General Committee - 15 July 2024
Date: Monday, 15 July 2024 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:59:12
Synopsis: Unitywater planning assumptions endorsed, Recycling & Renewables Hub Stage One approved with solar impact DA notification, Surplus amid legal overspend, Flood contracts increased, Court appeal settled.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Acting Ceo & Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Services Kyrone Dodd AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Brian Stockwell: Council endorsed Unitywater’s Netserv planning assumptions to align with Noosa Plan inputs and SEQ Regional Plan dwelling/employment targets; model is iterative and updatable (Item 5.1; 00:46–05:16). Kim Rawlings: Planning assumptions reflect constraints (bushfire, flood, biodiversity) and DA realities; projections are not population “targets” but forecasts to inform infrastructure (Item 5.1; 02:03–04:09). Chris Hartzell (Unitywater): Model validates capacity to meet dwelling targets; property-level review includes secondary dwelling potential and sequencing; human-audited dataset (Item 5.1; 05:29–20:40). Frank Wilkie: Financial Performance noted; interim FY23/24 shows $7.8m operating surplus with revenue/expenditure variances and legal costs over budget due to development appeals (Item 6.1; 35:26–47:31). Council: Approved Stage One Concept for Recycling & Renewables Hub (transfer station upgrade, composting with Gympie, landfill capping + 3–5MW solar), with DA pathways and funding pursuit up to $50m (Item 6.2; 56:22–01:04:28). Amelia Lorentson: Secured 20 business days public notification for solar site impact-assessable DA to bolster community review without delaying grant timelines (Item 6.2; 01:06:39–01:09:06). Council: Lodgement plan: code-assessable DA for Reviva relocation/transfer station/compost; separate impact DA and public notification for solar farm (Item 6.2; 56:22–01:04:28). Council: Adopted seven LGAQ Conference motions (workplace giving, wastewater recycling trials incl. biosolids gasification, fact-checking third-party HTVs, STA data-sharing, ALGA seat on Housing Council, end-of-waste specs review, community battery tariff reform) (Item 6.3; 01:32:54–01:48:39). Council: Noted Planning Applications Decided by Delegation (46 approved, 1 refused, 4 to Council) (Item 6.4; 01:50:38–01:51:13). Court Appeal Settlement: Agreed to settle P&E Court Appeal D23 of 2022 (111 Lake Weyba Dr, 1→12 lots) per proposed conditions (Item 7.1; 01:54:42–01:55:14). Flood Recovery: Approved QRA-funded contract increases: +$1.7m for PM services (to $5.1m) and +$2.596m for Black Pinch Rd landslide works (to $12.446m), with CEO delegations (Items 7.2–7.3; 01:55:19–01:57:46). Road Dedication: Supported dedication of TMR Lot 115 RP861914 as road; CEO authorised for title documents (Item 5.2 Confidential; 01:58:01–01:58:38). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Pushed extended public notification (20 business days) for solar impact DA in response to community expectations on consultation (Item 6.2; 01:06:39–01:09:06). Brian Stockwell: Noted prior confusion on delegated report format and conflicts; applicant names appeared despite intent to de-identify, but decisions are already made under delegation (Item 6.4; 01:49:29–01:50:20). Frank Wilkie: Motion seeks fact-checking and proper authorisation of third-party How-To-Vote cards to “level the field” after misleading materials at recent elections (Item 6.3 – Motion C; 01:46:14–01:47:50). Brian Stockwell: STA data scraping found inaccuracies; joint motion with Brisbane seeks legislated platform data-sharing (Item 6.3 – Motion D; 01:42:36–01:45:15). Legal / Risk Court/DA Framework: Unitywater planning assumptions endorsed under SEQ Water Act 2009 s99BK; solar farm to proceed via impact assessment and public notification; code assessment for Reviva/transfer station/compost (Items 5.1, 6.2; 02:03–03:31, 56:22–01:04:28). Confidentiality Grounds: Meeting closed under Local Government Regulation 2012 s254J(3)(e),(g) for appeal and contract variations (Confidential Session; 01:53:42–01:54:06). Appeal Posture: Settlement of D23/2022 reduces litigation exposure; conditions to control reconfiguration impacts at 111 Lake Weyba Dr (Item 7.1; 01:54:42–01:55:14). Financial Risk: Legal costs $400k over budget largely from development appeals; potential partial recovery of GemLife costs pending assessment (Item 6.1; 43:47–47:31). Procurement Risk: CEO delegated to vary flood contracts and extend finish dates within defined limits, contingent on QRA business case approvals (Items 7.2–7.3; 01:55:19–01:57:46). Safety/Compliance: Transfer station redesign addresses people–plant conflicts, traffic queuing, and sedimentation basin relocation; timing prioritised for dry season works (Item 6.2; 01:02:47–01:20:23). Environmental Concerns & Infrastructure Kyrone Dodd/Mark: Hub delivers increased diversion, compost maturation/bagging market, landfill capping with solar overlay targeting 3–5MW; education program integral (Item 6.2; 01:02:47–01:16:25). Brian Stockwell: Potential Australia-first capping-plus-renewables approach to capture methane and generate power; leverages state/federal funds (Item 6.2; 01:26:08–01:29:53). Karen Finzel: Sought retention of three 80+ year scribbly gums with hollows; officers to design around and maintain 10m buffer to Eumundi–Noosa Rd (Item 6.2; 01:21:27–01:22:42). Kim Rawlings: Waste levies trending up to deter landfill; Noosa maintains low public charges by driving diversion (Item 6.2; 01:14:08–01:16:08). Unitywater: Capital program includes Sunshine Beach (Bicentennial Dr 25–26), Cooroy (Garnet St 26–27), with treatment upgrades post‑2046 horizon (Item 5.1; 24:39–27:08). Short Stay Letting / Data & Energy Reform Frank Wilkie/Brian Stockwell: Motion seeks mandated STA platform data (addresses, validated bookings) via statewide agreement to enable compliance parity with NSW/Tas/UK/EU/Canada analogues (Item 6.3 – Motion D; 01:42:36–01:45:15). Brian Stockwell: Motion urges Energy Queensland to revise Dynamic Network (Storage) Tariff to remove barriers to community batteries; aligns with other states and AER 2025–2030 process (Item 6.3 – Motion G; 01:42:36–01:44:14). Finance & Economic Posture Pauline (Finance): FY23/24 interim: $105m cash (capex underspend incl. disaster works), 67% delivery of general capex; arrears ~5.6% near benchmark; FAGs methodology shift reduces Noosa’s allocation (Item 6.1; 35:26–48:05, 52:46–53:44). Amelia Lorentson: Called for levy program reviews and consultancy benchmarking; officers to workshop legal/consultancy spend and risk mitigation outcomes (Item 6.1; 41:46–46:23, 54:24–54:48). Karen Finzel: Motion seeks alignment of “end-of-waste” criteria with infrastructure specs to unlock recycled materials in roads and avoid stockpiles (Item 6.3 – Motion F; 01:39:03–01:42:36).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 15 July 2024 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 15 JULY 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Acting CEO & Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services Kyrone Dodd APOLOGIES Nil. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation, Cr Finzel is approved to attend the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 17 June 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 5. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 15 JULY 2024 5.1. UNITYWATER NOOSA NETSERV PLAN - PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS (REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 9 JULY 2024 - ITEM 5.1) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council A. Note the report by the Strategy and Sustainability Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee dated 9 July 2024 regarding the Unitywater Noosa Netserv Plan - Planning Assumptions; B. Endorse the planning assumptions contained within the Technical Note in Attachment A under Chapter 4B Part 1 Section 99BK of the South East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009 for the purpose of Unitywater's Water Netserv Plan. C. Note the Netserv Model is a dynamic model and can be updated should any changes occur to any of the inputs such as land use scenarios, planning schemes, population projections and Development Approvals. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 6.1. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – JUNE 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 outlining the interim 2023/24 full year financial performance against budget, with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 6.2. RECYCLING & RENEWABLES HUB MASTERPLAN – STAGE ONE CONCEPT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by the Waste Project Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 regarding the Recycling & Renewables Hub Masterplan provided at Attachment 1 to the Report; GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 15 JULY 2024 B. Note the benefits and opportunities associated with the proposed development of the Recycling & Renewables Hub; C. Approve Stage One Concept of the Recycling & Renewables Hub Masterplan pending funding and development approvals: 1. Inclusive of Section A - which is subject to Code Assessable development approval. 2. Inclusive of Solar Site - which is subject to Impact Assessment development approval and public notification. D. Agrees to provide a public notification period of 20 business days associated with the proposed impact assessment development application for the solar site. Carried unanimously. 6.3. 2024 LGAQ CONFERENCE MOTIONS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council A. Note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 July 2024 and approve the submission of the following motions to the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) Annual Conference 2024 for consideration and debate: 1. Motion A: "That the LGAQ calls on the State Government to support councils to establish a workplace giving program through the creation of a consistent framework. This framework should include guidelines for: o Setting up workplace giving programs for local government employees, Mayor and Councillors. o Selecting eligible charities. o Administering contributions and funds." 2. Motion B: "That the LGAQ calls on the State government to o Promote and encourage the adoption of wastewater recycling and diversion initiatives statewide. o Allocate necessary funding to Local governments and Wastewater service providers for wastewater recycling and alternative treatment option trials such as biosolid gasification o Monitor and evaluate the outcomes of these projects to inform future policies and initiatives. o Explore what other states are doing to address wastewater recycling to leverage collective knowledge and experience to support and guide local governments and wastewater service providers to transition to a circular economy. 3. Motion C: “The LGAQ calls on the State government to amend the Queensland GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 15 JULY 2024 Electoral Act 1992 (or relevant legislation) to ensure how to vote (HTV) cards issued at elections by third parties are fact checked and properly authorised, just as HTVs are for registered candidates.” 4. Motion D: “That the LGAQ advocate to the State Government of Queensland to legislate that share economy platforms and providers such as Airbnb, Booking.com and Stayz, and STA providers share their validated booking data, inclusive of real property addresses, through a state-wide data sharing agreement. This will allow local governments to have accurate oversight of STA and effectively manage and regulate STA. This approach to mandate the provision of validated STA booking data is already successfully occurring in location such as New South Wales (NSW), Tasmania, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Canada." 5. Motion E: “That the LGAQ advocate for ALGA to be a Full Member on the Housing Ministerial Council." 6. Motion F: "That the LGAQ calls on the Queensland Government to undertake a comprehensive review into the end of waste criteria for resource recovery products against the specification for materials used in Federal, State and Local Infrastructure projects." 7. Motion G: "That the LGAQ calls on the State Government to direct Energy Queensland to review and revise its Dynamic Network (Storage) Tariff as proposed in its recent Tariff Structure Statement (TSS) currently under assessment by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) for the next regulatory control period (2025–2030) to ensure the elimination of barriers to the widespread roll-out of community batteries across Queensland. Carried unanimously. 6.4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - MAY 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority as per Attachment 1 to the Report. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 15 JULY 2024 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the meeting be closed to the public: pursuant to Section 254J(3)(e) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing: Item 7.1 - Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. D23 of 2022 – Application for Reconfiguring a Lot – 1 into 12 lots as 111 Lake Weyba Drive Noosaville described as Lot 4 on RP36729; pursuant to Section 254J(3)(g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing: Item 7.2 - 2122Q125 - Contract Variation for Project Management Services - 2022 Flood Recovery and Reconstruction; pursuant to Section 254J(3)(g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing: Item 7.3 - CN00317B - Contract Variation for Flood Reconstruction – Package 7B – Landslide Remedial Works (Black Pinch Rd); and pursuant to Section 254J(3)(g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing Item 5.2 - Proposed Dedication of TMR-owned Freehold Land as Road Noosaville (Referred from Services & Organisation Committee dated 9 July - Item 7.1). Carried unanimously. RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. 7.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D23 OF 2022 – APPLICATION FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT– 1 INTO 12 LOTS AT 111 LAKE WEYBA DRIVE NOOSAVILLE DESCRIBED AT LOT 4 ON RP36729 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal D23 of 2022; and GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 15 JULY 2024 B. Agree to settle the appeal generally in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in Attachment 1 to the Report. Carried unanimously. 7.2. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - 2122Q125 - CONTRACT VARIATION FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES - 2022 FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024, and A. Approve increasing the value of the QRA funded contract 2122Q125 by $1,700,000 (GST exc.) from $3,400,000 (GST exc.) to $5,100,000 (GST exc.), with program completion expected by 30 June 2025. B. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and administer the contract on behalf of Council; and C. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to amend the contract up to 11.5% of the total contract value; and D. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to amend the contract finish date to no later than September 30, 2025. Carried unanimously. 7.3. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – CN00317B - CONTRACT VARIATION FOR FLOOD RECONSTRUCTION – PACKAGE 7B – LANDSLIDE REMEDIAL WORKS (BLACK PINCH RD) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the report by the Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator to the General Committee Meeting dated 15 July 2024 and A. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to vary the contract value, based on Business Case approval by QRA, allowing a scope change which will increase the value of contract CN00317B by $2,596,239.57 (GST exc.) from $9,849,609.12 (GST exc.) to $12,445,848.69 (GST exc.); B. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and administer the contract on behalf of Council; and C. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to amend the contract up to 11.5% of the total contract value. Carried unanimously. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 15 JULY 2024 5.2. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE: PROPOSED DEDICATION OF TMR-OWNED FREEHOLD LAND AS ROAD NOOSAVILLE (REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE DATED 9 JULY - ITEM 7.1) Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by the Manager, Infrastructure Planning Design and Delivery to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 9 July 2024; B. Support the Department of Transport and Main Roads proposal to dedicate Lot 115 RP861914 as road, and accept the road in Council's capacity as the Road Manager; and C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to execute any title transfer documentation if required on behalf of Council. Carried unanimously. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 3.28pm.
Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:00.880
We acknowledge that the meeting is on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and we pay respect to Elders both past, present and emerging and try and think of our role here as a continuation of the custodians of this country. We have in chambers Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Wilkie and Councillor. We do have a request from Councillor Finzel to attend. Finzel to attend via electronic means. Would someone like to move that motion? That's been moved by Councillor Wilkie, so we have a seconder, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? So welcome, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 00:44.182
Thank you, Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 00:46.222
We have no presentations or deputations, but we But we do need to confirm the minutes. Just my results, not being very nice to me. So have we got someone who'd wish to move the confirmation minutes of the general committee meeting? I'll move to second. And that was moved by Councillor Wilkie and seconded by Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? That's. And Councillor Finzel? Yes. That's unanimous. We move on then to items referred from committee. And the first item there is in regard to the Unitywater net serve model. We do have our director, Kim, coming to us. And we also have a visitor from Unitywater which we would like to invite to the table. Kim Rawlings 01:47.512
Councillor, this is Chris Hartzell, responsible for the net serve modelling for So, thanks for being with us, Chris. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:55.194
Hi, Chris. Good morning. Brian Stockwell 01:57.414
So, Kim, would you like to do a general overview or do we hand straight over to Chris? Kim Rawlings 02:03.134
We can do a general overview, councillors, as we talk to you at the planning committee. This report seeks your endorsement of the Unitywater Netserv plan, which is the plan that looks at the planning assumptions and a range of inputs. around growth and development in our community. Chris might talk to the breadth of the Netserv plan and which level of governance it crosses. We've worked closely with Unitywater on the planning assumptions from our Noosa Plan. And as mentioned at the planning committee, we take into account development constraints. So, you know, areas that can't be developed as a result of bushfire, flooding, biodiversity, those sorts of things when we're looking at growth scenarios on each lot. And it's It's an iterative process, so we use the Noosa Plan to do that. We also use development approval, so what's actually been approved on lots to validate the model. There's a range of inputs into the process. There's a requirement under both the Planning Act and the, get the words right Chris, the restructuring, water restructuring. Chris Hartzell 03:24.112
Distributor and retailer. Distributor and Kim Rawlings 03:31.535
For Unitywater to adopt a plan and for Unitywater to be confident that the NETSERV plan aligns with the planning assumptions of each local government. So in order to do that we need council to therefore endorse the plan and the models to give that assurance. So that's what's in front of you today. And given that it's quite a technical process and a complex process, Chris is here to answer any questions from that perspective. Frank Wilkie 04:09.984
Report makes reference and makes a point of saying that the planning assumptions are, what are they, they're projections not targets. Could you elaborate on what you mean by saying that please? it's an important distinction. Thank you for the question Councillor. Chris Hartzell 04:30.911
So our forecasts, forecast projections, they are a projection or forecast over time. In terms of targets we do also have the targets that we need to meet under the regional plan. The Shaping SEQ regional plan sets dwelling targets and sets employment targets that we need to demonstrate. So in our planning assumptions documentation we actually go through and demonstrate how we've met those targets. So they're the only targets that we need to achieve. So there they The rest is our forecast, such projections on how we're going to achieve that target. So it's no different, I guess, than the State government or QGSO population projections, they are. Just a projection. So the only target that we have to meet is what's wired under the regional plan. Brian Stockwell 05:16.964
And just to clarify, the regional plan sets a dwelling target. It also had some rather ambitious or unrealistic populations forecasted. That's not what you're trying to meet. You're trying to meet the dwelling target. Chris Hartzell 05:29.594
Yes, so the regional plan doesn't have a population target. It only has a dwelling target and an employment baseline that you have to try to achieve. So I know there's some comments around, you know, the population numbers that have been previously provided. That's not something that we have to demonstrate that we need to achieve. So it's just purely drawings because a population target very difficult to achieve because it comes down to how many people are occupying a dwelling and the assumptions around that. It's much harder to forecast, but a dwelling is something that's known and can be measured quite easily. Amelia Lorentson 06:10.115
Chris, in terms of reliability, how credible and reliable are the DMACC forecasts when you compare them with other forecasting tools that are used by the State? Chris Hartzell 06:24.502
Good question. So our modelling software, which we call DMACC, which is known outside of the Indy board as the 4PAS modeller, is now being used by Gold Coast, Toowoomba, and is about to be used by City of Moreton Bay as well. So we, back in 2014, actually developed the software based The number of mowings on the ground, because we've actually looked at every property and made sure that the mowing count is correct. We've used your tourist accommodation levy, is that what it's called? Kim Rawlings 07:30.493
Yeah, that levy data to actually eyesight specifically which dwellings are accommodation versus a permanent resident dwelling and we've all looked at that at a property level so we're very confident that that is accurate and then then capturing capturing the the development approvals. Then actually looking at the results themselves. We look at the sequence of development that's required to meet those projections. And we look at how credible those projections are. And how reasonable they are given what's happening on the ground and what's coming. So that's why we have some high level of confidence in the projections because we actually see what properties need to develop to meet those population projections. So we're not projecting growth. not projecting growth that can't possibly ever be achieved by the current planning scheme. So that's the process that we go through, which is not something that we can see from the State government's methods because our We haven't been briefed on their methodology around the modelling packages that they've used for the regional plan. We haven't been provided with any of that information. I can only comment on what we've done. I personally always look at the results. look at the results and the impacts on the ground in terms of the sequence of development of what properties and how many properties need to develop over time to give confidence that the projections can actually be realistically achieved. So there's some of the tests I run. Amelia Lorentson 08:54.615
It seems very thorough and credible, and given that now you're saying that it's being adopted by Gold Coast and Wimbledon Motor Councils, again, adding to that credibility space, the question probably directed to Kim or Michelle is how well have we integrated the DMAT tool forecast into our other planning and forecasting tools? So I'm sort of understanding our data feeds the DMAT, but vice versa, do we do Yeah, it's definitely an iterative process and we work really closely with Unitywater to make sure, like Chris says, what's being projected is realistic, you know, so there's lots of spot checking and going, okay, well we put all the inputs in, this is what it's saying for this area, is that realistic? You know, so we look at it and go, well we know this is not how that area develops because that area is, you know, full of, you know, single houses on medium density lots or whatever, so, and that's unlikely to change in the next 30 or 40 years. That's just an example. So we do that spot checking process to make sure there's a, there's a realistic approach to what's being forecast. So yeah, it's both a need to review process and we, we, you know, when we have been brought into the planning process about what's realistic for us, and as you would know, we did a lot of going back and forth with that, we rely on the DMAT data because it's so robust to demonstrate to the State government, those forecasts are not realistic for us. We've got a model that's been developed over 10 years that's very robust. This is what's realistic for us. This takes into account all of our local constraints and information. yeah, we do rely on the information and, you know, work through an iterative process with you to give order on it. So, a really great tool for us to leverage to oppose the State's mandatory growth targets, and we discussed that earlier. An example of that is looking at the proposed amendments to the Noosa Plan. We were able to model those planning scheme amendment changes and then look at what impact that would So the tool itself was developed for that purpose in mind where, also for other councils like Central Coast and Moreton Bay where they're doing new structure structure plans, master plans, there's new growth areas popping up everywhere. We use the tool to run those areas through the model to get an understanding of how much growth and therefore what infrastructure therefore, what infrastructure is required to support that. So we're doing the same for Noosa, it's just not much. I still have questions and probably just one last question. I'm also understanding that this information also feeds Unitywater in terms of potential upgrades in wastewater treatment plants. Can you give me any information or am I going a little bit outside the scope? No, that's a perfectly fine. Chris Hartzell 12:30.513
So our planning assumptions includes, you know, dwellings, population, floor space and employment, but it also calculates our network demand projections based off the same demographic projections. demand projections feed directly into our network models and network master plans, which then determines what infrastructure upgrades that are required. So not just through our treatment plants, but also, you know, pumps and pipes. So that goes into our network master plans. Those network master plans identify a list of work that is required, which then flows through to our capital works plan. And then through the NETSERV plan is to delivered. So that's where you see when you see our NETSERV plan in its entirety. It has a schedule of works, very similar to your LGIP in your planning scheme. It's got a list of trunk works, a timing of when it's going to be provided, a description and an estimated cost. So that's where it ends up and that's what we actually go ahead and build. So that's sort of the process where it flows through. We also also use it to identify renewals and replacements of existing assets and when we decide or when we need to replace an ageing asset, we use the same information to determine what do we need to replace it with, is it light or light, do we need to upgrade it. So it sort of supports all our planning functions across Unitywater. Brian Stockwell 13:57.178
Thank you very much. I've got a question. In figure 8 and figure 10 you do bar graphs of your forecast net residential population growth and net employment growth. Are those things relating just to to your water and sewerage service area or is it relating to the Shire as a whole? So our planning assumptions apply Shire-wide. The reason we have to plan for all properties within the Shire boundary is the State population projections, Shire-wide. The regional plan, dwelling targets, employment baselines, they're all Shire-wide. So we actually prepare planning assumptions for all properties, but what we do when we use it for our network planning purposes, we clip the the information down to just our service area and then plan towards that, and the rest is not used, but it's only used to show how we meet those Shire-wide sort of targets. Yeah it's quite interesting if you look because you've got it against two different diagrams 20 21 2041 and 2046 to 2056. And the clear one is Noosa's where all the jobs are coming in and there's obviously the Noosa Business Centre. But then strongly the hinterland but the population growth figures show that clearly you know over the after 2041 it's about in between coast and hinterland but after that stage the pro projection is head Baltimore in the hinterland and I suppose for a long-term planning and our planning scheme one of the key considerations is just where that long-term growth is and where we have to start putting our mind to how we're going to prepare for that. Chris Hartzell 15:48.772
And the Noosa hinterland SA2 catchment, you might be aware, it virtually covers about 70% of the Shire area, all within, so so it it includes includes a a number of townships like Cooroy and Pomona. Then the rest of the rural areas all sits within one large SA2 catchment. So it does, I guess, not the correct word, but it does encompass a large area. Basically you've got all the other ones as a small, like Noosa Hill, Noosa Heads, Sunshine Beach, Tewantin, Peregian and Marcus. Which are quite close. We add them all up, they're about equal in the next, in the next period. The one after that, you add them all up and it looks like England and stuff. And what we've tried to do with the employment is make sure that we're forecasting sufficient employment to keep pace or exceed population growth. There's an issue with the regional plan that they revised the growing targets between the draft and the final. I'm fairly they forgot to adjust the employment 2046 target because if you look at it, it is significantly higher than the population would be at a similar time period. So what we've done is made sure that our employment keeps pace or exceeds the population. So around that 41% of the population is employed. So the best you could possibly ever achieve is about 50% where that's your working population. So sitting around that 41% and trying to sneak it up a little bit. So that's what's driving the employment growth. But at a small scale, we project floor space and employment growth at a zone level and those zones are broken up into different types Shire business centre, your different industrial areas. Each area has a different growth projection in terms of floor space and employment and all that comes together in terms of overall growth. Brian Stockwell 17:52.930
One more might be a start question. As part of our submissions back the plan was about us calculating dwellings using secondary dwellings. Is this model sufficiently refined that we identify a range of block sizes for example that would be potentially suitable for secondary dwellings? Chris Hartzell 18:18.224
We went through and looked at every property that was owned low density residential and selected out the properties that had a sufficient size, sufficient backyard area, sufficient access and identified every property that could be suitable for a secondary dwelling. We built that into our model and what the model does is it only develops those properties if it needs to meet the population projection. So you've got all these properties that could have a secondary dwelling but it's only developing as many as required. as many as required to meet the projections, so. Brian Stockwell 18:54.246
And just out of interest, when you said we go and look at every individual property, is that a human looking or an AI looking? Chris Hartzell 19:02.286
No, so eyes, human eyes, um, which... We've looked at, you know, options of using AI to do that kind of thing, but you need to train the AI based on something, so humans always go to the book first, so. That's fantastic. Kim Rawlings 19:17.551
Easy to really see. Yeah, so another great example is they have a boom in their backyard, so it doesn't matter where So, and also looking at things like appropriate side access, where they can actually get a driveway down. All these little nuances and factors that, so we've got an actual, in our land use and density assumptions, a specific layer that identifies identifies where where those secondary dwelling properties are and our assumptions assume one house, one secondary dwelling and they have been sequenced for development as required that goes into the mix of everything else that's been sown. So Chris you're saying every property, low density res property that can fit a secondary dwelling has been factored in? Chris Hartzell 20:06.614
It's been identified. So if you look at our ultimate dwellings, the maximum possible number of dwellings that could be achieved, that's built in there as well. So which greatly exceeds we require by 2046. Can you say how many properties capable of having a secondary dwelling? Yeah, I could definitely provide that information back through, yeah. The number of properties and the number of additional dwellings that could be combated, yes. Frank Wilkie 20:40.696
And Kim, you mentioned in the report that only, these are maximum estimates. That's right. And usually only only 70% to 80% of that development capacity is realised. That's fine. Kim Rawlings 20:52.028
That's fine. Because as we know, not everyone wants a secondary lolly. No. As we know, not everyone develops their land to the capacity that can But for infrastructure and planning papers, we need to issue a model and ultimate so that you can properly plan infrastructure, you know, if that happens. know, and I've been in government, we all have now for 30 years, we know that that never happens, you know, you never develop to full, every block up to highest and best use if it doesn't happen. doesn't happen, but for infrastructure planning purposes we need to understand what Frank Wilkie 21:30.206
That is. To be ready for the maximum effect. Kim Rawlings 21:31.566
To be ready, that's right, and to, you know, to ensure that there are, there are triggers in your works program to be able to, you know, build capacity in and continually check continually check that, we've got infrastructure networks and that's why we've, NETSERV's continually reviewed, our legips continually reviewed, we re-look at planning assumptions, we re-validate, we re-look at every block to actually see what's happened, you know, constantly to make sure. that our planning assumptions and our planning frameworks are informing our infrastructure networks, our schedule of works, our capital works, you know, to make sure those things are in sync. It's a fundamental part of all the work that we do. Chris Hartzell 22:15.268
So our capital works program goes out to 2046, our treatment is planned, which is our sewage treatment plants. It's planning horizon is 2056, which is why we go out to 2056, to support those real long-term, high capital cost decisions that we need to make over that time. ultimate sits at an unknown point in time and ultimate will change over time as future planning schemes are prepared and amended. It's always going to be a moving figure. the longer but the longest we plan towards is 2056 occasionally we'll look at ultimate if the difference between growth at 2046 and ultimate we might decide because it's the most prudent decision to consider is ultimate when we're planning an upgrade because it might be the most cost-effective solution rather than planning for something less and then knowing that in the years to come we're going to have to replace it again so that's part of the capital works planning process where decisions are made decisions are made about what's the best financial decision to make in terms of upgrading, because the reality is the additional cost is not necessarily the size of the infrastructure, it's the actual constructing it and labour. Sometimes it's far more more effective to put in a slightly larger main at the time than put in a smaller main and then replace that main in years to come. So that's why it's always good to have an understanding of what the ultimate number is for just comparison purposes when planning. Frank Wilkie 23:52.429
Chris, based on these projections, can you say when an upgrade of the Noosa heads to a water treatment plant and the Cooroy water treatment plant may be on the cards? Chris Hartzell 24:02.769
I can't say that myself, but we do provide the same demands. provide the same demand forecast to Seqwater. So when they're planning upgrades to the water treatment plant, they use the same numbers. They actually rely on our numbers now that we have to provide our demand forecast to Seqwater and they're planning their upgrades around planning their upgrades around those same set of numbers. I'm talking about the sewage treatment plant. Oh, sorry, you mentioned water treatment plants. The sewage treatment plants. Wastewater treatment plant. Yes, the wastewater treatment plant. That's planned as part of our capital works program, the same as any other works. What year have you planned it? Amelia Lorentson 24:39.695
I can give you that information, Frank. Chris Hartzell 24:41.975
Oh, well, if If Chris Chris has got it, we've got the source here. Yeah, so... Yeah, so we have planned in our capital works program, planned upgrades to all our sewage treatment plants, depending on what's required after 2046. So that's part of our capital works program as well. So that's handled not so... That's handled as part of our treatment services plan, which is a specific plan to our treatment services or treatment And we have our network models, network master plans, which plan for the rest of this sewer network and the water supply network. Amelia Lorentson 25:17.849
And for any more specifics, over the next five years, the Unitywater Capital Program... includes Castaways nearing completion this year, Bicentennial Drive, Sunshine Beach, currently scheduled for 25-26, Garnet Street, Cooroy, currently scheduled for 26-27 and Station Road, Bermuda, to be advised. This is the pipe network? That's the five-year Unitywater Capital program. Pump stations. Pump stations. Do we have a year for when the wastewater treatment plant will be upgraded? Yes, so in the NSERV plan that we're currently working on, it'll have a new schedule of works, which is the latest... the latest version of our capital works program, which will replace the current NSERV plan and the current schedule. It does have planned upgrades to our treatment plants and what I've done is I've taken the questions around what we're planning for and passed those questions on to my manager because they're not... I'm dealing with the planning assumptions side of things, so I've passed those questions on around what around what plans, upgrades that we've got to our treatment services when, what the nature of the upgrades are. Are they renewal or replacements? Are they to fix something that is broken or reached the end of its life? Are the upgrades growth related or are they just ongoing maintenance issues? So I've asked my manager to provide those answers back so you can understand what's been planned for in terms of those upgrades. Frank Wilkie 26:56.479
So the update is scheduled when it's released in the NSERV plan. It'll have each project, maps, it'll have a description of what it is, the time frame of when that upgrade is to occur and the cost. Amelia Lorentson 27:08.899
Thank you Can I ask one final question? question. So in terms of the forecast and the population changes, in terms of this is outside of the scope of this report, how does or does it affect the assessment process? the Environmental Protection Act. In terms of environmental licences and permits. Chris Hartzell 27:34.265
So I'll also pass that question on to my manager as well. To answer questions around licences Licensing, license agreements, and how that fits within our land upgrades. Brian Stockwell 27:50.813
I've got one that just came to mind, and it's probably, once again, our stuff. With the fine-grained nature of the data, do we have access to that in a spatial GIS context? So I'm thinking some of that-- of that prediction about where secondary buildings might go, et cetera, would be very valuable for transport planning. Because, you know, in the old days, you'd just ring off a name and say it's five vehicles per day or eight vehicles per day per household. But if you knew where the growth was coming, it would certainly influence, you know, not just where to put what size of insects, but also where might be where we need to look at public transport upgrades. So is that something So is that something that we actually do? Kim Rawlings 28:31.996
We do, yeah, we do have it and we use that. And we're looking at doing a project at the moment around integrating that through the transport. We also do transport planning, so background learning. So we're developing an integral land use and transport model? It does exactly that, yeah. Brian Stockwell 28:46.116
Very good. This is the land use scenarios to transport this. And the other thing we do, following on from that... Following on from that, I'll ask a question. It is, then you could put in the scenario, what if every 27 people rode a pushbike or a e-bike to work? What would that do to push off future works and therefore reduce rates? That's the thing that we start showing the downstream impact of motor change. Is that right? Kim Rawlings 29:15.055
Yes, once you've got the model you can run a number of scenarios. And from Uniwater's perspective, having a common set of underlying planning assumptions, it also enables us to align our planned upgrades and works with the planned transport works, which is something we're lacking in other council areas where there is no real coordination between planning, infrastructure planning, and infrastructure planning between transport, water and sewer. We have had cases where there's been a road upgrade and the same water and sewer infrastructure was put back in the ground. No one asked the question should we put something back that has a greater capacity. So we've had those cases. It's not ideal. Brian Stockwell 30:08.690
Have we run out of questions? Would someone like to move the recommendation? I will. I'm happy to move it. Have we had a seconder? Councillor Wegener. Thank you, that was really good information and I think we've all got a much better appreciation of what this model does and how it's put together. I know from a community every time population objectives are put forward we get the public commentary about breaking the population cap and what, if I can just interpret what this does is the Noosa planning scheme still embeds all the same principles. principles as the 1997 strategic plan did where people set a cap. All those things about what we protect in nature and what we don't do is all embedded within the plan scheme and this one just far more accurately projects. What the likely sustainable population is a result of applying those principles. It doesn't increase, it doesn't say we're opening the doors, it just says back in the late 90s it was a fairly rudimentary process of how you estimated what the population was. This one is far more as we've heard down to each life, what this life has got in capacity and what year we're likely to get to it. And my transport planning is if I, if there's one area where we could probably say that our sustainable carrying capacity has an exceedance it's obviously in our road network because we know that congestion is a sure sign that you exceed and you get sustainable carrying capacity and that's we've got two options there. Build bigger roads or change modes or provide ways to ensure people get to where they want So thank you, anyone else wish to speak. Amelia Lorentson 31:51.935
I'll just add, it's just really great reading, thank you Chris, just the breakdown of you many retail shops to dwellings to industry and it's broken up into precincts, so great information I can imagine for strategic planners, but as a councillor, just yeah, really great dialogue. And I'll just also finally add too, our painting assumptions are actually published, once endorsed, are actually published online on our website. You can actually go and look at our painting assumptions at a property level within our service area. I forgot to mention the reason we do that is because we have private certifiers who sit outside of Unitywater As part of their assessment, they need to look at what we're paying towards in terms of demand, and compare that to what a developer is proposing, and undertake an assessment to make sure it's consistent. it's not consistent with the planning assumptions, we can look at can it be serviced, can we impose conditions on how it's to be serviced. So operationally and day-to-day, it is used at a property level, which means we have to be accurate. As accurate as we possibly be at a property level, because that's why it's used day-to-day. Another question, was this all your work Chris, or did you have a team helping you? I've got an outsider. Well in that case, please accept... accept our thanks to you and your offside for working so well with our staff. It doesn't make you feel any better, but we have to do this for the three council areas. Thank you. the fact that it just takes a lot of time and effort to get to this point. and there's no getting Like I said, the software that we had developed and what we used is only as good as the data that's input to it, so there is no silver bullet, there is no AI-ing your way out of this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Chris. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 33:58.230
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone wish to speak? No. I will close because there was one thing that was triggered by Councillor Lorentson. The other good part of this is it does forecast employment and population and as it's embedded within the SEQ regional plan and our plan scheme amendments, the best place to put new residential is close to employment so we're not generating the traffic that causes congestion and school bus pickup pick up time, etc. So it's also really good to look long term about where we do cater for both employment growth and for population growth. So I'll move the motion. It has been moved, so I'll put it to a vote. All in favour? And that's Councillor Finzel? Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. So we move on to the next item. one, I believe, is a confidential item, so I'm going to move that to be the last item on the agenda. And so we'll move. Thank you, Craig. I'll see you later. Then we go to reports direct to General. And the first one is a financial report for June 2024. And we have Pauline and Trent coming to join us at the table. Pauline, would you like to give us an executive summary? Pauline 35:26.680
Sure I can. Afternoon, Councillors. Financial performance report for June 2024 shows the future of position at year end. However, financial adjustments are still in progress which might have material impacts on our final position for the year. A further report on final 23/24 financial performance will be provided to Council in November 2024 following the finalisation of our independent audit of the financial statements. In summary, our operating revenue for the year is $1.5 million below budget. And while we have been tracking above budget, there is a real reason for that. So our interest income is $2.1 million above budget. Sales of goods and services are $1.5 million above budget. Other revenues $600,000 of our budget. However, that's been offset by lower than forecast fees and charges of $2.1 million. The major movement in the last month has been grant operating grant revenue. the main driver behind that is the receipt of the financial assistance grant. Historically, Council receives that grant in advance, so we would normally receive the 2025 payment in June. However, that did not occur this year. Obviously, that's quite a large amount to have received. There's also several other grants that, due to the timing of delivery of those programs, have pushed out into the next financial year. Our operating expenditure is $9 million on descent, with $2.2 million of this relating to our employee costs. Missions and services expenditure is $6.7 million under spent, and this relates to levy programs of $1.5 million and grant funded programs of $1 million, and those will both be quarantined and held in in reserve for future use for those particular programs. Commercial operations, which is waste and all their parts, are $1.6 million under spent, and general operations is $2.5 million under spent. This month we actually provided you with a detailed breakdown of materials and services so that you can see the movements in those particular items for the whole year. in terms of economic development we provide monthly that and that expenditure is showing a slightly behind budget of 56,001%. There is a quarterly legal cost summary which is also included which shows legal and associated costs which is consultancies and legal counsels for 400,000 over budget with the majority of this relating to development appeals. As requested at the previous general meeting, a summary of expenditure and consultancy fees has been included which shows expenditure by council over time. summaries only include operational consultancies and not consultancies that relate to capital projects. It should be noted that general consultancy spend relates to specialised services and the quantum is dependent on the nature and size of the project that council has undertaken at Overall council interim operating position at June is in the surplus of $7.8 million with the drivers of this position being additional interest revenue wasted in holiday park surpluses, employee cost savings due to vacancies and the timing expenditure for grant As I mentioned, there will be further approvals, commissions and accounting adjustments that occur in the coming months, with the finalisation of the financial statements later in the year. In terms of capital program, excluding our disaster projects, Council has spent 67% of its all-year capital program, which equates to $30.6 million of its $45.9 million. And $40.6 million has been spent in relation to our QRA disaster projects. Council's cash holding at the end of June was $105 million, with $30 million of these funds invested in hiring higher-yielding return deposits. And we also included the cash dissection for this quarter as well. Overall, Council has finished the financial year in a strong position, and obviously the financial results may change between now and November. Brian Stockwell 39:28.005
You. Questions? Amelia Lorentson 39:32.060
I don't want to let anyone speak first. I feel like I'm speaking. First, Pauline, it's probably one of your best reports. I so appreciate the effort you have to have done this down, and I think that's really, really important, keeping it simple, and again, encourage any residents when they ask, you know, we've got 11 points. you know, we've got 11.1 months worth of cash reserves, and three months is only required. Why? It's all here, and really, really simplified, defining what's restricted, unrestricted, etc. Okay, so, so, so, okay, I'll keep that. I'm going to start with... Start with above budget, below budget. It's sort of just a generic question. So, so, break down, and I appreciate the material and services. When I look at above budget and below budget, probably the question I'm asking is... How does the below budget achievements or above budget achievements, how do they impact our overall financial health and planning, A, and B, with the above budget achievements, do we reinvest the additional revenue into these facilities that are over budgeted. that are over budgeted or are they sort of directed to other council projects? Pauline 41:01.948
Well, depending on the source of the surplus, so like I decide ways for most and I'll in fact we would put aside that reserve to go back in. We do take a dividend from those particular businesses to help fund general operations for council but we do also put aside funding for those projects that they might need that help those businesses grow or make maintain the service levels that they provide. In terms of grants and levies those particular funds get set aside and used for that purpose for that particular levy or grant so they're committed regardless of whether they're sent this year or next year and in terms of any surplus that results from the general operations of council they would generally go back into reserve for us to use on future capital works projects. Amelia Lorentson 41:46.179
So in terms of, I'll just draw on what you were saying in terms of levies, so really specified funds to use for specified criteria that's outlined under the levies. How often or should we be reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of levy allocations even when we have got surplus in some of them? Pauline 42:11.927
So as part of the annual budget process, we do review each levy annually as part of the budget process. And then at periodic times, depending on the life of that particular levy, it will get a full review of the program and the purpose of that levy to see if it's still relevant and producing what the outcome is originally intended for. Fantastic. So we, should we be accepting a review of criteria and future... Yes, there's a number of levies in the coming year that the council is endeavouring to look at and that will be workshopped with council to see what they'd like to do. During the year. Yeah. Fantastic. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 42:41.773
Just a little bit of a question on the Statement of Financial Position. The end of year forecast for cash and cash equivalents was $88,900,000. We've ended up with $105,000,000. Could you just mean, it's a good discrepancy to have... Pauline 42:59.642
Well, there is a reason for it. Yeah, what is the reason? So, obviously, with the capital program that Council has, we've obviously mentioned, I think, we've spent about 67% of our 45. We are still planning to continue and deliver those programs, so the money gets set aside for that. So, within that... Unspent capital. $105,000 is essentially the unspent capital works. There's a few other, Frank Wilkie 43:26.422
Yes, and there always seems to be money's unspent on staff training. Is there anything you can say about that? Pauline 43:36.102
They've done actually particularly well this year, so it's not hugely unspent, so they are working. There are improvements. Frank Wilkie 43:45.650
Thank you. Jessica Phillips 43:47.470
I have a question please. I'm just going to work out how to ask this. Thank you. I just look at the legal costs and over budget. budget, I see that we have appointed an in-house legal Council. So that was in December 2023. Could you tell me like what we... we plan to see, I guess, out of that, given that my question really is... So the biggest cost for us is our development application appeals? Yes, sure. So will that aid in that? So in terms of the legal Council position, that position was never intended to work on specific things like development appeals because they are a kind of very unique niche kind unique niche kind of claim and so that falls outside the remit as does a few other things like the plan is independent and those sorts of things so they will not be dealt with specifically with the legal council. The legal council was engaged basically with a more generic council advice. It might be reviewing the contracts, drafting the MOUs, those sorts of things with the view of actually reducing the cost over time. think as that legal council has come on board, they've, you know, probably done more of a review of existing documents and templates and working with staff to understand their responsibilities and the areas that we might be lacking. So I wouldn't necessarily state that we've seen a massive decrease in our costs for legal, but certainly there has been an increase in terms of managing the risk to council, things that may have been overlooked or not maybe scrutinised as much as they may have, should have Frank Wilkie 45:29.137
So we need to reframe the benefit that we're expecting from the on-board legal council Pauline 45:36.937
And I think with only six months into it it's hard to say longer term what that might look like but I think within the first 12 months it's really going to be more of this mitigation and improvement of the quality of what we have. Amelia Lorentson 45:48.009
And that's the hard part when you're just reading the document and reading $400,000 below budget it's about how do we put a monetary value into risk mitigation and reputational damage and I think that exceeds the $400,000 and below budget. Pauline 46:06.527
So I know that the team are looking at maybe doing a workshop with council to work through with you what they have been delivering and things that they have put in place so I believe that is coming to council to have a look at so that it have a look at, so that it better explains what sort of things I don't cover and what they're good at working on at the moment. Brian Stockwell 46:23.025
So, I'll follow up to another one, specific and legal. In the GemLife case, the judge gave the indication that because of the impolence seeking of a deferment, that some costs would be eligible to be claimed for that deferral. Have we seen the benefit of that as yet, or is that still-- I might give that to Richard, because I might give away that at the moment. Richard MacGillivray 46:47.984
Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, so we are just going through a cost analysis assessment process, so that is likely to be to be settled in this financial year, early this financial year, so it hasn't been captured as part of last financial year. So there should be potentially a bit more coming into next year. So while we're over this financial year, that refund, refund, will well those that cost costs awarded are likely to bring back close to what we anticipate. Correct. Because it's a very expensive process. Pauline 47:19.144
But as we always, when we talk about legal costs, it is really, particularly debt developments, it really is dependent on what kind of like cases are up and what, how complex they are. So it's hard to actually. Other questions? Frank Wilkie 47:31.160
You received a letter the other day from the Commonwealth Grants Commission saying that the federal allocation for the federal assistance grants is going to be, has been increased. Do we have any idea of what our allocation may increase? So in terms of financial assistance, so the financial assistance grant that comes from the Commonwealth and is distributed by the State. Yeah. Our allocation actually is going down. What? Correct. So there was a change You received a letter the Pauline 47:56.770
A change in methodology in how the government applies and allocates those funding. We were notified a couple of years ago that we would have a decrease and we have seen a decrease. Frank Wilkie 48:05.470
I didn't read that in the letter they sent. So it generally gets more directed to regional councils where they have a larger net growth network and rely more on grants and the more financially sustainable councils. Tom Wegener 48:27.780
I guess that there is a price to be paid for being successful. Frank Wilkie 48:32.320
Financially sustainable, yes. Amelia Lorentson 48:35.340
In terms of the breakdown of legal expenditure by type, I'm guessing this may be sort of captured in a workshop for lean, but are we actually deep diving into that data and sort of reading what does that say about our workplace culture? I'm looking at industrial relations advice falling really low, so does that correlate to high workplace culture? I'm looking at development application appeals, planning scheme. amendments. As I read that property and lease costs, is that an indicator of current health of the economy? Like is that information going to be looked at or am I just looking too deep? through I think it's more of an indication of the types of work that we're undertaking at what point in time. So, for example, the council, you mentioned a workplace fire. The council is about to undertake a new certified agreement process. We would be seeking to support that with additional legal advice. If we're undertaking a planning scheme amendment or we had feedback in relation to that planning scheme amendment, that would then legal advice. So it's probably more reflective of the cycles we're at in the organisation, where we're at with leases, et cetera, et cetera, more than an organisational sustainability health perspective. So I think through the deep dive we can probably just reflect back on how we present which cycles the organisation is on from a business perspective. Tom Wegener 50:20.180
One little question concerning waste operations and and then that the standards meaning that you know you can't you have to go to be competitive among you know but but there's so few places to take your your waste resource recovery centres there's give me there's such a good is it is it hard to actually get a benchmark Kim Rawlings 50:43.389
The national competition policy pricing is about ensuring that as we set our price based on our costs it's not about benchmarking to other to other organizations that's obviously part of it the primary part is making sure that what we charge is the appropriate full cost of the service not so much what it might cost competitively in the market and that's part of the discussion. The main thing is making sure that when we price our business, it's the true cost of the business. Pauline 51:13.046
We do actually look at other councils for the priorities to recover our costs and provide a return on our benefits. that we have provided to a return on our investment in assets into that particular business. But we obviously can only forecast based on what we know. And then if we get more waste or less waste or we have more cost savings, then we'll do better than we originally forecast. Tom Wegener 51:31.834
I think it's the reason to preface this We're going to be talking waste strategy soon and so it seems like because we are going to be very ambitious with our goals with our waste strategy, the cost may be going up now to cover the future where we could just charge less and then run ourselves into a bigger problem later. Kim Rawlings 51:51.142
And everyone's business is at a different stage of their maturity in dealing or just In terms of what they need to invest to make their business run effectively. different process requirements. So it does differ significantly between local government areas and how they benefit. Frank Wilkie 52:11.887
In recent years we've seen unprecedented increases in unimproved capital value for properties. There's the cost of living pressures that people are Looking at the rates and arrears, you do a 12-month retrospective and the thing I can't tell from this is, is there an increase in Kim Rawlings 52:46.329
Well, it's only a 12-month look here, but it's very low, it's like 5% average. So there is that overtime payment arrangement put in place. So we're not seeing a long-term significant increase. Where you might see marginal increases, it's very low value, is the accumulation of the small accumulation of the small subset of property owners that are struggling to pay, as that arrears, may not be managed and is getting bigger. We're not seeing a significant change in that at this point. Frank Wilkie 53:27.209
No, because over the last few years it seems to be hovering around the same amount, just under 5% or slightly over 5%. Kim Rawlings 53:34.449
Which is our internal benchmark, because there's no statutory... There's no statutory benchmark on that, but 5% is our target in terms of affordability and sustainable level of properties. Pauline 53:44.646
So this time last year it was 5.4% compared to 5.6%, but it could be different factors as well. Karen Finzel 53:54.526
Looking at the statement of financial position... property, plant and equipment was quite a bit lower than had been anticipated. Is that because of the capital works that haven't been completed? Pauline 54:06.318
Correct, and also part of the QRA disaster program. So that program of works has also contributed to that as well as our general capital program. So as those works come through the following year that will pump up our property plans and balances. mouses. Amelia Lorentson 54:24.240
In terms of consultancy costs, thank you for the breakdown. I requested that and I also understand we're going to have a workshop to delve deeper into consultancy, understanding it. One question, have we benchmarked our consultancy costs against other councils of similar size and tier? Pauline 54:48.579
No, we haven't done a benchmarking against any council. It may be a little difficult because not every council reports particularly that expenditure at that level. We do tend to give you a bit more brand in the details, so we can certainly have a look at what's available, but no, not currently we don't. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 55:07.888
Would anyone like to move the recommendation? Councillor Wilson. And the seconder, Councillor. Would you like to stick to the motion, Councillor Wilson? Jessica Phillips 55:18.428
No. Thank you for the report, excellent report. Brian Stockwell 55:22.019
Would anyone else like to? Frank Wilkie 55:24.139
Just to say thank you, the reports get more and more detailed as, according to the council requests, you have no problem adding the information that we request, so thank you very much. It's a big and interesting read every month. Brian Stockwell 55:41.460
Okay, I'll put the motion. All in favour? And Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 55:47.000
Yes. Brian Stockwell 55:48.180
That's unanimous. And our next report is going to go to... something that can't believe the it. A Recycling and Renewables Hub Master Plan. Stage 1 content. And if we can bring in the Acting Director and the Acting Manager, Kyrone and Mark, and the report author. future of the Triumvirate of Scandals needs to be taken into consideration. Frank Wilkie 56:22.551
Kyrone, are you the acting, acting? I'm acting for the acting, yes. Good to get that clear. Councillors, this report seeks Council endorsement of stage one concept master plan for the development of the Noosa Council Resource Recovery Centre into a recycling and renewables hub. This master plan is split into two stages with only stage one being considered today. The concept master follows the actions and themes from two key strategic documents for Noosa Council. The corporate plan which highlights as a signature project transforming waste management practices and diverting 90% green and food food waste from landfill. And the 2023 from waste to resource plan which provides a vision that by 2035 Noosa will be a recognised leader in the transition towards a circular economy and zero waste to landfill. The development of the waste plan involved a two-part consultation process last year through February and August with the final plan endorsed in October 2023. Projects outlined within the concept master plan were included in the consultation of the endorsed plan. A key theme in our waste plan is around infrastructure development. As As without the right infrastructure in place, the key targets and goals and visions in these strategic documents won't be realised. The team has undergone significant research, benchmarking universally, and applied an engineering focus supported by an engineering consultant that's informed the concept master plan design. on, he Key projects included in stage one of the master plan include a transfer station upgrade, current design is over 20 years old, and there's been a transformational shift in priorities in the waste industry, from the waste legislation with the waste levy, and the volumes of waste that we're seeing come through our site, which is shown in figure one of the report. This This has downstream impacts on our traffic and other operational issues on site. The upgrade will also look at the relocation of Reviva social enterprise on site, the shop there, to a section of land at the entry the entry of the site immediately on the left, shown in Figure 2 of the report. This will open up the existing transfer station and reviver area to enable a modern design of the transfer station and maximise opportunities for diversion, improved tacking improve traffic flow and future proof the site. Another project is a compost facility transferring green waste into high-value organic product which can then be utilised by council crews, local farms, landscape businesses. So this is a joint initiative with Gympie Council and an advanced landfill capping and solar farm seeking to offset council's power needs and provide renewable energy for the precinct. The capping improves environmental outcomes and by reducing emissions and extends the landfill's lifespan. So some key considerations for today. So the additional land required for the transfer station upgrade for the relocation of Reviva. Approximately 0.5 hectares of land within the existing site. This is between the Aniwae Depot and Eumundi Noosa Road. So this is a strategic design decision and a critical first step for the broader success of the project. Improving traffic flow so customers can turn left as they enter the site, taking pressure off the transfer station and the wave rig which has queues. time to time it will minimise disruption to operations with the staged implementation of the transfer station works and it will avoid impacting on the clean away depot which has future operational requirements in contractual So the next steps would be for council to lodge a code accessible development application for the relocation of the Reviva shop, the transfer station proposed new layout, and a new a new compost processing operational area. And then this would come back to Council towards the end of 2024, later this year. Another key consideration is for the renewable energy facility or solar farm element of the master This will require a separate use, requiring impact accessible development application and public notification. So again, this will come back to Council for a final decision as part of the DA process. Funding for the transfer station upgrade and solar components of this precinct will be sought through the federal regional precincts and partnership program. So applications for this grant are time sensitive and delays to approvals of this concept master plan and concept as well. So there's funding opportunities available for us that we are pursuing. So the recommendation before you today is to note the report by the waste project coordinator, Chelsea, to the general committee meeting regarding the recycling and renewables hub master plan provided attachment one to the report. To note the benefits and opportunities associated with the proposed development of the recycling and renewables hub and to approve stage one concept of the recycling and renewables hub master plan pending funding. plan, pending funding and development approvals, inclusive of section A, which is subject to code accessible development approval that I referred to earlier, and inclusive of the solar site, which is subject to impact accessible development approval and public notification process. Just a timing question Mark, is it required that these DA development applications have to be in and assessed before you can apply for this grant? Mark 01:02:14.751
Not in and assessed, but in, so we'll move the processes concurrently with the application, so lodged Frank Wilkie 01:02:21.791
Yes. And we've discussed previously about changes that have to happen out of this facility because of safety reasons. Does that involve safety at the transfer station itself, like the area available to do these works of people? Potential conflict, machinery, so it's essential that this work be done from a regulation perspective. Kyrone Dodd 01:02:47.012
Yeah, and the new design will alleviate a lot of those conflicts with people, plant, machinery. And just the sheer volume of people we currently have coming through the site provides, you know, safety issues itself and traffic backed up in Noosa Road at the Wade Bridge. So through this process we'll be looking as a criteria to alleviate those risks. Kim Rawlings 01:03:13.105
Can you... I was just going to say that that graph, I think it's figure one, that shows volumes that are coming through that RRA pad. The volume of traffic, the volume of material that we're moving into that area is expanding. So I think that just gives clue as to what the health and safety implications are for a design that was 20 years old. Frank Wilkie 01:03:57.466
And the grand opportunity for this transformative concept is... Can you say how large the grant is that we'll be applying for? Kyrone Dodd 01:04:08.351
So the grant that we'll be going for through the federal grant is up to 50 million. So we'll be looking at that. And then there's other funding opportunities through ComSec that we're looking at, particularly for the compost project. Frank Wilkie 01:04:22.471
Will we be applying for 50 million? Kyrone Dodd 01:04:25.251
That's the intent, yes. Kim Rawlings 01:04:28.437
I think there's a, yeah, we will put projects through. The grant process is, I guess, a process in itself, and the application is a process in itself. We're identifying a couple of projects within this list, like solar and the transfer station, and they're in that window, between 5 and 50. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:57.300
I'd like to move an amendment. Oh, excuse me. In that case, I'd like to move the motion with an amendment, if that's possible. Thank you. Yeah, I can read that. Thank you. So that Council A note the report by the waste project coordinator to the general meeting date of 15 July 2024 regarding the recycle. recycling and renewables hub master plan provided at attachment one to the report. B note the benefits and opportunities associated with the proposed development of the recycling and renewable hub. C approve stage one concept of the recycling and renewables hub master plan pending funding and development approvals of one inclusive of section A which is subject to code assessable development approval. Two inclusive of solar site which is subject to impact assessment development approval and public notification and D this is the part I've added agrees to provide an extended public notification period associated with the proposed impact assessment development application for the solar site. Frank Wilkie 01:06:39.618
Has that impact on our capacity to meet the time frame for applying for the grant if it was an extended time frame? Kim Rawlings 01:06:49.338
I think it depends on the extension so we probably need to understand the extent of that extension and whether that needs to be decided in this meeting or not I'm unsure. What did you have in mind? How many weeks? Amelia Lorentson 01:07:03.756
I've spoken to both Kyrone and Richard briefly just before the meeting so I think where I was sitting was I thought it would be given the climate at the Subtitles In community in terms of community consultation and feedback. When an application comes to council, the opportunity, if anyone wanted to have a look at engineering reports or any associated reports. At the moment we've got a public notification which is 15 days. My understanding is with public notification periods we can extend that period and it could be 20 days, an extra five days. So it's just allowing people the opportunity review. Frank Wilkie 01:07:47.796
But not an extra four weeks? No, no, no, just an extension because I think there will be technical, engineering, financial reporting. Did you want to specify? Amelia Lorentson 01:08:00.806
Yes, I'm happy to, but I just got that one on advice just before the meeting started. Frank Wilkie 01:08:07.466
I agree, given that we haven't got a second of this. Kim Rawlings 01:08:10.726
So it agrees to provide an extra four weeks. extra 20 days, 20 business days, which is four weeks. Amelia Lorentson 01:08:18.955
So 20 days. Frank Wilkie 01:08:19.715
It agrees to provide 20 business days public notification. Oh, sorry, it's already in there. Amelia Lorentson 01:08:26.195
No, I just typed it in. Oh, yeah. Which is in addition to five days, one And that's not going to affect the timing for the grant? No. That's great. I'll second it. I'll second it, Cathy. Jessica Phillips 01:08:38.252
Can I just clarify, that won't impact the chances of all the timing for the grant? Kim Rawlings 01:08:43.852
No. No, because it would be the DA's... I'll just say extra. I think... No, it's Amelia Lorentson 01:08:49.729
Just 20 business days. No extra. Just... Provide. Jessica Phillips 01:09:06.831
Period of 20 days of 20 days couldn't we just then get of and extend it and just say agrees to provide public notification period? Yeah well that would then it sounds like you could potentially be having 20 extra days. Karen Finzel 01:09:20.272
Yeah. Couldn't we just amend C2 and public notifications? Brian Stockwell 01:09:24.492
No it hasn't been seconded. I've seconded it. I have now Amelia Lorentson 01:09:27.292
Yeah. He did before. Can I acknowledge that? Brian Stockwell 01:09:30.132
Pardon? Amelia Lorentson 01:09:32.052
So given it's minor can I just request the removal of the word extended? It is. No, no, it's not the removal of the word extended, it's the council. So are we all happy with that word to be removed? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Please. Karen Finzel 01:09:47.126
Okay. Brian Stockwell 01:09:52.466
Ms. Lorentson, it's your floor to speak to the motion. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:56.426
Just to ensure that the community have an We have an extra week to understand and review all associated reports that are linked to, in particular, the solar farm and have an opportunity to provide any input. But I wanted to commend the waste team. So I will speak to the motion. Commend the waste team. This is, as you said, 20 years overdue and we need to take action now. Opportunities in front of us right now with funding. So it would be remiss of us not to pounce on this. So thank you for the incredible work for wasting. Yeah, and I think a big kudos goes to Chelsea who's done a lot of the work here. I've got a question. Brian Stockwell 01:10:55.514
I don't think I've read it. We had a nice picture of the potential extent of the solar array. Have we got a ballpark of what the output may be? Kim Rawlings 01:11:04.574
It's above three megawatts and below five. below five, yes. So until you get to detailed design, we won't know the absolute number, but it's in that range. And for people who may wish to compete, do we know what the central and coastal solar farm is? I think it's below five. it's below five, I believe. I wouldn't put my name to that, okay. Jessica Phillips 01:11:30.216
I have a question, please, about compost site. I've never been so interested in waste management. Can you tell me, just for the general household, what circular economy and what this compost site, what, tell me how that will look for our residents, I guess. Mark 01:11:51.251
Yeah, so currently we've got a process with our green waste, so green waste being the kerbside green bins and self-haul residential and commercial green waste. So we've got a processing place to segregate Terms of waste processing and technology, and the intent would be to put it through a bit more of a rigorous process, not just shredding it, but it actually goes through a process of maturation and other technical things, and bagged at the end, and then it's a bit more of a sellable product. for the community, and so then we'll be looking with that product to use it in our council facilities, goes to farms for use, or back into landscaping business, and that's where the waste comes in as a waste, it gets processed, and it gets reused out in the community as a product, and that's that circular economy that we're looking to achieve through all our waste streams where possible to try and generate the challenge is the market at the end and making sure that we've got a market for that product to go out go back out the gate because without that market you're left with stockpiles there and that's gives it gives us other headaches so what we're trying to do with all of our operations is to generate that circular economy with the waste streams coming in. Does that help? Jessica Phillips 01:13:38.794
So with this, I can see, like, over it's working, it's financially working for us, do we ever envision that maybe just a general resident that does a tip run once a week, oh sorry, once a year... would ever get, you know, a reduction in their tip fees or anything that could potentially, if we're looking at this being a really good financial decision for us, would... Kim Rawlings 01:14:08.578
I think personally what is happening in waste across Australia and the world is they're actually making waste more expensive. In general, if you look into Europe, the landfill levy over So the general trend will be levies will go up and that's just to deter the landfill, Jessica Phillips 01:15:02.600
Would then be seen to... Kim Rawlings 01:15:17.276
You know, currently this financial, last financial year, sorry, we diverted 52% of the total tonnage that we've had in our control. And you can see that from that graph, the last three or four years we are increasing. So, we've managed to keep our levies, or our levies to the public. There's plenty low considering probably what other councils are doing. I couldn't speak to benchmarking that, but I would guess that that's the case. Because we, our levy that we would attract through the public, we're actually We work in education, that's their role, and we take schools through, but it's also with the general public. Mark 01:16:08.049
I think part of these projects, if it's compost or whatever it is, there'll be an element of education and behaviour change to it, so there'll be targeted education programs that go hand in hand Kim Rawlings 01:16:25.214
We've got some good support there, you know, Tourism Noosa with, you know, Plastic Free Noosa and all that sort of stuff, but they'll be a very good organisation to hang on to to help us with the agri-charging. Frank Wilkie 01:16:38.654
Would it be fair to say that with all these initiatives in place, they will put pressure on what we could charge for each person bringing materials in? Kim Rawlings 01:16:49.753
In time, potentially, but I wouldn't like to say that right now because we are against fighting a levy. It's a state-sourced, externally imposed levy. And it would depend on the materials that is in that trailer. Exactly. It's a high proportion of recyclables or green ones, for example. Most recyclables that the public bring in now, it's free in general. Any metal, cardboard, all those elements are free for us to, free for for the public to dispose of. I think what this does is try and make that easier. At the moment, our infrastructure is set up for the ease to put it into the landfill, not the ease to recycle. That's the difference. Frank Wilkie 01:17:38.734
And could you talk about the necessity of working with Gympie to make the compost facility work? and could you talk Kim Rawlings 01:17:45.454
Like most waste projects, it comes down to an economic size, particularly when you start to talk about processing. between us and Gympie we probably have that number covered, about 20,000 tonnes for the compost site to be viable. So the relationship in part of the CompSec ComSec agreement for funding is that collaboration, so we've collaborated heavily with Gympie over the last year and a half, two years, and I think there's further benefits for Noosa and also Gympie in that collaborative effect in terms of removing waste from one place to the other, backhauling of logistics and saving logistics. And infrastructure being more suitable for other areas than Noosa because of geographical constraints, layout, location to roads, all that sort of stuff comes into play. So that relationship and the proximity to us I think will lead us to build an advantageous position in the future. Karen Finzel 01:18:50.580
For the location for Reviva, is that bigger than we currently have? It's actually marginally smaller than the existing space. what it will allow us to do is actually to optimise the layout so we can actually utilise the space a little bit better, have better traffic flow for how you're dropping off your goods. If you want to come to the site, drop off some goods. And leave, you don't have to enter the overage queue. There's a lot more improvements in design. It's not a much smaller site. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:19:25.629
When will the works to relocate the high efficiency sedimentation basin occur? Kim Rawlings 01:19:32.766
So it's due to occur in the winter of next year. So it will straddle two budgets. And I think all our works on site in general going forward is taking the view that our works need to be included in that winter months. And that's because of the drought obviously. Working on a landfill in the rain is not ideal, we have other constraints, so we're trying to target our workloads in that period. And that's a slight change in mentality over the last couple of years, but that's how we're trying to structure forward. it should pay dividends, but that's the target for the kind of years next year. Frank Wilkie 01:20:13.001
So with the timing of the grant, let's assume it's successful, when would these works be likely to commence? if you're going, if you're successful. Kim Rawlings 01:20:23.596
It would depend on which elements got in first. Yeah, so obviously we've got two grants, we've got the Comsec for the compost and then we've got the regional one for potentially solar and the transfer station. The others we are self-funding through our capital-funding through our capital works so we can plan those as for next year ASAP and that will be the intention because they are compliance related projects yes some of the others including including the solar, they involve capping. So we will need to make a decision at some point, but the project itself in terms of the technical layout of that capping is probably a lot less work than what our traditional capping methods are. Brian Stockwell 01:21:11.940
Questions or someone wants to talk to it? Tom Wegener 01:21:13.480
I'll speak to it. Sometimes you wonder... Excuse me, I'll just have a question. Oh yeah, sorry, Karen. Karen Finzel 01:21:19.480
Oh, sorry, were you proceeding with a question, Councillor? Brian Stockwell 01:21:22.600
No, Councillor Finzel is deferred to you, so you can now ask your question. Karen Finzel 01:21:27.160
Okay, thank Okay, thank you. I just have a question regarding the preliminary and vital environmental assessment report, noting that some of the vegetation on the site, to be cleared, includes three scribbly gums that contain hollows and are estimated at 80 plus years of age. When we come to clearing of this site, is there a way that we can protect these trees? Mark 01:21:56.051
Councillor, yes, definitely. So we'll work with key stakeholders, including our environmental team, Reviva, on opportunities as part of the design for the Reviva, noting that is currently a lot of open space in the Reviva. It's not just a whole footprint made of shed or a slab. So where feasible, we'll be looking to retain those scribbly gums, as well as provide a 10 metre buffer from the Eumundi Noosa Road. So yes, we'll definitely be taking that into consideration as part of the design. Tom Wegener 01:22:42.980
When do you celebrate a project? Because the end goes on forever. And then it begins here. And there's there's benchmarks along the way. Well, I think that that today is actually quite an opportunity to celebrate the master plan here, because it's a really big deal. It's probably the biggest legacy from the last council, is the waste strategy, and I think it might be the biggest legacy from this council. The continuation of the development of the waste resource recovery centre. I think that it's a bummer, the removal of some of the trees. Hopefully we'll save those squiggly gums, but safety is very, very important, and as you know, it's getting More cars are going through. We have to accommodate that, because not only do you have to accommodate the continued growth of it, but you're going to be remaking everything in the first place. So it makes perfect sense that you have to be very, very reasonable about your space in order to be successful, and to get it done as quickly as you can, you need space. space. The previous question I asked was about charging more and trying to offset the opportunity cost because the opportunity costs of not doing it are infinite. Incredibly expensive to do nothing. The do little or do nothing cost is so huge that it's unthinkable almost. So to transfer some of that cost now through the opportunity costs I think is actually a good idea and it is reasonable. I think that the success of this program so far has a lot to do with the two of them bringing the kids through to the site, opening up the site. Lots of people hopped on those buses and I understand that they were completely at capacity and our own council going out there numerous times. The Tourism Noosa being involved you know extensively with the the composting that they keep plastic free. Yeah all that really adds up up to a successful program. So I think that it's a celebration, Dave, to even be able to get to this point and pass the master plan today. It's a big, big step forward. So congratulations. Thank you very much, team. Looking Frank Wilkie 01:25:08.152
Look, Councillor Wegener has said it. This is a transformative project. It's been long awaited. It will have social, economic and environmental benefits. We really need to do it to get up to speed with what's happening in the rest of the world. We need to take better responsibility for our waste. The through the two phases of the community consultation last year really endorsed us going in this direction. It's an innovative direction but it's much needed and it's necessary and thanks to the staff for identifying the opportunity, doing Brian Stockwell 01:26:08.480
I just need to get what to say and even though you wouldn't expect me to be old, I recall the debate when we first introduced these green things on wheels and it took a while to get them up and running. I remember one councillor saying how long has that wheelie been and it's been the same thing for this. We've been talking this, we've been talking about some of these concepts for a long time. I remember a meeting back in probably 2016, 2017 on Solver and at that stage it wasn't practical to use them with capping and now what we're looking at is potentially Australia first. Methodology to both cap and get better capture of methane as well as generate renewable energy. That is very exciting, you know, the transition to a renewable energy system is on par with the transition to a circular economy. We're in a position where no one's really quite sure whether the heavy vehicle The concept of this is really important for the community to get their head around because the word transformational had been used and in feedback on the Destination Management Plan and regarding waste, that was what was required when went into the waste plan. It talked about, you know, there was strong support for the political page that, you know, the cost of dumping rubbish should be equal to the cost and, you know, it's hundreds of dollars per cubic metre to provide landfill. And what this layer does is try and reduce the amount that goes to landfill by giving several options as you go through the resource recovery centre to offload those things that can be reused, recycled and revalued. So it is a big step. The other thing The other thing is, I suppose we haven't made enough of, is that solar farms and composting facilities are multi-million dollar investments, and what this report is generated by is the opportunity to gain both state and federal funding of many millions of dollars. It's an opportunity too good to turn down. there we know we've heard of we've heard about the State levy part of that state levy is being funneled into the big bucket of money given to the SEQ council as a mayor to run these big scale waste infrastructure projects so we have to acknowledge that yes there is increasing levy to try and change behaviour for the real cost of waste to be considered but there is also a funding cycle coming back from the State to the State to address and to at least in part offset that revenue over raise. So that's important and we wish you well and I won't be celebrating until I see the dollar signs coming in. It is a good step and it is an exciting opportunity to you know when we look at stage two of actually moving on to generating know new businesses and new economic opportunity out of the waste stream so we think very differently from the days when you could go to the dump and load a few things in the back of your nd you can have by a little bit of scavenging. writing Karen Finzel 01:29:53.726
Fact, 91% of respondents want waste managed in a manner that doesn't create problems for future generations. That was just one insight from the 828 surveys that were received over Phase 1 and 2, a consultation. So I think the community has spoken quite loudly and clearly that they are for looking for looking to make sure that our waste is managed in a sustainable way for future generations. I want to just thank all the staff and the community and everyone who's been involved, moving forward with us towards this vision to the future. And I'm looking forward to seeing this come to pass. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:30:39.862
I won't repeat what's already been said but I do want to stress this is unusable land that we're looking at transforming into a solar farm. I don't think think that's been raised but it's a really important part of this narrative and you know for the last term of the council and beginning of this council we keep talking about how we're going to diversify our economy. This is staring at us right in the face and you know from efficiencies to economic benefits, environmental benefits, we've all discussed around the table, this is the opportunity. This is it. opportunity for us to be leaders. Reducing greenhouse emissions, attracting businesses and also... Also, social and cultural benefits, and I say that because it's these sorts of projects that unite us as a community. This is stuff we can be proud of. These are legacy developments. Legacy projects. And without saying any more, I do want to finish on a quote. "Waste isn't waste unless it's wasted." And this is really great. you know, great way to simplify that quote. Thanks, guys. Excellent work. Okay. Brian Stockwell 01:32:12.403
I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? And Councillor Finzel? Yes. And that's unanimous. Thank you. Now, councillors, we've been going for an hour and a half. Are we willing to proceed or have a five-minute break? So we will return. Okay, councillors, we're going back onto the camera. Okay, welcome back. We move on to item 6.3, which is a range of proposed motions that are to go to the LGAQ for consideration for the upcoming conference. I'll move it. We're moving the motions. And it's seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Would you like to talk to the motion? Sure. Frank Wilkie 01:32:54.995
These are motions put together by councillors and council staff to be sent to the LGAQ and their policy executive motion subcommittee will then look at them, have a look to see if there's any replication with other councils motions. They'll look to see if it's similar or not to other motions that have been moved in the past and they'll make the decision as to whether they'll be forwarded to the conference which the LGAQ annual conference which will be held in Brisbane in October and debated on Amelia Lorentson 01:33:43.540
Sorry, through the chair, are we not going through each individual motion like we normally do? Brian Stockwell 01:33:50.560
Not that you may talk to individual ones if you like. Amelia Lorentson 01:33:55.384
I'll speak to the three that I submitted for endorsement today. The first is establishing big councils, where big stands for believe in good, a workplace giving program. And rather than reading the actual motion, which is available online, I'm just going to give you a quick just overview. But the idea came after... attended the Red Shield appeal fundraiser a few weeks back and was inspired by the fundraiser plus the speaker, Rod McKeogh. I walked out with a simple question what can I do and what can we do to create meaningful change and I reflected and remembered something that I had initiated in the 90s in career down in New South Wales and it was a workplace giving program where staff all contributed a small one dollar voluntary contribution on a weekly basis. pay on a weekly basis? And then that was given to a charitable organisation and that small contribution had a big impact when you multiply by a lot of employees. So I considered what that would look like on a local level and then on a state level and the potential is really quite big. So my motion basically puts to the LGAQ to support councils to establish a big council or workplace giving program. Through the creation of a consistent framework. The framework should include guidelines for setting up workplace giving programs for local government employees, mayor and councillors. The framework for selecting eligible charities. And the framework for administering the contributions and funds. Again, voluntary. And I would love, you know, the idea of Noosa Council could be the first council become a big council. Where again, big stands for believe in good. Another motion that I'm hoping for support today is... motions that supports wastewater recycling and diversion initiatives and it's basically, I'm getting a little bit more specific so rather than repeating what I bring to LGAQ every year and ALGA every year in terms of wastewater recycling and diversion targets, this one's a little This one's a little bit more specific and I'm actually asking for funding for alternative treatment option trials such as the bi-solid gasification project down in Logan. In an ideal world again where I'd love to go with this is for Noosa to get funding for a trial similar to the bi-solid gasification. Again, details are in the report. The third motion came about after attending ALGA in Canberra, probably a a week or two weeks ago. At this stage, local governments across Australia have no representation on the Ministerial Housing Council. think it's the only ministerial council that don't have a seat in it and it's probably, you know, really important and so my motion requests that LGAQ advocate advocate for LGA to be a full member of the Housing Ministerial Council and the idea is that we don't have a one-size-fits-all approach to our housing issues and that governments, just our planning powers, aren't undermined and that we need tailored solutions that reflect our economic ecosystems. So this was really that important and came out I sat on the short-term accommodation round table and it was a concern that was repeated. Throughout all the councils in Australia in fact it was included a motion similar to the one that I had in front of us was included as a special business agenda because of its urgency and it was a last-minute inclusion in the ALGA conference. So again I hope this gets support. Thank you. else wish to talk? Karen Finzel 01:39:03.360
Thank you. Just a quick overview of my motion. It follows on from our conversations today around creating waste into a resource. I'm seeking an alignment of specifications for recovered products and infrastructure projects. I'm calling upon LGAQ to undertake a comprehensive review into the end of waste criteria for resource recovery products against the specification for materials used used in federal, state and local infrastructure projects. With this review, hopefully it will encourage the use of recycled materials into roads, for example. At the moment, these specifications do create somewhat of a barrier to getting best use out of recycled materials, and we don't want councils left with stockpiles of material that has the potential to be recycled and reused as a resource. Currently, there is an identified or perceived gap between the specifications required for materials to be used in state and local infrastructure projects and the resource recovery products such as crushed concrete and specifications to meet the criteria for use in these types of projects. This request aligns with the strategic objective of the government with the State development goals including responsible consumption and production, sustainable cities and communities and good health and well-being so thank you for listening and I'm hoping that we get great support at the conference for this. motion. Thank you. I'll talk to a couple that have been put forward by staff. The first is on STA activity and that was put forward by Richard MacGillivray that the LGAQ advocates the State Government of Queensland to legislate that share economy platforms and providers such as Airbnb, Booking.com and Stays and STA The second one has been put forward by Kim Rawlings, and that was the revision of Energex dynamic network storage tariffs. So this one is the LGAQ calls on the State government to direct Energy Queensland to review and revise its dynamic network storage tariff as its recent tariff structure statement. Currently under assessment by the Australian Energy Regulator for the next regulatory control period. So this is about the tariffs that are currently coming in that will make a community battery not viable for the community. Brian Stockwell 01:42:36.300
I'll follow on with that yeah. The one you just mentioned is I think a particularly significant suggestion in that what the current proposed before the Australian Energy Regulator for Queensland is at odds with what other states are doing. If we really are serious as local, state and federal governments to make the transition to a low carbon economy, the The investment in that in terms of risk and reward is in my opinion far less than a concept of actually providing incentives within the tariff structure for a technology that exists that allows a distributed network rather than a continuation of the concept of centralised power supply and as was pointed out. from. The investment in that in terms of risk and reward is in my opinion far less than a concept of actually providing incentives within the tariff structure for a technology that exists that allows a distributed network rather than a continuation of the concept of centralised power supply and as was pointed out. These community batteries can really address some of the critical failings in the coal-fired power network in terms of where we have those critical peaks and in other states where the brain outs are occurring so community batteries can be programmed in such a way as to really reduce the risk to the whole network so I think that's a particularly important one to get the government to influence the State-owned corporation here and hopefully also at the same time the Australian Energy Regulator and similarly the SPA I think it was Drucker who said if you can't measure it you can't manage it and one of the big significant issues we've got as local government is we're trying to manage these spread of short-term accommodation without access to reliable data. We're finding through our compliance process that the scraping we do of the internet isn't as accurate as we hoped and we're in fact finding that as a result of sending out hundreds and hundreds of letters to people we've identified as potentially having short-term accommodation that some of those are out of date and not accurate at the moment. So this is one where as Brisbane has gone down the same line as we have in terms of the link between short-term accommodation in the planning scheme and having the local law, they've joined with us to put this motion up and I think that adds weight to the argument. else? Tom Wegener 01:45:15.605
I'll speak to it. These are exceptionally brilliant motions, so good luck to the team going down to the conference. Yeah, Mayor Wilkie for presenting these. I think that you're the one that presents these. I would actually like to see these in the press because they are very, very smart, and I'm hoping that Ken isn't that Ken isn't here right now, but I'm hoping that these are all in the paper somewhere and put out in the media because I think they're a very good reflection of this council. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:48.183
Through the Chair, there is another motion that no one's spoken to. Did you want to speak to that? Chair, motion C, attachment 3. Brian Stockwell 01:45:57.903
Does that mean the one that Councillor Wilkie put up? Amelia Lorentson 01:46:00.943
Yeah, no one's spoken to that one. All the other motions have been spoken to. Frank Wilkie 01:46:06.963
I can cover that. Sure. will mean I'm closing. Brian Stockwell 01:46:14.480
No you don't. I have a question. Yes. You put up a motion. Could you give me some information on that please? Certainly. Bearing in mind that all these motions, with this motion we're debating at the moment, if it's approved it means all these motions become the motions of the Noosa Council to to be be forwarded forwarded to the LGAQ for consideration. There's motion C is that the LGAQ calls on the State Government to amend the Queensland Electoral Act or relevant legislation to ensure how to vote cards issued at elections by third parties are fact checked and properly authorised just as how to vote cards are for registered candidates and this flows from this flows from a the recent local government elections where we had third parties issuing how to vote cards with preferred candidates with information on the how to vote cards which didn't didn't have to be fact checked by the Electoral Commission of Queensland like registered candidates did. Feedback from a lot of electors was that they found a lot of this information misleading and confronting and the Electoral Commission of Queensland also required anyone who wished to hand out electoral material within the confines of a booth that they have control over that they also have a responsibility to ensure that all material there is fact checked just as registered candidates do. Hence the term levelling the Thank you. I think everyone's talked now, so you wish to close? Frank Wilkie 01:47:50.980
Yeah, as I said before, what we're agreeing to here today, councillors, is for this all these motions to go to the LGAQ for their policy executive subcommittee, motions subcommittee, to have a look at. They'll make the decision as to whether or not they proceed to the conference for debate. And perhaps, And perhaps, Councillor Stockwell, when we hear back from the LGAQ whether they've been accepted or not, that would be a good opportunity to do some press about the motions that we are actually taking to the conference. But they are all very very good quality motions. I agree. And yeah, I don't think that anyone's going to vote against this motion, but I'll leave it at that. Brian Stockwell 01:48:39.644
Okay, I'll put the light... I'll put the light to... I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? And Councillor Finzel? Yes. That's unanimous. We now move on to the next item, which is planning applications decided by Delegated Authority, and we have the Manager of Developmental Control, Patrick Murphy. Patrick, would you like to give us a brief overview? I should note, generally at this point we have a range of conflicts of interest to be declared, and councils will note that the reporting format has been changed, so the applicants have been de-identified. But if anyone is aware that they have a conflict, it's still your responsibility to note it. Okay. Patrick Murphy 01:49:29.564
You're correct, councillor, we have changed the formatting to make it more efficient for our staff. There's been a considerable amount of time preparing the report, so we take the feedback. If you would like to see the applicant... see the applicant name moving forward, we could include that. Brian Stockwell 01:49:44.163
For me, I think it's a good idea not to say it, because then we're unaware of the conflict, because we're only noting it. Frank Wilkie 01:49:48.963
Just a question then, why... it looks like their applicant's names are on there. They are. Are Amelia Lorentson 01:49:53.923
They? They're all there, yes. Oh, I'm about to look in the wrong column. I'm sorry, you are correct. On page two, page one, two, and three, they're all there. Frank Wilkie 01:50:01.703
The full detail is column... Brian Stockwell 01:50:03.803
Ah, okay. I'll ask you to read the full detail. Frank Wilkie 01:50:06.494
But bearing in mind, if you did decide to remove the applicant's names, that's fine too, because these decisions have already been made under delegated authority, and therefore there's not really a conflict of interest. Brian Stockwell 01:50:20.514
We can do that? We've been declaring out of an abundance of caution. Yeah. We don't really need to. Okay. But if you want to remove your Kim Rawlings 01:50:38.461
So this is the monthly report that comes to Council which shows all the decisions that have been made under delegation. I always say it's a really good reflection of the broad that's coming through the team. Quite a lot of applications this month that were decided. 46 have been very, very busy. So yeah, great effort by the team. Again, as I said, a varied range of applications. 46 approved by the team, one application that was refused and then four applications that came through Council. Brian Stockwell 01:51:13.240
Thank you. Any questions? Well, would someone like to move the recommendation? I'll move it. Oh, I think Councillor Wegener will and Councillor Wilkie second. I'll put it to the vote. All in favour? Councillor Finzel? Yes. That's unanimous. Okay, our next items, I'll have to look up here because I've lost connection. We're just having a connection problem, councillors, is it going to end up with that issue? You can switch to guest if you Okay, so the next items we are to discuss is, I'll read the motion, that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254 J3E, Available Government Regulation 2012, for the purpose of discussing item 7.1, Planning and Environment Court, appeal number D23 of 2022, application for reconfiguring a lot, 1 into 12 lots at 111 Lake Walker Drive, Noosaville, described as, that should be as, not at, described as lot 4, right, sorry, that's at, after described as lot 4 on RP 36729, public pursuant out the word 'public'. Reconstruction Package 7B Landslide Remedial Works Black Pinch Road and pursuant to section 254J3G of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing item 5.2 proposed dedication of TMR owned freehold land as road in Noosaville. We don't think we need to refer from services and organisations in the motion. That's just the title of the report. Is it? Oh, okay. Okay. No, it's only going to me. Seconder? Amelia Lorentson 01:53:42.860
Happy to serve. Brian Stockwell 01:53:44.340
I've got Councillor Lorentson. And I'll take the vote. Those in favour? And Councillor Finzel? Yes. That's unanimous. And we'll just wait for the cameras to be... Frank Wilkie 01:54:06.100
General question, do we know why we're having connection problems? Brian Stockwell 01:54:16.056
We're right. So, we have three motions, three recommendations here to consider, council. Would anyone like to move the first recommendation into motion? I'll move. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wilson first up, so it's Councillor Wilkie and Wilson. Do you need to talk to the Mayor? The public haven't seen this, if you'll read it. Frank Wilkie 01:54:42.532
Okay, I'll read it. That council note the report by the manager of development assessment to the general committee meeting day 15th July 2024 regarding planning and environment court appeal D23 of 2022 and B agree to the appeal generally in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in attachment one to the report. Brian Stockwell 01:55:02.037
Do you wish to talk to the motion? Frank Wilkie 01:55:03.977
No, it needs to be settled. Brian Stockwell 01:55:06.137
Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? No? I'll put two to vote. Those in favour? And Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 01:55:14.153
Yes. Brian Stockwell 01:55:14.993
So that's unanimous. Thank you. And we'll move on to the next motion. Amelia Lorentson 01:55:19.333
I'm happy to move that council note the report by the Disaster Reconstruction... Reconstruction Coordinated to the General Meeting dated 15 July 2024 and approved increasing the value of the QRA funded contract 2122Q125 by $1.7 million GST exclusive from $3.4 million GST exclusive excluding to $5.5 million GST exclusive from $3.4 million GST exclusive excluding to $5.5 million GST exclusive from $3.4 million GST exclusive excluding to $5 to 5.1 million with program completion expected by 30 June 2025, B, delegate to the CEO the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and administer the contract on behalf of council and C, delegate to the CEO the power to amend the contract up to 11.5% of the total contract value and D, delegate to the D, delegate to the CEO the power to amend the contract finish date to no later than September 30, 2025. Brian Stockwell 01:56:19.294
Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Second. Councillor, do you wish to talk to the motion? No. Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? I'll put that into the vote. All in favour? And Councillor Finzel? Kim Rawlings 01:56:32.938
Yes. Brian Stockwell 01:56:33.778
That's unanimous. Thank you. We move on to the next item. I'll move it. Do you wish to read that? Frank Wilkie 01:56:43.162
That council note the report by the Disaster Reconstruction Coordinator to the General Committee meeting dated 15 July 2024 and A, delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to vary the contract value based business case approval by QRA allowing a scope change which will increase the value of contract CM003117B by $2,596,239.57, GST exclusive. From $9,849,609.12, GST exclusive, to $12,445,848.69, GST exclusive. b Delegate to the CEO the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and administer the contract on behalf of Council. Delegate to the CEO the power to amend the contract up to 11.5% of the total contract value. Brian Stockwell 01:57:39.338
And do I have a seconder? Council Wilson, do you wish to talk to the motion? Frank Wilkie 01:57:44.898
No, thank you, Mr Chair. Brian Stockwell 01:57:46.098
Anyone else? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. And we've had one more item. I'll move it. Jessica Phillips 01:58:01.020
That Council A, note the report by the manager, infrastructure, planning, design and delivery to the services and organisations meeting dated 9th July 2024. B, support the Department of Transport and Main Roads proposal to dedicate lot 115 RP861914 as road and accept the road in Council's capacity as the road manager and C, authorise the Chief Executive Office to execute any title transfer documentation if required on behalf of Council. Frank Wilkie 01:58:37.382
I'll second it. Brian Stockwell 01:58:38.022
That's seconded by Councillor Wilkie. I'll put it to the vote. Oh, did we wish to talk to it? No? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Yes. And that's unanimous, which brings us to the end of today. Thank you, Councillors, for your diligent attention to your duty Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
