Meeting minutes

ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES                                                  19 SEPTEMBER 2024


            implications for Noosa Ratepayers, were also considerations. At the recent board
            meeting we heard that the Canberra delegation was an opportunity to present a
            show of strength, rather than bid for funding. I can confirm Noosa was well
            represented at the more pivotal and significant CoMSEQ delegation to
            Queensland Parliament where I had the opportunity ahead of the October election
            to present Noosa's specific housing, growth, planning, infrastructure and funding
            challenges to both the Queensland Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet. Noosa Council
            is still in the process of planning for venue upgrades ahead of the Olympics that
            have yet to be costed. When this is done, we will be in a better position to make
            specific asks of the Federal or State Governments. Given that the core work is
            done at CoMSEQ board meetings as a top priority, the existing strength of the
            Canberra group to advocate for the SEQ Region's growth challenges, the cost to
            Noosa ratepayers and the phase we are at in terms of pre-Olympics planning, I
            chose to attend local community events I had already committed to some time ago,
            including one which has significance to the most vulnerable in our combined
            coastal communities and one marking the thirty year milestone for three Noosa
            community groups. Given the constant clash of obligations in this role, I will
            continue to carefully weigh up the value of all invitations in terms of their return to
            Noosa Shire and the Region and how best to expend time and ratepayers’
            resources.


   12.3.    DEBRA WALZ (FELICITY DALE ON BEHALF OF)

            Question 1.
            The "Say No to Fluoride" petition was tabled at the Ordinary Council Meeting in
            December 2023 and is yet to be actioned by the CEO. Several reasons provided
            for delaying this action have been given. However, the community wishes to move
            forward on this important issue and suggests an information session be held with
            Councillors on the pros and cons of consuming fluoridated drinking water. Would
            Councillors be open to attending such a session?

            Response provided by Richard MacGillivray, Director Planning & Regulation
            The petition received by Council on 14 December 2023 and tabled at the
            December Ordinary meeting was referred by the (then) Acting CEO to the
            appropriate Council Officers for response. Staff apologise for the delay with
            providing a response but as you may appreciate the broad scope of the petition
            requires Council to diligently investigate the matter involving seeking technical
            advice from Seqwater (The Queensland Government Bulk Water Supply Authority
            for the Noosa region) and Unitywater who undertake water distribution services to
            the residents of Noosa. We anticipate a response will be provided to the petition
            in the near future. In terms of your request to provide an information session to
            Councillors, I will leave this decision for Councillors to directly consider upon
            request, however I would advise that Council continues to rely on the Australian
            Government’s National Health and Medical Research Council statement on Water
            Fluoridation and Human Health in Australia (2017) as the principal source of
            credible public health information. Fluoridation is also supported by peak health
            bodies including the Australian Dental Association, the Australian Medical
            Association and the World Health Organisation.

            Question 2.
            Will Council consider abolishing dog renewal registration fees and associated late
            payment penalties in favour of introducing one lifelong dog registration fee for
            residents which is a realistic amount and one that reflects Council expenditure on
            services provided for dog owners?