a
special levy.'
Page 20 of 47
Section 21
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
NSC Core Business is, or should be, ' Protection of the Noosa Biosphere and it's Assets
both natural and man-made as well as our lifestyle and amenity’. NSRRA objects to
Council's determination that tourism promotion and economic development is "core
Council business" and should be funded from "general rates" whether they be charged
just to commercial businesses or otherwise while directed to the current business.
We agree that Council should scrap the Tourism Levy as it could be self funded. There
are important things for Council to spend rates revenue on. One such alternate is to
fund the ‘not free’ holiday buses from tourism funds.
It seems questionable that Council on one hand spends ratepayer funds dealing with
the numerous problems associated with over-tourism, and on the other hand want to
fund the promotion of more tourism! Council’s intent needs to be explained. It appears
non-transparent.
NSRRA strongly object to the idea general rates will rise to pay for an in house Council
tourism promotion body. We also have concerns about a new Levy for “Fire
Management’ which maybe an ongoing expense covered by General Rates.
Short Stay/ Submission 1:
Transitory I strongly object to the proposal to tax short stay rentals on top of the tourist levy (which
Accommodation should not be included in general revenue). Rather than put more strain on council
Rating Category resources short stay rentals do not occupy premises 100% of the year nor to the guests
use many council facilities which permanent lessees or owners do. If council wishes to
(17 submissions decrease tourism and jobs in Noosa it is going the right way about it. Councillors in
received) favour of this proposal should think again.
Submission 2:
We are writing to submit our support for Noosa Council to increase rates for all STA
properties as they are running as a business and should face the same reporting
obligations as traditional accommodation providers.
Submission 3:
As a property owner in Noosa, I wish to strongly object to the proposed increase in
rates to be applied to holiday rental properties I am not objecting to an increase but a
16% increase is excessive and should be re-evaluated. Please reconsider your
proposal.
Submission 4:
As a property owner in the Noosa Council I am writing in respect of the current proposal
to create a new rates category which will apply specifically to holiday rental properties.
I am struggling to find any basis or justification as to why Holiday let properties should
be singled out or targeted in this way. As a property owner we are reliant on the income
we receive from this property and have, like many others, suffered a reduction in
income over the last 16 months while the pandemic has persisted and continues to
persist.
Noosa as a community and a region continues to flourish and do well and I am sure
this is due in no small part to the availability of holiday let properties to visitors who are
happy to visit and spend their money in the region. The reliance on the news region for
tourism cannot be underestimated and this decision seems extraordinary in the light of
recent conditions.
A proposed increase in excess of 15% seems extraordinary. I understand on current
forecasts under the proposed budget the increase for the new rates category would be
in excess of 15% which on any view seems very difficult to justify. Please can you
provide your reasons as to how you can justify such a hefty increase in any
environment let alone in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. This decision seems
oblivious to current conditions and disregards The impact suffered by many property
owners.
Page 21 of 47
Section 22
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
It goes without saying that the consumer price index over the 12 months to March 2021
during that quarter rows by 1.1% what you are proposing is significantly in excess of
this. Please can you provide your justification for such an increase?
It is difficult to understand the basis or justification for such an increase particularly
when Holiday left properties which are periodically occupied on any of you must use
less council infrastructure than those that our owner occupied full-time
In addition it is our experience that holiday property guests generally are relatively small
uses of council services and the significant economic benefit bought to the region by
visitors cannot be underestimated and surely must underpinned one of the reasons
why Noosa has become such a popular, dynamic and favoured destination for people
from all over Australia.
In addition we have like many other sectors in the community suffered in relation to
Covid and ongoing border restrictions that have caused financial hardship to the
tourism sector and unsurprisingly Noosa has not been spared from this problem.
Indeed it’s ongoing at the moment as we have had a number of cancellations for rentals
for people from Melbourne so there has been a significant loss of income over the last
15 months also that the pandemic has persisted.
In these conditions it’s difficult to justify any kind of increase let alone one of the
magnitude of what is being proposed here. Why are you penalising holiday let property
owners when they have already suffered income loss and by virtue of being property
owners provide significant economic benefit to the Noosa region.
I am at a loss to understand the basis of a justification for such an extraordinary
increase way beyond the CPI and at a time when many property owners are reliant on
income to support families during a time when the pandemic affects still have a
significant impact across the community
Could you please reconsider this decision on any view it’s difficult to find justification
for such an extraordinary increase. Finally could you please answer the questions
posed above?
Submission 5:
I think the change to rates for STL properties is necessary as Tourism is becoming all
consuming in Noosa and strangling the local community and residents. Currently it’s
inequitable that residents carry the costs for promoting tourism ( Noosa does not
require any more advertising) as well as the added pressure on infrastructure by the
tourists and the inconvenience of STL in residential areas. I am hopeful that in the
future the home businesses will be treated more fairly and compete on a level playing
field with hotels, reports and unit blocks.
Submission 6:
We want to emphatically state our opposition to the proposed rate changes proposed
by Noosa Council. Of particular concern is the singling out of completely unfair and
disproportionate increases to any resident who participates in providing any home
hosted accommodation – ie. renting out a room in their home. Putting in place a
separate PPR with home hosted short term stay categorisation is discriminatory in the
extreme. There is no extra charge for PPR who also have a home based business
(under which home hosted currently resides and should remain) or for PPR who have
boarders or lodgers stay. There is also no limit or additional charge on the number of
family members or other people who can stay in a residence. However for residents
who rent out a room for 1 or 2 short term guests they are accused of using excessive
additional council resources and infrastructure. This is pure fiction. I could have several
additional family members or paying tenants staying in my home with me and there is
no additional charge levied but for us 2 residents with 1 to 2 guests in our home for just
some of the time, we are now supposed to believe we are extraordinary users of council
resources.
Page 22 of 47
Section 23
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
By having a rate differential from .003266 (the new proposed rate for PPR) to .005855
for the new classification of PPR plus home hosted, residents with home hosted
accommodation are being penalised a whopping 81.9% premium in rates. For us
personally this means a charge of $5048.55 a year for the privilege of renting one room
in our home, while we reside there. This is frankly unbelievable. Where is the
justification for this 82% penalty?
Where is the issue for the community from residents renting out a room in their own
home? There are no noise issues, no additional council resources. Our guests are
either a single, two friends or a couple who eat out many times during their stay, book
tours and activities and shop at Noosa’s supermarkets and boutiques. We even provide
them with bikes to use so they do not contribute to traffic congestion. We do not require
additional garbage services and we recycle their waste as we do ours. We have solar
hot water and solar electricity to minimise greenhouse gases.
We have complained to Noosa Council in the past regarding the excessive tourism levy
we pay for our property – a hefty $1372 a year, for renting one room. (We believe that
rate should be capped for home hosted at a maximum of $500 per year). But even
including the elimination of that levy in the proposed rate change, under the draft
changes we will need to find an extra $2394.65 per year, which represents a 31.3%
overall increase in rates, not including the new bushfire levy. This while you are telling
residents they will only get a 2% increase on average. This also ignores the proposed
development application fee, pool and smoke detector inspections and annual fees
proposed by Council for home hosted PPR in the recent S/T proposals.
This additional cost cannot be absorbed in higher prices. There is a very definite ceiling
as to how much guests can and will be prepared to pay for a room in someone else’s
home. There is no objective rationale for creating a category for home hosted PPR with
different rates than for all other PPR ratepayers. This draft classification change needs
to be removed. It is unfair, disproportionate and discriminatory. A huge kick in the guts
for residents who are just trying to earn a small additional income from their most
valuable asset, without being forced to sell their home and leave the area. Please look
at the numbers and be honest about the impact and do not make this change.
Submission 7:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the proposed Noosa Shire
Council’s 2021-22 Budget. Our views presented in this letter are consistent with our
prior engagement with Council on the policies, regulations and financial settings for
short term rental accommodation. For ease of reference, I have attached our
submission on the Local Law Amendment (Attachment 1).
First and foremost, Stayz is deeply concerned at what appears to be a view formed by
Council on a poorly assessed and analysed situation regarding the state of tourism in
Noosa. At a time when an industry on which the local economy is so dependent is just
getting back on its feet after COVID, Noosa Council has decided to make the operating
environment for those that drive the industry even more difficult. Such a move means
everyone misses out – the mum and dad property owners who provide accommodation
to tourists who in turn support local business, local jobs and a more prosperous
economy. Tourist numbers also support an expanded goods and services offering to
permanent residents in the area. Without tourists, many businesses would not survive.
Stayz appreciates that Council wants to address the issue of funding the best possible
amenity for its community and those that visit, however, we see little evidence to
support the ratings and tourism levy changes proposed for the 2021-22 Budget. And
we are even more concerned that the budget changes appear to have conflated with
the other changes in progress related to the Noosa Plan and the Local Law
Amendments.
In particular we draw attention to what appears to be a serious logic flaw in increasing
the rates for providers of short term rentals on the basis that those who stay in this
accommodation use council facilities and amenities. The fact is that the many
Page 23 of 47
Section 24
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
properties – hosted and unhosted – that participate in the industry have people staying
at the property for less time than if the property was a principal place of residence
(PPR). So it follows that council facilities and amenities are being used less in
association with these properties rather than more. A different way to look at this is if
every STRA property become a PPR, what approach would Council take to balance its
budget and more importantly create a local economy that could support the same
number of businesses and jobs that are currently reliant on tourists. This is an issue
that must be reconciled before any further changes are made.
The current ad hoc and uncoordinated approach to STRA by Noosa Council is not part
of an overall plan and has no evidence-base supporting it. We ask again that the Noosa
Council work with the State Government on a State wide plan to manage STRA, or at
a minimum hold off making changes to local policies, regulations and rates/levies until
the State Government Industry Reference Group process has run its course.
Stayz reiterates that it is a strong supporter of putting in place the right policies,
regulations and funding base for STRA. We have demonstrated this commitment in our
partnerships with State Governments and Councils around Australia. We seek a
commitment from Noosa Council to work with us to co-design the settings that address
the issues at the heart of Councils concern as well as allow the STRA industry to
continue its valuable contribution to the local economy. We are confident from our
experience across the globe that there is a better way than what the Noosa Council is
proposing.
We hope to hear from you to set up a meeting to discuss the points raised in this letter
and our previous engagements in more detail.
Submission 8:
Shame on you Noosa Council for planning such extravagant rate increases on holiday
property investors. My family and I have been investing in and enjoying holidays in
Noosa for over 40 years. In late 2019 we invested in a holiday unit ( a strata of 8). In
our first year 2020, we had almost no visitors due to Covid and we made a significant
loss on the property. And now you want to introduce a major rate hike and significantly
above CPI. Shame on you! Why are you gouging the small investment property owners
who have made a significant contribution and investment in Noosa for over 40 years
helping to make it the wonderful Australian iconic tourist destination it is today. Shame
on you Noosa Council
Submission 9:
Why penalise the properties that bring tourists to Noosa do you want to tax us more?
Submission 10:
We own a 2 bedroom holiday let and are retired. We use our unit about 3 to 4 months
a year , and let it out via a local agent for the remaining 7 to 8 months , where the
occupancy is around 70% . I understand the council intends to increase the rates on
short term rentals by 16% in 2021/2022. Like many people who own units in our block
we are not rich and bought our unit many years ago. As retired people we net about
$10,000 a year from our apartment after expenses and this helps fund our retirement.
We and our guests have never used many of the councils facilities eg library, swimming
centre, childrens playgrounds etc. We our our guests spend money in local shops and
contribute to local businesses.
The council says "short term residents" need to pay their fair share , I object to this on
a number of grounds:
- Most of the facilities the council spends money on are not used by short term rental
clients
- Our unit is completely vacant 2 to 3 months a year - adding no cost to the council.
- The can find no reasoning or rational behind this comment and given the limited use
of council assets and the unit being vacant I would assume we already pay "more than
our fair share"
Page 24 of 47
Section 25
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
The council needs to be FAIR to all ratepayers that is all I ask. In the end if the costs
of having a short term rental in Noosa continue to increase we will cease to rent it out
, I do not think anyone wins here. Less money spent in the Noosa commnity, if 20% of
short term rentals disappear due to all the changes - jobs and income will be lost.
Submission 11:
I strongly object to the proposed changes to the tourism levy. If I choose to holiday let
my home for 2 weeks a year there will be no greater load on council resources. It is
ridiculous that my rates will increase as a result. Raising rates for council coffers will
not necessarily go to tourism ventures. The council has no right to deter me from letting
my home. This is just another new measure for council to limit holiday letting and
deterring Noosa tourism.
Submission 12:
We strongly oppose the Noosa Council proposed new rates category that will apply to
holiday rental properties in addition to the substantial increase in the General Rates. A
total 16.0% increase!! It is exorbitant!! What does it achieve or its purpose - except as
a blatant exercise in greediness for more income to the council. In comparison the CPI
over the last 12 months rose only 1.1%. In over 20 years of letting part of our home, on
a casual basis, we have never experienced any tenant utilising Council services.
Our expenses have nearly doubled ( we are now paying cleaners upwards of $40 per
hour -and sometimes $60 per hour.) Before legislation is passed on this matter all
affected parties should be provided with a detailed, balanced and objective statement
of understanding by the Noosa Council. We urge you to delay a final decision on the
above proposal and provide this letter to all councillors . A satisfactory compromise has
to be reached.
We would appreciate acknowledgement of this Submission. (Incidentally, our previous
correspondence to the Noosa Council regarding the proposed Short stay Letting has
not been answered as we requested- implying that the Council choses to ignore our
response. )
Submission 13:
I would like to pass on the following objections to the proposed increases in rates for
"holiday let" properties by Noosa council. I am of the firm belief that there is no rational
argument for this increase and this is just a poor way for council to increase revenues,
taking advantage a sector (tourism) that brings so much value to the area. Your
significant rate increases proposed for holiday investment properties is out of line with
CPI, which rose just 1.1% over the past 12months (to the March 21 quarter)
Additionally,
• Holiday-let properties, which are periodically occupied, tend to use less council
infrastructure
• Holiday property guests generally do not use Council services
• Covid and ongoing border restrictions have caused financial hardship to the STA
sector
I hope that your "engagement process" is not just a box-ticking exercise and that you
consider these points carefully.
Submission 14:
I write to you to state that we object to your differential rates increase for short term
rental properties, we have lived and worked in the Sunshine coast area for many years
and would like to point out that:
• The CPI over 12 months to the March 2021 quarter only rose 1.1%
• Holiday-let properties, which are periodically occupied, tend to use less council
infrastructure, and to remain such a great place Noosa needs accommodation
during peak periods such as Easter and Christmas
• Our holiday property guests generally do not use Council services
I hope you will take this into consideration
Page 25 of 47
Section 26
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
Submission 15:
I strongly object to 2021/22 Draft Budget Proposed changes to the General Rates and
Levies especially as related to Short Term Accommodation. My objections are based
on:
1. The CPI over 12 months to the March 2021 quarter rose 1.1%
2. Holiday-let properties, which are periodically occupied, tend to use less council
infrastructure
3. Holiday property guests generally do not use Council services
4. Covid and ongoing border restrictions have caused financial hardship to the STA
sector
Submission 16:
As owners of the property at {REDACTED} and in response to the advised Noosa
Council draft budget let me say that we strongly object to such massive increase in
Rates
• The CPI over 12 months to the March 2021 quarter rose 1.1% - there is no
justification in crate a rate rise of this magnitude
• Holiday-let properties, which are periodically occupied, tend to use less council
infrastructure
• Holiday property guests generally do not use Council services
• Covid and ongoing border restrictions have caused financial hardship to the STA
sector
Since you requested a response I trust you will consider our objection
Submission 17
I object to the outrageous increases of 16% which simply appears to be a money
grabbing exercise from an inefficient run council. The issues i would like to raise are:-
The CPI over 12 months to the March 2021 quarter rose 1.1%
Holiday-let properties, which are periodically occupied, tend to use less council
infrastructure
Holiday property guests generally do not use Council services
Covid and ongoing border restrictions have caused financial hardship to the sector
Please advise on what basis and justification you have for these preposterous
increases.
Tourism & Submission 1:
Economic Levy I strongly disagree with the proposed changes to the Tourism Levy for the following
(Note a number of reasons: For the last 20 years Tourism Noosa has been successfully promoting our
submissions beautiful destination as a top tourist destination. Why now make it core Council
received were business when the Council are not specialists in this area. Tourism Noosa has to be
generally based on transparent in how they allocate these funds. Will the Council be as transparent?
standard template Tourism Noosa offers much support to their members in many ways. Will the Council
wording promoted be able to offer this support? I would like to see the Council present a study over the
by Tourism Noosa coming financial year which supports such a significant change by the Council so that
through its the rate payers can make an informed decision on who they feel best supports our
marketing database Tourism Industry.
on 2/6 & 4/6)
Submission 2:
(64 submissions It is with great concern we send this email. We are one of the tourism businesses that
received) have been absolutely smashed by Covid. Although we are still operating a quality eco-
tourism experience, we are 80% down on previous years. We have been conducting
day tours to Fraser Island from Noosa for the past 33 years. We acknowledge that not
much will change to our particular business until such time as our traditional market –
international visitors - return to Australia. In the meantime, local tourism needs all the
assistance they can get to attract domestic and New Zealanders to the region. It has
probably never been more important to have full financial backing.
Page 26 of 47
Section 27
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
It is not just about the attraction of a destination but what experiences and variety of
activities are available to the tourist once they arrive. Tourism Noosa has always been
a way of communicating to visitors and prospective visitors what they can do in Noosa.
They need to be commended for their achievements and not hampered as this will also
further impact on people like us. Noosa is up against some extremely pro-active
markets for the Australian tourism dollar for eg. Cairns/Far North Tropics and the Gold
Coast which has a very large marketing budget. Therefore, in order to compete, we
need as much exposure as we can possibly generate in the market place. Tourism is
critical to Noosa to survive and a Tourism Levy is essential to assist with the promotion
of our fantastic region.
Submission 3:
We write to you as past Board Directors of Tourism Noosa, Chairs of the Marketing
and Events Committee and Chair of the Finance Committee. We strongly oppose
Noosa Council’s draft Budget proposing to change the Tourism and Economic
Development Levy. We find the timing and lack of consultation a potential threat to the
decades long successful management of our local tourism organisation, often used as
a benchmark by other organisations, for its maturity, governance, membership levels,
sustainable values, community engagement, and award-winning marketing. As we
work in and with varied destinations, we can speak with qualification when we say that
other Councils and tourism operators wish they had a Tourism Noosa, supported by
such an enlightened levy model and Council partner, in their corner.
Why put that at risk? We very much subscribe to the adage, if it’s not broke…We object
to proposed Tourism Levy changes in the draft Budget papers for the following reasons:
• Your draft papers note "Tourism promotion has evolved into core Council
business" – we think that statement is open to misinterpretation by industry.
• As a Council that promotes engagement and transparency of governance – there
was no consultation. It is our view that many may not understand the distinction
between tourism funds coming from a distinct Tourism Levy protected by
legislation to ensure the direction and purpose of those funds, versus collection
under General Rates where funds go into general revenue and have no such
protection. No reason has been given for the proposed change. As we have both
been involved in past negotiation of ongoing agreements, we understand there is
a very distinct difference. This change has the potential to significantly impact our
multi-million tourism industry, yet it has been introduced in an exceptionally tight
timeframe, without industry consultation or prior discussion.
• We ask councillors to consider the incredible pressure our tourism sector is
already under and not add to it. The timing of this proposed change, during one
of the most challenging periods on record, is not logical and perceptions
surrounding the change and its intent, could lead to weakening of the bank of trust
and respect between Tourism Noosa, Industry and Council, so integral to
productive, positive outcomes.
• As an organisation, Tourism Noosa can evidence long-term credibility, expertise,
and achievements over two decades. Key to this success, is a planning process
enabled by protected funding through the Tourism Levy, a strong relationship with
Noosa Council, and the Funding Agreement.
• Our concerns to bring the Levy under General Rates centre around transparency
and protection of our most critical industry sector and the destination brand. No
matter the intent, Council and Councillors cannot guarantee actions of future staff
and Councillors to use the funds for tourism purposes, without the protection of
the legislative framework the Levy provides.
Councillors, we urge you to reconsider and reinstate the Tourism and Economic
Development levy.
Submission 4:
After looking more into this proposal I would like to retract my previous email and
instead support Council’s proposal. As a founding member of the Noosa Wedding
Organization I feel that our industry has received little to no support from TN and I
Page 27 of 47
Section 28
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
would actually like to suggest that some funds be allocated directly to the Noosa
Wedding Organization to use for the promotion of weddings in Noosa and the Noosa
Hinterland.
Submission 5:
We thank you for the opportunity to provide Budget feedback. We congratulate the
Noosa Council staff & councillors on preparing a budget that forecasts a minimal
General Rate increase only, especially in times with Inflationary pressures evident. As
significant contributors to the Tourism & Economic Development Levy we do wish
however to express our concern of the proposed changes in this area. We are strong
supporters of Mel Anderson and her team and we would like to stress the importance
of providing support & job security to Mel and her key staff. While Noosa may currently
be experiencing record tourism revenue, it is without question when International
Travel returns, regions so reliant on domestic travel, such as Noosa, will experience a
significant decline. The need to be proactive, maintaining a strong brand and
experienced team in both marketing & promotion and destination management will be
critical to the ongoing economic development & employment within the Shire.
Submission 6:
Our recommendation is that Council does not change the levy in this financial budget,
but have proper evidence-based reporting and consultation to fully review Council's
motives to remove it and the impact on our industry. Our wish is that the council gives
additional financial support to Tourism Noosa
Submission 7:
I write as an individual ratepayer, former Noosa Councillor under Mayor Bob Abbott at
the time of introduction of the Tourism Levy over two decades ago, and member of the
inaugural Noosa Tourism Board. I am simply horrified and saddened that the draft
Budget proposes to eliminate the Tourism and Economic Development Levy, which
over two decades has underpinned an extraordinary partnership between Council and
the tourism sector.. I urge councillors to reinstate the Tourism and Economic
Development Levy. My concerns are as follows:
1) At the time of their election, not a single councillor flagged that he or she intended
to eliminate the Tourism and Economic Development Levy if elected.. All emphasized
the importance of sustainable economic development for the shire. Yet in a little over
12 months from the election, this proposal, with all its flaws, has come onto the table.
2) This is a change of extraordinary magnitude for the tourism industry, yet it has been
introduced at the last minute almost as an afterthought, with no consultation with the
industry and no prior warning in the first round of budget community consultation. This
casual attitude to the major employer in the shire could almost be perceived as arrogant
and is particularly offensive given the COVID challenges that the industry has faced in
the past 12 months.. It would appear that a multi-million dollar industry has been thrown
into disarray without serious thought being given by Council to the consequences of
the proposal.
3) The proposed change exhibits no understanding or valuing of the extraordinary and
innovative partnership which has been nurtured by previous Councils and Tourism
Noosa over two decades. It was the tourism industry which approached the Abbot
council, seeking the levy as a way of building a sustainable tourism industry enabling
certainty in investment. A partnership emerged in which Council collected and
disbursed funds while fulfilling an overall quality control role on behalf of its community.
Council has always had a role in oversighting the direction of the tourism sector through
requiring a strategic plan outlining the proposed direction of Tourism Noosa.
4) The change from collecting funds via a levy versus bundling them up in general rates
has enormous significance, since the Local Government Act specifically requires that
levy funds be used for the purpose described in the Budget documents. Funds
collected via general rates go into general revenue and have no such protection. No
reason has been given for the proposed change. The tourism levy normally raises in
the order of $3M, of which $2.52M is proposed for tourism promotion.
Council is asking the tourism sector to trust them and believe that the same funds will
be disbursed in the future. In effect, Council is proposing to turn an equal partner into
Page 28 of 47
Section 29
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
a supplicant, which must come cap in hand for uncertain funding dependent on the
whim of Council. You cannot manage an effective destination management
organisation on this basis. Council is asking the industry to accept a second rate
solution, when a first rate approach has been successfully working for over two
decades. Indeed why on earth should the industry trust council when it makes decisions
of this magnitude without consulting with the major parties affected by the change?
5) While this council may give good faith commitments on disbursement of funds, there
is no guarantee that future councils will do the same. Again, such uncertainty does not
encourage serious future investment in the sector.
6) The quality control that Council exercises over the investment direction of the levy
enables Council to protect the lifestyle of its residents. Unlike many other destination
promotion organisations, Tourism Noosa has never embarked on a mass tourism path,
and indeed would normally only market to the interstate and international market. While
more can always be done, it can demonstrate many initiatives in which it encourages
sustainable choices by its members and visitors.
Councillors, I urge you to reconsider this proposal and reinstate the Tourism and
Economic Development levy.
Submission 8:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future. Having a tourism-based business I would be very concerned about
changing something that is not broken. It has worked incredibly well for many years
with Noosa being recognised both locally and internationally through strong marketing
of the region. Please think very carefully before you make any changes.
Submission 9:
I strongly object to the proposed changes to the Tourism Levy (as outlined in draft
Budget papers), and the proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic Development
Levy under General Rates. This is alarming for the tourism industry and while the
statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core Council business" is partially
true as tourism clearly needs the support of Council in the local area, Tourism Noosa
has for the past for 20 years, professionally, transparently and strategically promoted
Noosa with great success. Visitor spend reached a record $1.2 billion in the months
before Covid) and as you are aware, Noosa recently won Queensland's Top Tourism
Town Award largely due to Tourism Noosa's submission. The actions that you
propose, without consultation, are unfair and could potentially damage the outstanding
work that Tourism Noosa had done over the years. I urge you to continue to work with
Tourism Noosa and maintain the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund
Tourism Noosa's operations. As ratepayers, we should continue to see the
transparency around how Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's
Annual Reports. With that protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council will
continue to use the funds for the purpose of tourism promotion.
Submission 10:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
Page 29 of 47
Section 30
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 11:
We have operated Hotel Laguna for more than 29 years and I strongly object to
proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget papers, and
disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core Council
business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 12:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". As a ratepayer, I want transparency. I urge you to maintain the
current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations well
into the future.
Submission 13:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 14:
The proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General
Rates is alarming for the tourism industry. We’ve seen similar moves in Byron Bay, as
well as all around New Zealand fail terribly for the local communities. Tourism is a
challenging industry to balance the communities needs Vs the environment Vs the
needs of operators and locals who rely on the income. It’s absolutely critical to have a
dedicated and well-funded organisation managing this. Where will we see the current
transparency around how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism
Noosa's Annual Reports? With protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council
or future Councils will continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even fund
Tourism Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this uncertain Covid world,
now more than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the work of Tourism
Noosa. As a resident of Marcus Beach I will be watching closely, and will base all my
future voting decisions around who supports this short-sighted proposal.
Submission 15:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Page 30 of 47
Section 31
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
Submission 16:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future. As a small business in Noosa we rely on Tourism Noosa for a range
of services and information – this is not a general role that can simply be taken over by
council.
Submission 17:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 18:
The proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General
Rates is alarming for the tourism industry. Where will we see the current transparency
around how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual
Reports? With protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council or future
Councils will continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even fund Tourism
Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this uncertain Covid world, now more
than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the work of Tourism Noosa.
Submission 19:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 20:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future
Submission 21:
Bringing the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General Rates is
alarming for the tourism industry. Where will we see the current transparency around
how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual Reports?
I am concerned that if protection is removed, there is no guarantee that Council or
Page 31 of 47
Section 32
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
future Councils will continue to use the funds for Tourism purposes. In this uncertain
Covid world, now more than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the
work of Tourism Noosa.
Submission 22:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 23:
As an industry dependant on Tourism we strongly object to proposed changes to the
Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget papers, and disagree with the statement that
"Tourism promotion has evolved into core Council business". Tourism promotion has
sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an organisation that professionally, transparently
and strategically promotes the destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor
spend (reaching a record $1.2 billion in the months before Covid) and the recent
Queensland's Top Tourism Town Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent
examples. I urge you to maintain the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to
fund Tourism Noosa's operations well into the future. We have faced hardship due to
COVID and we continue with much uncertainty as this health climate keeps evolving
and providing new challenges each day. This has impacted the tourism sector in many
ways, and we need our tourism body strong and focused on this region
Submission 24:
The proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General
Rates is alarming for the tourism industry. Where will we see the current transparency
around how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual
Reports? With protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council or future
Councils will continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even fund Tourism
Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this uncertain Covid world, now more
than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the work of Tourism Noosa
Submission 25:
The Council collects a Tourism and Economic Levy from applicable rate payers
(tourism and commercial businesses, short stay homes and now Air BnBs) and pays
Tourism Noosa the set amount of $2.52M, not including the annual charge of a fee of
$80,000 for collection and distribution to Tourism Noosa. Toward the end of this year,
Tourism Noosa will be working with Council to negotiate a new contract for Tourism
Noosa to continue its operations in 2022 and beyond. I whole heartly disagree with the
section under KEY DRAFT BUDGET COMPONENTS 1. Rates and charges. ‘Tourism
and economic development activities are now considered core Council business and
are proposed to be funded by general rates (to be applied only to those properties that
are currently paying the Tourism and Economic Levy).’ This statement provides a
fundamental change to the transparency and protection of how Noosa Council
accounts for rate payers' Tourism Levy funds, and if they are being used in the best
interest of tourism and the economy, businesses and community in Noosa. Council is
requested to provide the Noosa community with complete transparency and answers
on:
1. The exact breakdown of the total funds being collected from Tourism and Economic
Levy rate payers, and how Council plans to allocate that funding outside the $2.5M for
Tourism Noosa.
2. Why is it suddenly now that Noosa Council deems tourism as a core responsibility
when it hasn’t before?
Page 32 of 47
Section 33
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
3. Will Noosa Council publish achievements from the economic development allocation
of funds – similar to an annual report for those that contribute to the fund?
4. Is Noosa Council planning to reduce funding to Tourism Noosa over the next 5
years?
5. Do Noosa Councillors understand the impact to our economy from the visitor
economy? If so – why is there not more support for businesses and industry around
tourism?
FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL RESPONSE:
6. Can Noosa Council elaborate more on the new allocation of $150,000 to ‘destination
management’ that has been allocated but not included in the budget consultation
process? Is destination management not the core role of a Council and should have
been a focus previously?
7. The economy of Noosa is critical to families and business. Why has Noosa Council
now removed the requirement for ‘new to region’ retirees to pay 3 years of full rates
before a discount is applied – essentially enabling immediate discounts to new
residents that do not contribute to economic activity in the region.
8. Where has Noosa Council allocated funding for improved traffic and transport
options for Hastings Street and Noosa Junction, including allocation for funds for
permanent free buses for improved traffic management?
Submission 26:
The proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General
Rates is alarming for the tourism industry. Where will we see the current transparency
around how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual
Reports? With protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council or future
Councils will continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even fund Tourism
Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this uncertain Covid world, now more
than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the work of Tourism Noosa.
Submission 27:
The proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General
Rates is alarming for the tourism industry. Where will we see the current transparency
around how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual
Reports? With protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council or future
Councils will continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even fund Tourism
Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this uncertain Covid world, now more
than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the work of Tourism Noosa.
Submission 28:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 29:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Page 33 of 47
Section 34
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
Submission 30:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 31:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 32:
The Council collects a Tourism and Economic Levy from applicable rate payers
(tourism and commercial businesses, short stay homes and now Air BnBs) and pays
Tourism Noosa the set amount of $2.52M, not including the annual charge of a fee of
$80,000 for collection and distribution to Tourism Noosa. Toward the end of this year,
Tourism Noosa will be working with Council to negotiate a new contract for Tourism
Noosa to continue its operations in 2022 and beyond.
I/We whole heartly disagree with the section under KEY DRAFT BUDGET
COMPONENTS 1. Rates and charges. ‘Tourism and economic development activities
are now considered core Council business and are proposed to be funded by general
rates (to be applied only to those properties that are currently paying the Tourism and
Economic Levy).’ This statement provides a fundamental change to the transparency
and protection of how Noosa Council accounts for rate payers' Tourism Levy funds,
and if they are being used in the best interest of tourism and the economy, businesses
and community in Noosa. Council is requested to provide the Noosa community with
complete transparency and answers on:
1. The exact breakdown of the total funds being collected from Tourism and Economic
Levy rate payers, and how Council plans to allocate that funding outside the $2.5M for
Tourism Noosa.
2. Why is it suddenly now that Noosa Council deems tourism as a core responsibility
when it hasn’t before?
3. Will Noosa Council publish achievements from the economic development allocation
of funds – similar to an annual report for those that contribute to the fund?
4. Is Noosa Council planning to reduce funding to Tourism Noosa over the next 5
years?
5. Do Noosa Councillors understand the impact to our economy from the visitor
economy? If so – why is there not more support for businesses and industry around
tourism?
FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL RESPONSE:
6. Can Noosa Council elaborate more on the new allocation of $150,000 to ‘destination
management’ that has been allocated but not included in the budget consultation
process? Is destination management not the core role of a Council and should have
been a focus previously?
7. The economy of Noosa is critical to families and business. Why has Noosa Council
now removed the requirement for ‘new to region’ retirees to pay 3 years of full rates
before a discount is applied – essentially enabling immediate discounts to new
residents that do not contribute to economic activity in the region.
Page 34 of 47
Section 35
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
8. Where has Noosa Council allocated funding for improved traffic and transport
options for Hastings Street and Noosa Junction, including allocation for funds for
permanent free buses for improved traffic management?
Submission 33:
The proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General
Rates is alarming for the tourism industry. Where will we see the current transparency
around how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual
Reports? With protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council or future
Councils will continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even fund Tourism
Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this uncertain Covid world, now more
than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the work of Tourism Noosa
In addition to the above, didn't we just win best Tourist Destination in Qld (perhaps
even Australia). Surely this has been achieved by Tourism Noosa with the support of
the Noosa Council, rate payer funded, contributions. At the end of the day, we all
benefit from encouraging tourists to our heavenly peace of the planet.
As a small business, based in the Noosa Hinterland, it was fantastic to be able to
display our product range in the new shelving at the Tourist info centre. It certainly
gives us the opportunity to showcase local producers and it is evident that Noosa
Council supports us by giving us this opportunity. It's about embracing the good food
producers of the region, encouraging tourists to take the hinterland drive (therefore
taking the load off Noosa and Hastings street). Please continue to be transparent in a
world where transparency is now required.
Submission 34:
As a long-time business owner, employer and resident of the Noosa Shire I strongly
object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget papers,
and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core Council
business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 35:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Where will be the necessary transparency around how
our Tourism Levy funds are used, as currently seen in Tourism Noosa's Annual
Reports? With protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council or future
Councils will continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even fund Tourism
Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. Tourism is vital to Noosa’s economy. It
is the largest employer. It is the lifeblood of business in Noosa. With tourism the
hardest hit industry due to CIVID restrictions and lockdowns, it is incomprehensible that
the Tourism Levy would be discarded, or its expenditure hidden within general rates.
Submission 36:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
Page 35 of 47
Section 36
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 37:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 38:
The proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General
Rates is alarming for the tourism industry. Where will we see the current transparency
around how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual
Reports? With protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council or future
Councils will continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even fund Tourism
Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this uncertain Covid world, now more
than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the work of Tourism Noosa.
Submission 39:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 40:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 41:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 42:
I understand The Council collects a Tourism and Economic Levy from applicable rate
payers (tourism and commercial businesses, short stay homes and now Air BnBs); and
under proposed changes to short stay letting this amount is likely to increase. Currently
Page 36 of 47
Section 37
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
council pays Tourism Noosa the set amount of $2.52M, not including the annual charge
of a fee of $80,000 for collection and distribution to Tourism Noosa. Tourism Noosa
has done a remarkable job promoting and supporting local businesses; especially
given the recent Covid disruption, which has been difficult for the tourism sector.
Toward the end of this year, Tourism Noosa will be working with Council to negotiate
a new contract for Tourism Noosa to continue its operations in 2022 and beyond. I
whole heartly disagree with the section under KEY DRAFT BUDGET COMPONENTS
1. Rates and charges. ‘Tourism and economic development activities are now
considered core Council business and are proposed to be funded by general rates (to
be applied only to those properties that are currently paying the Tourism and Economic
Levy).’ This statement provides a fundamental change to the transparency and
protection of how Noosa Council accounts for rate payers' Tourism Levy funds, and if
they are being used in the best interest of tourism and the economy, businesses and
community in Noosa. Council is requested to provide the Noosa community with
complete transparency and answers on:
1. The exact breakdown of the total funds being collected from Tourism and Economic
Levy rate payers, and how Council plans to allocate that funding outside the $2.5M for
Tourism Noosa.
2. Why is it suddenly now that Noosa Council deems tourism as a core responsibility
when it hasn’t before?
3. Will Noosa Council publish achievements from the economic development allocation
of funds – similar to an annual report for those that contribute to the fund?
4. Is Noosa Council planning to reduce funding to Tourism Noosa over the next 5
years?
5. Do Noosa Councillors understand the impact to our economy from the visitor
economy? If so – why is there not more support for businesses and industry around
tourism?
6. Can Noosa Council elaborate more on the new allocation of $150,000 to ‘destination
management’ that has been allocated but not included in the budget consultation
process? Is destination management not the core role of a Council and should have
been a focus previously?
7. The economy of Noosa is critical to families and business. Why has Noosa Council
now removed the requirement for ‘new to region’ retirees to pay 3 years of full rates
before a discount is applied – essentially enabling immediate discounts to new
residents that do not contribute to economic activity in the region.
8. Where has Noosa Council allocated funding for improved traffic and transport
options for Hastings Street and Noosa Junction, including allocation for funds for
permanent free buses for improved traffic management?
Submission 43:
To rename / reallocate the Tourism Levy paid by tourism business to general rates
seems needless and removes transparency on how this special levy is spent. It looks
like council grab for control and muddies the waters for those paying the Levy.
It should be treated as separate budget entry and priority and I endorse Tourism
Noosa’s stance on this and they should be able to maintain some independence – they
have done a credible job for the last 20 years and hopefully can continue to guide
tourism promotion in Noosa Shire. The proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic
Development Levy under General Rates is alarming for the tourism industry. Where
will we see the current transparency around how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as
we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual Reports? With protection removed, there is no
guarantee that Council or future Councils will continue to use the funds for their
purpose, or will even fund Tourism Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this
uncertain Covid world, now more than ever before our tourism industry needs security
and the work of Tourism Noosa.
Submission 44:
The Council collects a Tourism and Economic Levy from applicable rate payers
(tourism and commercial businesses, short stay homes and now Air BnBs) and pays
Tourism Noosa the set amount of $2.52M, not including the annual charge of a fee of
Page 37 of 47
Section 38
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
$80,000 for collection and distribution to Tourism Noosa. Toward the end of this year,
Tourism Noosa will be working with Council to negotiate a new contract for Tourism
Noosa to continue its operations in 2022 and beyond. I/We whole heartly disagree with
the section under KEY DRAFT BUDGET COMPONENTS 1. Rates and charges.
‘Tourism and economic development activities are now considered core Council
business and are proposed to be funded by general rates (to be applied only to those
properties that are currently paying the Tourism and Economic Levy).’ This statement
provides a fundamental change to the transparency and protection of how Noosa
Council accounts for rate payers' Tourism Levy funds, and if they are being used in the
best interest of tourism and the economy, businesses and community in Noosa.
Council is requested to provide the Noosa community with complete transparency and
answers on: 1. The exact breakdown of the total funds being collected from Tourism
and Economic Levy rate payers, and how Council plans to allocate that funding outside
the $2.5M for Tourism Noosa.
2. Why is it suddenly now that Noosa Council deems tourism as a core responsibility
when it hasn’t before?
3. Will Noosa Council publish achievements from the economic development allocation
of funds – similar to an annual report for those that contribute to the fund?
4. Is Noosa Council planning to reduce funding to Tourism Noosa over the next 5
years?
5. Do Noosa Councillors understand the impact to our economy from the visitor
economy? If so – why is there not more support for businesses and industry around
tourism?
FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL RESPONSE:
6. Can Noosa Council elaborate more on the new allocation of $150,000 to ‘destination
management’ that has been allocated but not included in the budget consultation
process? Is destination management not the core role of a Council and should have
been a focus previously?
7. The economy of Noosa is critical to families and business. Why has Noosa Council
now removed the requirement for ‘new to region’ retirees to pay 3 years of full rates
before a discount is applied – essentially enabling immediate discounts to new
residents that do not contribute to economic activity in the region.
8. Where has Noosa Council allocated funding for improved traffic and transport
options for Hastings Street and Noosa Junction, including allocation for funds for
permanent free buses for improved traffic management?
Submission 45:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 46:
The proposal to bring the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General
Rates is alarming for the tourism industry. Where will we see the current transparency
around how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual
Reports? With protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council or future
Councils will continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even fund Tourism
Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this uncertain Covid world, now more
than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the work of Tourism Noosa.
Submission 47:
We whole heartly disagree with the section under KEY DRAFT BUDGET
COMPONENTS. 1. Rates and charges. ‘Tourism and economic development activities
are now considered core Council business and are proposed to be funded by general
Page 38 of 47
Section 39
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
rates (to be applied only to those properties that are currently paying the Tourism and
Economic Levy).’ This statement provides a fundamental change to the transparency
and protection of how Noosa Council accounts for rate payers' Tourism Levy funds,
and if they are being used in the best interest of tourism and the economy, businesses
and community in Noosa. Council is requested to provide the Noosa community with
complete transparency and answers on:
1. The exact breakdown of the total funds being collected from Tourism and Economic
Levy rate payers, and how Council plans to allocate that funding outside the $2.5M for
Tourism Noosa.
2. Why is it suddenly now that Noosa Council deems tourism as a core responsibility
when it hasn’t before?
3. Will Noosa Council publish achievements from the economic development allocation
of funds – similar to an annual report for those that contribute to the fund?
4. Is Noosa Council planning to reduce funding to Tourism Noosa over the next 5
years?
5. Do Noosa Councillors understand the impact to our economy from the visitor
economy? If so – why is there not more support for businesses and industry around
tourism? FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL RESPONSE:
6. Can Noosa Council elaborate more on the new allocation of $150,000 to ‘destination
management’ that has been allocated but not included in the budget consultation
process? Is destination management not the core role of a Council and should have
been a focus previously?
7. The economy of Noosa is critical to families and business. Why has Noosa Council
now removed the requirement for ‘new to region’ retirees to pay 3 years of full rates
before a discount is applied – essentially enabling immediate discounts to new
residents that do not contribute to economic activity in the region.
8. Where has Noosa Council allocated funding for improved traffic and transport
options for Hastings Street and Noosa Junction, including allocation for funds for
permanent free buses for improved traffic management?
Submission 48:
We are a catering business on the coast, mainly specialize in weddings. The proposal
to bring the Tourism and Economic Development Levy under General Rates is
alarming for the tourism industry. Where will we see the current transparency around
how our Tourism Levy funds are used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual Reports?
With protection removed, there is no guarantee that Council or future Councils will
continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even fund Tourism Noosa for the
purpose of tourism promotion. In this uncertain Covid world, now more than ever before
our tourism industry needs security and the work of Tourism Noosa. I have no doubt in
my mind that tourism Noosa does an amazing Job.
Submission 49:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future
Submission 50:
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in the draft
Budget papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved
into core Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20
years, an organisation that professionally, transparently, and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
Page 39 of 47
Section 40
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future. Where will we see the current transparency around how our
Tourism Levy funds are used? With protection removed, there is no guarantee that
Council or future Councils will continue to use the funds for their purpose, or will even
fund Tourism Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this uncertain Covid
world, now more than ever before our tourism industry needs security and the work of
Tourism Noosa.
Submission 51
The Council collects a Tourism and Economic Levy from applicable rate payers
(tourism and commercial businesses, short stay homes and now AirBnBs) and pays
Tourism Noosa the set amount of $2.52M, not including the annual charge of a fee of
$80,000 for collection and distribution to Tourism Noosa. Toward the end of this year,
Tourism Noosa will be working with Council to negotiate a new contract for Tourism
Noosa to continue its operations in 2022 and beyond. In recent years Tourism Noosa
has been operating without meaningful Council input and without residents having a
say in how the money might be spent in their best interests, not just what suits the
industry. Now is the time to let Tourism Noosa be self-sufficient financially, like other
industry bodies. We agree with the section under KEY DRAFT BUDGET
COMPONENTS 1. Rates and charges. ‘Tourism and economic development activities
are now considered core Council business and are proposed to be funded by general
rates (to be applied only to those properties that are currently paying the Tourism and
Economic Levy).’ This statement provides a necessary change to the transparency and
protection of how Noosa Council accounts for ratepayers' Tourism Levy funds, and if
they are being used in the best interest of tourism and the economy, businesses and
community in Noosa. It provides council with the necessary power to decide the best
way funds are spent on promoting the tourism industry. Times are changing, top-heavy
tourism bodies are being replaced by more nimble media consultants which don’t have
the inbuilt inefficiencies of a cumbersome, publicly funded entity such as Tourism
Noosa. Council will now be able to make tourism in Noosa more on the terms that suit
the Shire, and can call tenders for tourism marketing services that meet these aims.
Plus, Council is committed to providing high-quality tourism infrastructure, and this is
at a substantial extra cost to ratepayers. Put simply, residents and ratepayers are going
without essential infrastructure at the expense of an industry which is not pulling its
weight financially. The Noosa community requires complete transparency and answers
on:
1. Can Council provide the exact breakdown of the total funds being provided to tourism
in Noosa, and how they plan to source that funding.
2. Since tourism as a core responsibility, when will specific tourism infrastructure
appear in the accounts so that the true extent of council’s spending on tourism is
evident?
3. Noosa Council should make a public commitment to reduce funding to Tourism
Noosa over the next five years with the aim that it become fully self-sufficient by then.
4. Noosa Council needs to audit the impact from tourism on our economy and support
alternative industries that don’t have the same impact on resident amenity.
5. When will Noosa Council fund improved traffic and transport options for tourism
precincts, including funds for permanent free buses and improved traffic management,
from the tourism levy?
Submission 52
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Page 40 of 47
Section 41
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
Noosa Council would do well to concentrate on its true core business. Basic items,
such as maintaining a supply of dog bags along Gympie Terrace, recycling bins for
Cooroy, roundabouts for Cooroy, sealing unsealed roads, and the Noosa Waters
fountain which has sat as an eyesore for well over a year. A Council that can't manage
such minor issues should most definitely not be involved in a $1.2 billion + business
that it clealy doesn't understand
Submission 53
As a member of Tourism Noosa I wish to register my feedback and questions in
response to the 21-22 Draft Budget as follows: The proposal to bring the Tourism and
Economic Development Levy under General Rates is alarming for the tourism industry.
Where will we see the current transparency around how our Tourism Levy funds are
used, as we do in Tourism Noosa's Annual Reports? With protection removed, there is
no guarantee that Council or future Councils will continue to use the funds for their
purpose, or will even fund Tourism Noosa for the purpose of tourism promotion. In this
uncertain Covid world, now more than ever before our tourism industry needs security
and the continued good work of Tourism Noosa. Surely a consultative approach with
Tourism Noosa, it’s stakeholders and members is the best way forward in order to
resolve funding issues.
Submission 54
I object to the proposal to move funds collected through the Tourism & Economic
Development Levy into General Rates and completely reject Council’s statement that
“tourism promotion has evolved into core Council business”. I request that Council
removes this proposal from the Draft Budget and gives one of our Shire’s biggest
industries – a $1BILLION+ industry (Tourism Research Australia figures 2019) – the
courtesy of an explanation and the chance to discuss its potential impacts and
ramifications. When did tourism evolve into core Council business? If that was the
case:
Why has Council been funding Tourism Noosa to carry out destination promotion
for 20 years?
Why has Tourism Noosa had to receive Council approval for the Annual Reports,
annual budgets and strategic plans and also present twice-yearly activity reports?
What tourism promotion does Council carry out as “core business”? Until Council can
provide evidence of this and rationale for removing the current protection provided by
this special levy that ensures the funds are used for destination promotion, this
proposal should be dropped. Don’t just give a stock answer to the people who have
provided feedback to this “consultation” (which I would’ve thought was a 2-way process
but there’s been nothing from Council in the way of explanation). The tourism industry;
Tourism Noosa, its 900+ member businesses, staff and Board; the levy payers and the
Noosa community, many of whom indirectly benefit economically from tourism, all
deserve to hear Council’s side of the “consultation”. It is not provided in your Budget
papers.
How can legitimate feedback be provided to Council on something to which there is no
rationale, no explanation? What has suddenly changed after 20 years? What have
Tourism Noosa and the local tourism industry (the Shire’s largest employment sector)
done to deserve having this change forced on them without the courtesy of one iota of
explanation or discussion of the implications? Council has a representative on the
Tourism Noosa Board – was the proposal mentioned to the Board? Where was the
discussion about this extraordinarily significant change as an election issue last year?
There was none.
There are so many questions that Council has not addressed that this proposal is an
insult to levy payers, the Noosa community and the tourism industry, particularly as
they face great challenges and uncertainty due to Covid. What guarantees can Council
give the Tourism Levy rate payers that the levy funds, if bundled into General Rates,
will continue to be used for their intended purpose, i.e. destination promotion which
Page 41 of 47
Section 42
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
benefits the entire Noosa community? It’s my understanding that funds in General
Rates can be used for general revenue and will therefore have no guarantee to be used
for destination promotion. How could this scenario support continued confidence in this
extremely important sector into the future?
How would Council propose to manage destination promotion activities? It’s no
coincidence that Noosa has consistently shown strong economic growth from the
tourism sector over several years (outlined in the Tourism Noosa Annual Report every
year, and in Activity Reports to Noosa Council), out-performing other regions, and has
weathered the devastating impacts of Covid-19 relatively well in comparison to most
tourism regions in Queensland.
Strong and clear planning and guidance by Tourism Noosa, engaging with a strong
and supportive membership, and the oranisation’s valued ties with the wider tourism
industry are significant and essential factors to this growth. Some fun facts to support
this:
In the 8 years to pre-Covid Dec 2019, domestic overnight visitor spend in:
o Noosa increased + 116% to a record $989m
o Queensland increased +41%
o On the Sunshine Coast increased +50%
o Sunshine Coast without Noosa spend (which is counted in the SC total)
+28%.
In the Covid year of 2020, domestic overnight visitor spend in Noosa fell 29.7%, in
line with the Sunshine Coast, and stronger than results across other Queensland
regions and Australia:
o Average for Queensland regions was -32.7%
o Whole of Queensland -39.4%
o Australia fell -43.4%
Growth in visitor spend has been greater than growth in visitor numbers, supporting
Tourism Noosa’s “value over volume” approach.
(Source: Tourism Research Australia, National Visitor Surveys 2013-2020; Tourism
and Events Queensland Domestic Tourism Snapshots 2013, 2019, 2020)
I respectfully request that Council immediately remove this proposal from the Draft
Budget, and if Councillors are serious about continuing in this direction, that Council
begin immediate and actual “consultation” with the tourism industry and wider Noosa
community, answering the many questions and providing reasons and evidence as to
why this is now necessary.
Submission 55
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 56
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
Page 42 of 47
Section 43
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
Submission 57
I strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in draft Budget
papers, and disagree with the statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core
Council business". Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an
organisation that professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the
destination, with great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2
billion in the months before Covid) and the recent Queensland's Top Tourism Town
Award (Tourism Noosa's submission) are 2 recent examples. I urge you to maintain
the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund Tourism Noosa's operations
well into the future.
I further note there has been a complete lack of consultation regarding the proposed
changes with relevant stakeholders and the taking away of the tourism and economic
levy eliminates a number of key protections for rate payers within the shire who are
invested in and rely on Council to fund tourism and economic development in the
region. Further the elimination of the levy reduces Council’s transparency and
accountability to the Tourism sector.
Submission 58
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the feedback below: The Council draft Budget
Information Sheets contain the following information: “Tourism and economic
development activities are now considered core Council business and are proposed
tobe funded by general rates(to be applied only to those properties that are currently
paying the Tourism and Economic Levy).” “2.Tourism and economic development
funding now considered core business of Council. The Tourism Levy was first
introduced in 2001 to generate funds to invest in a tourism promotion campaign for the
shire. Since this time tourism promotion and economic development activities have
evolved into core Council business. As such it is now considered that tourism and
economic development activities should be funded by general rates (applied only to
those properties who are currently paying the levy) rather than through the continuation
of a speciallevy. The amount of revenue collected and subsequently spent ondelivering
these services to support tourism and the economywill remain unchanged –however it
will now instead be reflected in the relevant general rate category on the rate notice.”
I have been a Tourism business owner in the past. I moved here from NZ to invest in
a Management Rights business in Noosa in 2007. A reason for investing in Noosa was
the understanding of the outstanding values of Tourism Noosa as a key vehicle to
promote Tourism in the area and thereby support my business investment. That
investment of mine employed multiple people. There is no doubt as is said in the
Overall plan of the current Special Rate for the Levy of the vital importance of Tourism
in the Noosa economic engine:
”Tourism is a major economic driver and Council is committed to its ongoing
sustainability and appropriate level of support including promotion and marketing.” I
have a major concern that this change to move the collection of rates funding into
General differential rates as stated jeopardises the funding of Tourism Noosa and
diffuses the focus on successful Tourism marketing and support in Noosa.
The mechanism to do this outside a Special rate is a concern as the current absolutely
focussed use of the funds that are fenced in for the purpose as below is lost “The
service, facility or activity for which the rate is levied is the carrying out of
implementation of the Noosa Local Economic Plan which includes projects and
activities that are aimed at growing the Noosa economy. This includes projects and
activities that focus on diversifying the Noosa Economy but also continuing with a key
focus on tourism promotion strategies. The projects and activities may be implemented
by Council and / or approved external agencies.”
Page 43 of 47
Section 44
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
Please reconsider this change which seems to be an approach that should be subject
to deeper consideration and evaluation rather than a change creeping in under a draft
Budget cycle. There is an absolute track record of the succcess of the Special Rate
approach since 2001 so any changes should be carefully evaluated.
Submission 59
As the former head of Marketing and Deputy CEO of Tourism Noosa, with over 25
years experience working in tourism strategy and marketing across various states in
Australia and first-hand insight into successful working models for tourism at all levels,
I am compelled to express concerns regarding Noosa Council’s proposed changes to
the Tourism and Economic Development Levy and the potential loss to the local
tourism industry of what is regarded as a leading model for tourism prosperity in
regional areas.
During the time of my tenure and beyond, local and regional tourism organisations from
across Australia and beyond frequently sought the advice of Tourism Noosa as to how
best to structure their operations, from marketing and governance to membership
engagement and sustainability approaches. Core to this reputation and achievement
that countless tourism regions envy is the levy model and productive collaboration with
a supportive Council.
As a levy driven from the ground up by local Noosa businesses, the funding enables a
well-planned and proactive suite of work, spanning brand and tactical marketing,
research program, tourism event funding, sustainability initiatives, consumer
communications, international marketing, local visitor information services and much
more to be delivered on behalf of all local business operators.
Protection of this levy and critical funding for one of Noosa’s most significant economic
generators must be strongly considered for the benefit of not only the countless local
businesses that rely on tourism, but to also protect the billion dollar plus economic
impact that Tourism Noosa has nurtured over many years of strategic marketing and
management.
The statement that "Tourism promotion has evolved into core Council business” is
alarming - tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an organisation
that has professionally, transparently and strategically promoted the destination with
great success. Further, in my experience working and liaising with a wide range of local
and regional tourism organisations, tourism that is managed independently from
Council, but with the strong partnership of Council, is a model best designed for
ongoing success and private sector business industry engagement.
I urge Noosa Council to maintain the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to
fund Tourism Noosa's operations well into the future.
Submission 60
We strongly object to proposed changes to the Tourism Levy, as outlined in the draft
Budget papers. We also strongly disagree with the statement that “Tourism promotion
has evolved into core Council business”.
Tourism promotion has sat with Tourism Noosa for 20 years, an organisation that
professionally, transparently and strategically promotes the Noosa destination, with
great success. Our increasing visitor spend (reaching a record $1.2 billion in the
months before COVID) and the recent Queensland’s Top Tourism Town Award
(Tourism Noosa’s submission) are 2 recent examples.
We urge you to maintain the current Tourism Levy structure and continue to fund
Tourism Noosa’s operations for at the next 12 months. Any future changes should be
made based on proper evidence based reporting and consultation to fully review
Council’s motives to remove the levy and the impact on Noosa’s tourism industry
including its tourism promotion.
Page 44 of 47
Section 45
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
Submission 61
Tourism Noosa (TN), as representative to 970+ members and essentially the entire
tourism sector in the Noosa Shire, has received the tourism promotion component of
the funds collected under the Special Levy for 20 years. With the absence of
justification and evidence to support the Levy abolishment TN urges Noosa Council to
defer their proposal and maintain the T&E levy. It is critical that Council take the
required time to consult industry, residents and the actual T&E Levy ratepayers
appropriately and transparently.
PRACTICAL EFFECTS
Abolishing the Levy removes the:
• Lack of transparency in regard to the new level of funding, now that transitory
accommodation (short stay and Air BnB properties) has been included in the collection
of a T&E rate (reported to be an approximate new addition of $2m in revenue).
• Fundamental basis on which TN’s funding level is calculated.
• Protection – Special Levy definitions, under legislated State Act, dictate how the funds
are managed. General Rates have no such protection.
• Transparency – the current model provides T&E Levy payers a clear and direct ‘line
of sight’ from what they are paying, how funds are directed through to how the funds
are managed by TN. Industry will not see what they are contributing.
• Recognition by T&E Levy payers of their investment in the tourism and economic
sector and the lack of consultation with that sector in this decision.
RELATIONSHIP
Whilst these points represent the practical effects, the greatest concern in abolishing
the T&E Levy, without due diligence, is that it puts at risk not only the current strong
Noosa Council and TN relationship, but Council’s close and supporting relationship
with the entire tourism sector. TN implores Noosa Council to not put at risk a two-
decade relationship that has been held up as a model to all other tourism sectors
nationwide.
Right now, the industry is feeling uncomfortable, somewhat disrespected and
concerned their questions are not being addressed. The industry concerns we are
fielding include:
• Council arrogance in attempting to slip through and trivialise such a monumental
change with no prior consultancy and instead – only providing a 3-line paragraph with
no evidence-based background.
• No discussion paper or report providing the reasons for and against such change.
• No prior discussions with key stakeholder such as Tourism Noosa, Business
Associations and Chamber representatives.
• A ‘Trust Me’ approach without offering a reason to trust.
• Bureaucrats Vs Family run businesses.
• Representative Councillors being unprepared to answer questions from members.
• Doubts as to some representative Councillors being comprehensively informed.
• Put yourself in the shoes of the tourism businesses TN represents, and the feeling of
distrust and being misled. We as an industry a rightfully nervous!
• The tourism industry is suffering enough with lack of staff, housing shortages and the
upheaval of constant changes associated with COVID.
• The industry is fatigued and exhausted and now the Council are acting oblivious to
the challenges and stress of an already downtrodden industry
• Removing the Levy effectively removes the guarantee on how future Councillors, and
Council management, will manage and allocate the funds.
It is concerning that TN’s role in the current relationship is one of a partner, but the
proposed moves will see TN in more of a subordinate position.
INDUSTRY
Noosa Tourism Industry facts:
• Tourism is Noosa’s ‘core’ industry, delivering $1.2b to the local economy.
• 970+ businesses are TN members – 30% represent service and indirect tourism
businesses.
• 75% of businesses attribute their profits to tourism, direct and indirect.
Page 45 of 47
Section 46
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
• Tourism industry generates 5,700 jobs locally.
• 80%+ Noosa residents agree to tourism’s positive impact on the Shire.
*sources – Value of Tourism report Nov 2019 and Tourism Research Australia
QUESTIONS
Please justify, and outline the evidence that supports:
1. That Noosa Council has consulted or even engaged with the T&E Levy rate payers,
and where they would like their Levy funds to go and if they are happy to have their
premium charges to be included in the general rates?
2. What are the advantages the Council have identified that, the very structure that not
only binds us, but extends to the industry an ideal, and much applauded, transparent
model?
3. Please provide evidence that supports the statement ‘Tourism promotion activities
have evolved into ‘core’ Council business.
4. Please provide full disclosure of the new charges of ‘Transitory Accommodation’
revenue budgeted to be collected in the FY 21/22 and comment as to if the reason why
the removal of the Levy is to allow Council to take the extra funds collected for this
sector into general rates?
5. Noosa Council, is this week, is officially considering:
ABOLISH: ‘Special Levy’ Tourism & Economic Levy, the fundamental basis through
which Tourism Noosa and the tourism sector is funded
SUPPORT: ‘Special Levy’ Environmental Levy, the fundamental basis through which
the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation is funded under a 4-year partnership
agreement.
PLEASE NOTE: TN is fully supportive of the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation.
Identical models yet, without justification or supporting evidence, one is selected to be
abolished. Please explain WHY?
In summary, Tourism Noosa and the industry it represents would like specific, clear
and transparent answers to the above question provided to the community at the
earliest possible opportunity. Tourism Noosa requests that the T&E Levy remain in the
rates notice process and is not removed as a sign to the Noosa community that the
Council values and respects tourism within the Shire and the community it supports.
Submission 62
We strongly oppose Council’s proposal to subsume the economic and tourism levy into
general rates. While Council is understood to have made some private representations
to a few selected stakeholders, it has not provided open or transparent process or
explanation to the ratepayers themselves.
Council has also failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for the reason for the
change at this time. Council has also failed to provide suitable guarantees to the levy
payers that their funds will not just be subsumed into general expenditure despite it
being created for a specific purpose. Council is reported as having ambitions to
manage the tourism destination but outlined no detail of what is intended.
We consider it highly inappropriate for a controversial strategy to be announced days
prior to a decision, with limited factual or evidence based data to support the radical
change and no information on the impacts it will have to general rates or tourism. These
actions reinforce the community’s deep concern with the transparency of Council. In
the dying days of the Council’s CEO, it is highly inappropriate to allow a private agenda
to be pressed forward without proper reasoning or data.
We strongly recommend that the decision be deferred until next financial year and for
an evidence based, data driven strategy to be provided to the community before any
radical change is adopted.
Page 46 of 47
Section 47
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 16 JUNE 2021
Submission Topic Detail
Submission 63
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the 2021-22 Noosa Council
Budget. My concern is around tourism and the funding of Tourism Noosa ($2.52m) and
the activities of Tourism Noosa.
It is my opinion that the marketing of Noosa has been to the detriment of permanent
residents, that we are now in a phase of over-tourism and Noosa being “loved to death”.
The constant promotion of Noosa has contributed to the increase in Short Term Letting
to the detriment of residents in low and medium density areas and to providers of
“legitimate” Holiday Accommodation including hotels, motels and registered B&Bs.
Tourism Noosa’s promotions feel like advertising for the sake of justifying their
organisation and spending their budget.
I would like to see the funding of Tourism Noosa reduced in this budget and in
subsequent budgets to the point that they are self-funding. Funds no longer paid to
Tourism Noosa could be allocated to transport improvements including a permanent
free bus service like that provided in tourist towns like Santa Barbara, USA. The holiday
bus service in Noosa over the past couple of years has been excellent but would be
even better if offered year-round. Thank you for your consideration.
Submission 64
RE: Proposed budget changes to the Tourism & Economic Development Levy
distribution
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the budget review to the Tourism
& Economic Development levy distribution. Our members are the largest collective
contributor (42%) towards this levy therefore the Hastings Street Association place
significant importance on the distribution of these funds, so they are used specifically
for the tourism industry, from whom it is collected.
The Hastings Street Association will oppose the proposed amendments until such time
that Noosa Council can guarantee that tourism is clearly stated in budget
documentation and these funds are set aside from general rates. The management of
these funds must be fully transparent through Council’s monthly reporting cycle to
ensure Noosa Council remains accountable to the tourism sector. We acknowledge
Noosa Council’s view that tourism is a key economic driver for Noosa however until the
guarantees outlined above are received the Hastings Street Association will remain
opposed to the proposed changes.
Page 47 of 47