2021-01-18 GC - Item 2 - Attachment 2 - Consultation Report River Plan Version 1 (2018)

Q3. The cost of implementing the actions recommended in the NRP is estimated to be $2.23M over 5 years (i.e. $446,000 pa).

Are you willing to pay extra (through General Rates, the Environment Levy and/or Tourism and Economic Levy) for NC to fully implement the Plan so that the Noosa River has a
better chance of remaining a pristine and vital community asset?

If yes, how much per year ($5, $10, $15, $20).

  No. of       Amount       Submission / Grounds of Submission
submitters       ($)
     31             0            -   Mentioned below are some costs associated with this project. I suggest that these figures, together with a lot more detail, are included in the plan for
                                     consideration. Otherwise the plan is being considered in a vacuum.

                                 -   What price can you put on the ignorance of tourism? Start educating the tourists and the locals who don’t care.

                                 -   No, instead of taxing people more Council should reduce the amount of money wasted internally and look at reducing staff privileges/expenses.
                                 -   I already pay in the form of vessel registration, local rates, Maritime Qualifications etc.

                                 -   No, not willing to pay more. The river is NOT pristine, especially the lower reaches; the word is used as a tourism marketing ploy and its wrong of
                                     Council to use it here. Noosa is a small shire and while tourism continues to grow unchecked it is not fair or sustainable to as the small rates base to
                                     bear the costs.

                                 -   The community would possibly be willing to fund conservation measures in the catchment and upper reaches but until Council is serious about
                                     limiting tourism, particularly growth in tourism, through disincentives and user pays measures I certainly could not support Council taking on
                                     responsibility for the river and asking ratepayers to foot the bill.

                                 -   You guys can’t even mow our and maintain our footpaths and grass on pioneer road in Pomona in 6 months let alone pay more in our rates for things
                                     we don’t even see already in Pomona. No way!

                                 -   I am not will to pay extra because I think it is empire building and a duplication by Governments.

                                 -   No, council has proved unable to correctly manage projects relating to its current responsibilities proving to be inefficient, wasteful and controversial in
                                     its actions.

                                 -   Council estimate $2.3M is needed to manage the river over 5 years. A land ratepayer pays approx. $72 per week to own a property. Calculating the
                                     cost rates & water only $3,762 per year. If there are approx. 150 boat people living on board were charged same as ratepayers on land the money is
                                     easily recovered. $2.23M divided by 5 years divided by 52 weeks, divided by 150 boats = $60 per week approx. PLUS extra income from the
                                     moorings of unoccupied boats. This problem MUST be resolved – URGENTLY – right throughout the State. Too many people are allowed to
                                     gradually destroy our beautiful waterways, pollute & leave their derelict junk – whereas eventually it is the land ratepayer who wears the cost of
                                     removal. Unethical of any Government or Council to let this keep going on. User Pays – land or water. Imagine vacant homes being taken over by
                                     squatters, rubbish, junk, dilapidation soon appears. Exactly what is happening to the river. Squatters living on boats – boats becoming junk,
                                     dilapidation occurring.

                                 -   The river is considered as part of the community and therefore has economic and social connections of value. To exclude any ‘experience’ in the
                                     vision and then ask how much would you pay appears counter logical. The river has great social, economic and ecological value. Some initiatives
                                     such as a public ferry system (as noted in the previous plan) could help address the cost of conservation and raise public awareness. Especially if it
                                     was electric and designed to avoid bank erosion.

                                 -   I’ve had my business here in moods for over 11 years employing local people, and when I see the video work the council has done I think my god,
                                     wake me up, BORING,,, yet not once has our company been approached for video work,, my wife has an event hire company sunshine hire and yet
                                     when we see local events the suppliers are from up the coast at Brisbane or the Gold Coast, you should practice what you preach.

                                 -   No, I am not. I believe that such a plan should be cost neutral. If the Council is taking over roles that were previously carried out by numerous other
                                     bodies, then the relevant aspect of the funding of those bodies should be diverted to this project. I appreciate the benefit of having one body
                                     responsible, and wonder why this has not happened elsewhere in Australia? I hope we are not trying to reinvent the wheel with this project.

                                 -   NO – this should clearly be a State controlled and funded issue.

                                 -   No I do not support an additional charge, see above comment.

                                 -   No, nothing. The idea that we should be take full control of the river is driven by Nimbyism and bureaucratic over reach. You do not care about the
                                     river as much as you want control. The council could take measures to improve water quality by stop spraying weed killer everywhere which is a
                                     known carcinogen. Find other methods or let the weeds grow. You are poisoning us and the fish. Sort out affordable housing even if it’s a trailer park.
                                     Get your priorities right.

                                 -   Noosa Council should use its current resources to push for current rules to be policed and monitored by the Queensland government departments
                                     already responsible e.g. EPA, Water Police, Fisheries and Department of Transport – Maritime Safety.

                                 -   The Noosa Council does not have the expertise or the funding to engage as policy makers and compliance officers of the Noosa River, leave that to
                                     State and Federal government. We don’t need any unnecessary rate rises to pay for a service that we’re already paying for, so I wouldn’t be willing to
                                     pay extra in my rates to duplicate a service, especially one the NSC has no expertise in.

                                 -   I suggest an independent audit of the finances and costings for any projects.

                                 -   The Cooroy Area Residents Association is pleased with the direction and strategy implied in the Draft Noosa River Plan. In relation to the question of
                                     how to fund the components of the new plan, the opinion of the Association is that more information is required on the full options of Revenues and
                                     effects of Expenditure allocations before any extra Rates rises are carried by Residents. The issues are the Noosa River System is basically the main
                                     arterial support of the currently described Biosphere and so there should be an assessment of the existing overall allocations of Biosphere funding to
                                     include “Management of the River” within the Biosphere funding package and from the Environment levy revenues more broadly.

2             $5                 -   No further comments

7             $10                -   If there were restrictions placed on how the community consultation is represented (i.e. ratepayers), then I feel a river levy, which let us not be fooled,
                                     will creep up over the years, should start at $10.

3             $15                -   No further comments

19            $20                -   I would pay an extra $20 a year in my rates but not for extra boat ramps to bring more craft onto the water to destroy the river. See my previous
                                     comments on fines and ways to reward people for proper disposal of chemicals as well as education programs.



                                                                                                                                                                                                18