Original source · versioned page text
2022-10-24 General Committee Meeting Agenda
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (16.5 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 24 OCTOBER 2022
Page 51 of 113
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 24 OCTOBER 2022
Review of Noosa Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project
Key Issues Report — Noosa Shire Council Confidential and subject to legal privilege
18 October 2022
3 Key findings
We have set out below our key findings from the review undertaken and our associated recommendations, where appropriate.
The categorisation of issues in this section is an assessment based on our understanding of the Project and the Agreement. It is also not a substitute for
reading the Report in full and reaching an independent judgement of the relative importance of each particular issue.
Item ti LC Sa bs-1 01-3 Recommended action
category
Phase 1: Project initiation (process undertaken by Council to engage TNC and enter into the Agreement)
1. Whether Council undertook appropriate steps to identify the suitable While Council consulted its Governance Team
regulatory and policy framework to implement this Project, e.g. requirements and Procurement Team to identify the appropriate
under the LGA, Community Grants Policy, Environmental Levy Policy and regulatory framework for this Project, in the future,
Environmental Grants Policy? we recommend Council undertake additional
project specific analysis when considering similar
NRF Observations: projects. For instance, this might involve:
Council took steps to identify the appropriate framework for this Project, ° a formal Step Re ee etal warn
which included internal consultation with Council’s Governance Team and ae der the Rat rthe proiect and aavise
Procurement Team. Based on the Review Material, it appears the ‘ Ae: te’ j tne oy Or Tres on oh ot ee
Governance Team, supported by the Procurement Team, considered the ate oh ae eee ee enpe en aes rant
applicability of the LGA to this Project (amongst Council’s other procurement funding and Howe best a reseed Th cn
related frameworks). Council’s Governance Team ultimately determined the that aavice fee: BOTE said HaWE a eetnan ts
Project to be a “grant type of financial distribution” and, based on the Council Beet leted BVARG GOSVeIRArOSs TAan
reports, considered the Environmental Levy Policy and Environmental Grants : ap y .
Rolie? ta AGol (including attaching relevant external advice
2 PPIY- necessary for this gate); and
e identifying relevant parties to the project and
their respective roles, rights and obligations
and how this may be treated under the LGA,
Community Grants Policy or Environmental
Policy or other applicable policy as this may
influence the relevant framework to be
applied. This could be part of the request
form outlined above.
APAC-#302981652-v3 4 © Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Page 51 of 113See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.