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 Acting 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 00:01.961
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. Chambers, Councillors Lorentson, Wegener, Councillor Wilson, Wilkie and Councillor Phillips. We do have a request from Councillor Finzel to attend via electronic means. Would someone like to move that motion that's been moved by Councillor Wilkie? Have a seconder, account Councillor Wegener. All in favour? So welcome, Councillor Finzel. Thank you, Mr Chair. We have no presentations or deputations, but we do need to confirm the Minutes. Just this my is results not being very nice to me. So have we got someone who'd wish to move the confirmation minutes of the General Committee? And that was moved, Councillor Wilkie, and seconded, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? That's a second. 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 Netserv model. I'm just having trouble with one of them. We do have our Director, Kim, coming to us, and we also a have a visitor from Unitywater which we'd like to invite to the table. Hi all, good morning. Chris Hartzell 01:47.048
This is Chris Hartzell, I'm responsible for the Netserv modelling for Unitywater. SPEAKER_07 01:56.258
Morning. Brian Stockwell 01:57.138
So Kim, would you like to do a general overview or do we hand it straight over to Chris? Kim Rawlings 02:03.579
We can do a general overview, Councillors. As we talked to you at the planning committee, this report seeks your endorsement of the Unitywater net this is our Netserv plan. Which is plan that looks at the planning assumptions and 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 own Noosa Plan. And as mentioned at the planning committee, we take into account development constraints. You know, areas that can't be developed as a result of bushfire, flooding, biodiversity, those sorts of things, where we're looking at growth scenarios on each lot. And it's an iterative process, so we use the Noosa Plan to do that. Also use development approvals, 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 2016 and the. Words right, Chris, the restructuring, water Chris Hartzell 03:23.994
Structuring, retailer. Oh, structuring, retailer. That's easy. I'm so out in front of this. SPEAKER_09 03:31.924
For Unitywater to adopt a plan and be confident that the Netserv plan aligns. NHTSA with the planning assumptions of each local government. So in order to do that, we need Council to therefore endorse. 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. SPEAKER_07 04:07.596
I have a question. The 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. Chris Hartzell 04:27.600
Thank you for the question, Councillor. So our forecasts, 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. So, you know, 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. 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. Brian Stockwell 05:11.329
So the only target that we have to meet is what's required and just to clarify that the regional plan sets a dwelling target. It also had some rather ambitious or unrealistic population forecast, but that's not what you were trying to meet, the dwelling target. 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. Chris Hartzell 05:38.750
So I know there were 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 is 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 06:11.616
In terms of reliability, how critical and reliable are the DMAT forecasts when you compare them with other forecasting tools that are used by the State? Good question. Chris Hartzell 06:25.996
So our modelling software, which we call DMAT, which is known outside of the indie board as a forecast modeller, is now being used by Gold Coast, Toowoomba, and is about to be used by the City of Moreton Bay. So as we, back in 2014, actually developed the software, based on our own specification, and then it's gone to other councils for them to use. So, like all modelling packages, limited by the accuracy of the data that goes into it, which is why we spent many hours and much resources on making sure that we've got a very accurate snapshot of what's on the ground in 2021. So that's why we know that the census, for example, doesn't accurately capture the number of dwellings on the ground, because actually looked at every property and made sure that the blowing count is correct, we've used your tourist accommodation leaves levy, that what it's called? Or is it the. Yeah, that levy data to actually eyesight specifically which dwellings are accommodation versus permanent resident dwelling and we've all looked at that at a property level so we're very confident that is accurate and then capturing 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, what's coming. So that's why we have some high level of confidence in the projections because we can actually see what properties need to develop to meet those population projections. So we're not projecting growth that can't possibly have a future. 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 ourselves we haven't been briefed on their methodology around you know 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 what we've sort of done and I personally always 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 08:55.444
It seems very thorough and credible and given that now you're saying that it's been adopted by Gold Coast from the northern road Council, so again adding to that credibility space. Question probably now directed to Kim or Michelle is how well have 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 the same? Kim Rawlings 09:32.247
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. That we look at it and go well we know this is not how that area develops because this 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 realistic approach to what's being forecast. So yeah it's both a need to review process and we you know when we have been brought into the execution 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 that 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. So yeah, we do rely on the information and work through an iterative process with unity order on it. Amelia Lorentson 10:57.568
So a really great tool for us to leverage to oppose the state's management and growth targets, and we discussed that earlier, and the community. Yeah, absolutely. And an example of that is looking at the proposed to the new Noosa Plan. We were able to model those planning scheme amendment changes, and then look at what impact that would have on available dining supply, for example. Chris Hartzell 11:25.958
So the tool itself was developed for that purpose in mind, where, more so for other councils like central Coast and Moreton Bay, where they're doing new structure plans, master there's new growth areas popping up everywhere. We use the tool to run those areas through model to get an understanding of how much growth and therefore what infrastructure is required to support that. Amelia Lorentson 11:51.792
So we're doing the same for Noosa, it's just on a much smaller questions? I still have questions and just probably one last question. I'm also 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 12:30.550
So our planning assumptions includes you know, dwellings, population, full space and employment, but it also calculates our network demand projections based off the same demographic projections. Those demand projections feed directly into our network models and network master plans, which then determines what infrastructure upgrades that required, so not just through our treatment plants, but also, you know, pumps and pipes and things like that. So that goes into our network master plans. Those identify a list of work that is required, which then flows through to our capital works plan, and then through Netserv plan is 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 eligibility planning scheme. It's got a list of trunk works, the timing of when it's going to be provided, a the description and an estimated cost. 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 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, well, what do it with? Is it light or upgrade it? So it sort of supports all our planning functions across the new order. Thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 13:59.893
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 your water and sewerage service area or is it relating to the Shire as a whole? Chris Hartzell 14:19.949
So we're planning assumptions of-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, and 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 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-wise targets. Brian Stockwell 14:58.410
It's quite interesting if you look, because you've got it against two different time frames. 2021-2041 and 2046-2056. And the clear one is Noosa's, where all the jobs are in the late. End is obviously the Noosa Business Centre, but then strongly hinterland, but the population growth figures show that clearly, you know, after 2041, it's about even between Coast and hinterland, but after that stage, the pro-protective predictably hit baltimore in-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, because if we leave to future councils, that might not necessarily be the most cost effective mechanism to it. Chris Hartzell 15:48.720
And the Noosa hinterland SA2 catchment, you might be aware, it virtually covers about 70 of the Shire area, all within. So it includes 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 that I believe it's probably not the correct but it does doesn't. Encompass a large area. Brian Stockwell 16:15.558
Basically you've got all the other ones that are small like Noosaville, Sunshine Beach, Tewantin, Peregian and Marcus. Which are quite small. We add them all up, they're about equal in the next period. The one after that you add them up and it's like any way it's like the majority of the growth that's cool Chris Hartzell 16:32.087
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 between the draft and the final. I'm fairly certain they forgot to adjust the employment 2046 target because if you look at it, is significantly higher than the population would be similar at a 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. Sitting 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 your different types of centres, your Noosa Business Centre, your different industrial areas. Each has a different growth projection in terms of floor space and employment all that comes together overall growth. Brian Stockwell 17:52.729
One more might-be-staff question. As part of our submissions back, the execute regional plan was about us calculating dwellings using secondary dwellings. This. Is this model sufficiently refined that we identify a range of block sizes, for example, Chris Hartzell 18:18.340
We went through and looked at every property that was owned, low density residential, and selected out the properties that had a sufficient size, backyard area, sufficient access, and identified every property that could be suitable for a secondary dwelling, and we build that into our model, and what model does is it only develops those properties if it needs to meet the population projection. So if all these properties could have a secondary dwelling, but it's only developing as many as are required to meet the projections. Brian Stockwell 18:54.346
And just out of interest, when you said we go and look at every individual property, is that if you were looking for an AI link? Chris Hartzell 19:02.893
I no, so eyes, human 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 will be good at it first. SPEAKER_09 19:17.413
This is real estate. Chris Hartzell 19:18.730
Yeah, so another great example is they have a boom pull the pool out. So, and also looking at things like appropriate side access where they can actually get 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 where those secondary dwelling properties are and our assumptions assume one house, secondary dwelling, and they have been sequenced for development as required that goes into the mix of everything else that's Frank Wilkie 19:57.942
Been sown. Done said so Chris, you're is saying every property, low-density res property that can fit a secondary dwelling has been factored in? Chris Hartzell 20:06.613
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 so, which greatly exceeds what we require by 2046. SPEAKER_07 20:23.595
Can you say how many properties capable of housing a secondary dwelling? Chris Hartzell 20:32.955
Yeah, I could definitely provide that information back through, yeah. The properties and the number of additional dwellings that could be accommodated, yes. SPEAKER_07 20:40.634
And Kim, you mentioned in the report that only, Frank Wilkie 20:43.694
These are maximum estimates, and usually only 70-80% SPEAKER_07 20:48.440
Of that development capacity is realised. That's fine, right. SPEAKER_09 20:52.365
That's fine, because as we know, not everyone wants a secondary lolly. Develops their land to the capacity that can happen. But for infrastructure and planning papers, we need to, shoot and model an ultimate so so that plan so that you can properly plan infrastructure, you know, if that happens. We know, and I've been in the local government, we all have now for 30 years, we know that never happens. You know, you never develop to full, every block up to highest and best use. He doesn't happen. But for infrastructure planning purposes, we need to understand what that is. To be ready for the maximum effect. That's right. And to, you know, to ensure that there are triggers in your works program to be able to, you know, build capacity in and continually check that with your infrastructure construction networks and that's why we, Netserv's continually reviewed, our LGIPs continually reviewed, we-look at planning assumptions, we re-validate, 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 structured networks, our scheduled works, our capital works, you know, to make actualise sure those things are in sync. It's a fundamental part of all the work that we do. Chris Hartzell 22:15.245
So our capital works program goes out to 2046. Our treatment services plan, which is our sewage treatment plants. It's planning horizons 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. And ultimate sits at an unknown point in ultimate will change over time as future planning schemes are prepared and amended, it's always going to be a moving figure. So, but the longest we plan towards is 2056. Occasionally we'll look at ultimate. If the difference between growth at 2046 and ultimately we might decide, because it's the most prudent decision, to consider what 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 about what's the best financial decision to make in terms of upgrading because 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 effective to put in a slightly larger main at the time than smaller main and then replace that name 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. Chris, based on these projections, can you say when an upgrade of the Noosa Heads to a water treatment a McCrory water treatment plant may be on the cards. I can't say that myself but we do 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 and they're planning their upgrades around those same set of numbers. I'm talking about the sewage system. SPEAKER_07 24:26.630
Sorry, you mentioned water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants. Yes, so wastewater treatment Chris Hartzell 24:32.770
Plant. That's planned as part of our capital works program, the same as any other works. What kind of review are you planning? You planned it? I can give you that information, Frank. Want to, if Chris we've got the source here. Yeah, so we have planned in our capital works program, planned upgrades to all our series of treatment plants, depending on what's required after 2046. So that's part of as well. So that's handled treatment services plan, which is a specific plan to our treatment services of treatment plants. Then we have our network models, master plans, which for the rest of the sewer network and the water supply possible way. Network. Amelia Lorentson 25:17.417
And for any more specifics, over the next five years, the Unitywater capital program includes castaway's nearing completion this year, bicentennial drive, Sunshine Beach, currently scheduled for 25-26, Garnet street, Cooroy. Scheduled for 26-27 and station road, Pomona, should be advised. This is the pipe neck there? That's five-year Unitywater capital program. They're having pump stations? Frank Wilkie 25:50.180
Do you have a year for when the wastewater treatment plant will be upgraded? Chris Hartzell 25:55.180
So in the Netserv plan that we're currently working on it'll have a new schedule of works which is the latest, it's basically the latest version of our capital works program which will replace the current Netserv 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 it on to the community. Dealing with the planning assumptions side of things so I've passed those questions on around what plans, upgrades, do that we've got to our treatment services when, what nature of the upgrades 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 the upgrades. Is this under review? Okay, all right, so no dates at the moment. So the update is scheduled when it's released in the Netserv plan. It'll have each project mapped. It'll have a description of what it is, the timeframe of when that upgrade is to occur. And the cost. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 27:09.992
Can I ask one final question? So in terms of the forecast and the population challenges, and tell me this is outside the of the scope. Of this report? Does or does it affect the assessment process under the Environmental Protection Act in terms of environmental licenses and permits? So I'll also pass that question on to my manager as well, to answer questions around agreements and how that fits within our land- Yeah, I'll sign upgrades. We'll bring that information back to you. Brian Stockwell 27:50.871
I've got one that just came to mind and it's probably once again an asterisk. With the fine-grained nature of the data, do we have access to that in a spatial GIS context? Because I'm thinking some 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 bring off a name and wouldn't say eagles per day or eight vehicles per day for a 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. Kim Rawlings 28:29.989
So is that something that we actually 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 that's where we're learning. SPEAKER_09 28:41.616
So we're developing an integral land use and transport model? It does exactly that, yeah. Very good. Is the land use scenarios to transport these. Brian Stockwell 28:43.516
And the other thing we do, following on from that, I'll ask a question. Is there It is, when you put in the scenario, what if every 20 of people rode a pushbike or a e-bike to work, what would that do to push off future works and therefore reduce. Prices and things like that? Showing the downstream impact of motor change. Is that right? SPEAKER_09 29:16.687
Yes, once you've got the model, you can run a number of scenarios. Chris Hartzell 29:19.966
And from Unitywater'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 and planning between transport. And sewer. We 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 in that case, it's not a good idea. Brian Stockwell 30:08.776
Have we run out of questions? Would someone like to move the recommendation? I will. I'm happy to move it. Do we have a seconder? Cancel, we thank can't. So, 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 perspective every time population projects are put forward we get the public commentary about breaking the population cap and what, if I can just interpret this does is. Noosa planning scheme still embeds all the same principles as a 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 planning scheme and this model just far more accurately projects what the likely sustainable population is as 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, this time, one we're as going we've to be heard, putting down to each lot, what this lot has got in capacity and what year we'd like 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 exceeded, it's obviously in our own 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 to go without necessarily going in the car. So thank you. Anyone else wish to speak. Amelia Lorentson 31:51.829
I'll just add, it's just really great reading. Thank you Chris. Just the breakdown of how 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 really write down and I'll I just also, finally, add I had to our planning assumptions actually published once endorsed actually published online on our website. Chris Hartzell 32:24.583
You can actually go and look at our planning assumptions at 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 that assess connection. Applications part of their assessment they need to look at what we're planning towards in terms of demand and compare that to what a developer is proposing and undertake an assessment to make sure it's consistent because if it's not consistent with the planning assumptions we can look at can it be serviced can we impose conditions and how is it to be serviced so operationally and day-to is used at a property level which means we have to be accurate as we possibly may because that's why it's used day Frank Wilkie 33:12.601
To-day. Another question is this all your work Chris or did you have a team helping you? I've got an off-sider. Well in that case please accept our thanks to you and your off-sider for working so well with our staff. It doesn't make you feel any better Chris Hartzell 33:27.441
But we have to do this for the three Council areas. It's good that we're nice, good, yeah. And there's no getting around the fact that it just takes a lot of time and effort to get to this point so like I said the software that we had developed and what we used SPEAKER_07 33:46.957
Is only as good as the data that's put to it so there is no silver bullet, AI in the way out of the machine. Thank you. Chris. Brian Stockwell 33:58.674
Thank you. Anyone wish to speak? I will close because there was one thing that was tweeted by Councillor Lorentson. The other good part of this is it does forecast employment and population and as it's embedded within the South East Queensland 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 up- time. Except for 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. This 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 35:26.700
Sure I can. Afternoon Councillors. Financial Performance Report for June 2024 shows the future of position at year end, however financial adjustments are with us still dealing in progress which might have material impacts 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. Day in October. 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 our budget, sales and business services are $1.5 million of our of the revenue is $600,000 above budget. However, that's been offset by lower than forecast Fees and Charges of $2.1 million. Major movement in the last month has been grant operating amount revenue, and 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. So 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 million of this relating to our employee costs. Year's and services expenditure is $6.7 million on descent, and this relates to levy programs of $1.5 million and grant funded million, and those will both be quarantined. Held in reserve for future use for those particular programs. Commercial operations, which is waste and all their parts, are $1.6 million on descent. And general operations are $2.5 This month we have 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. Again, tourism and economic development is, we provide monthly updates. For 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 of $400,000 over budget with the majority of this to relating development appeals. As requested at the previous General Committee Meeting a summary of expenditure and consultancy fees has been included which shows expenditure by Council over time. These summaries might include operational consultancy 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 the size of projects that councils undertake at any particular time. Overall council's interim operating position at June is a 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 timing expenditure for grant and levy programs. As I mentioned there will be further accruals, commissions and accounting adjustments. 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-deducted projects. Council's cash-holding at the end of June was $105 million, with $30 million of these funds invested in higher yielding return deposits, and we also included the cash-side section 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 the end of the month. Brian Stockwell 39:27.385
Thank you. Questions? Amelia Lorentson 39:32.285
I don't want to let anyone speak first. I feel like I'm speaking. There's a polling. First, Pauline, it's probably one of your best reports. I so appreciate the effort you have to have done this down. I think that's really, really important. Keeping it simple. And again, encourage any residents when they ask, you know, we've got 11.1 months worth of cash reserves and three months is only required. It's all here and really, really simple. Simplified. Defining what's restricted, unrestricted, etc. Okay. So, I'll keep that. I'm going to start with above budget, below It's sort of just a generic question, break down and appreciate the material and services. When I look at above budget and below budget, probably the question I'm asking is does 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 or are they sort directed to other Council projects? Pauline 41:01.878
Well, depending on the source of the surplus, so like I decide waste and holiday packs, 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 maintain the service levels at packerside. 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 or new initiatives that come out as part of the budgeting process. Amelia Lorentson 41:47.099
In terms of, I'll just draw on what you were saying 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 the levied allocations even when we have got surplus in? Pauline 42:10.950
So as part of the annual budget process we do review each levy annually budget process and then the periodic times depending on the life of that particular would levy it will get a full review of the program and the purpose of that levy to see if it is still relevant and producing what the outcomes are originally intended for. Fantastic. Amelia Lorentson 42:26.337
So should we be accepting a review of criteria and future plans? Yes, there is a number of levies in the coming year that Council is endeavouring to look at and that will be workshopped with Council to see during the SPEAKER_07 42:41.344
Just a little bit of a question on the statement of financial position. The end of year forecast for cash and equivalents was $88,900,000. Nine hundred thousand we've ended up with a hundred and five million could you just explain I mean it's a good discrepancy to have Pauline 42:59.351
Well there is a reason for it yeah so obviously with the capital program that Council has uh spent about 67 45 we are still planning to continue and deliver those programs so the money gets set aside for that so within that 105 is essentially the capital works there's a few other like grant funding and those things are also within that cash holding that rolled over to the following year but the large part is related to the calibrating. Yes and there always seems to be money's unspent on staff training is there anything you can say about that? They've done actually particularly well this year so it's not hugely on the spend, so they are working hard and putting together. SPEAKER_07 43:41.861
Improvements training. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 43:47.440
I have a question please. I'm just going to work out how to ask this and if it's, yeah thank you. I just look at the legal costs and don't budget over there I see over that we have appointed a in-house legal counsel. So that was in December 2023. Could you tell me like what we plan to see I guess out of that given that um my question really is so the biggest um cost for us is our development application appeals? Yes sure. So will that I mean Pauline 44:24.990
That's so in you terms of the legal Council position um that position was never intended to work on specific things like development appeals because they are a kind of very unique niche kind of um claim and so that falls without outside the remit as does a few other things but the plan is the independence and those sorts of things so they will not be dealt with. Specifically with legal counsel was engaged to basically look at more generic Council advice um it might be reviewing the contracts drafting the mous those sorts of things with the view of actually reducing the cost over time um I think as the Council has come on board they've you know probably done more 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 legal but certainly there has been an increase in terms of managing the risk to Council of things that may have been overlooked or not been able to scrutinise as much as they may have, should or have been. Frank Wilkie 45:33.170
That they were expecting from the on-board legal Council. Pauline 45:35.930
And I think with only six months into it, it's hard to just 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 45:48.435
And that's the hard part when you read in the document, 400,000 below budget, it's about how do we put a monetary value into risk mitigation and reputational damage. And I think that far exceeds the Pauline 46:06.305
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 to be in place, so I believe that is coming to Council to have a look at, so that it better explains what sort of things they've uncovered and what they would have worked on other Brian Stockwell 46:22.160
So I'll follow up with another one specific and legal. In the GemLife case the judge gave indication that because of the influence seeking of a deferment that some costs would be eligible to be claimed for that deferral. Benefit of that as yet or is that still? Pauline 46:45.275
I might give that to Richard because away that at the moment. Richard MacGillivray 46:47.995
Thank you Councillor. So we are just going through a cost analysis assessment process so that is likely to be settled in this financial year early so it hasn't been captured as part of last financial year. So there should be potentially a bit more coming to next year. Brian Stockwell 47:08.350
Is that brief every band and well they're cross-ordered costs awarded are likely to bring back close to what we anticipated. It was a very expensive process. Pauline 47:18.993
But as we always, when we talk about legal costs, particularly debt developments, it really is dependent on what kind of cases are up and what contacts they have. So it's hard to answer that. Brian Stockwell 47:30.013
Other questions? Frank Wilkie 47:30.899
I 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. Pauline 47:46.318
Financial assistance, our allocation actually is going down. What? Correct. So there was a change in methodology in how the government applies and allocates those funding. Were notified a couple of years ago that we would have a decrease and we have seen a decrease. I didn't read that in the letter they sent. That's what a lot of christians say. So it generally gets more directed to regional councils where they have a larger net product network Frank Wilkie 48:16.777
And rely more on grants and the more financially sustainable councils. The more needed. Tom Wegener 48:27.812
I guess that there is a price to be paid for being successful and financially sustainable. Amelia Lorentson 48:36.200
In terms of the breakdown of legal expenditure bonds, 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 place culture? You know, I'm looking at industrial relations advice falling really low, so is that, does that correlate to high work place 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 going to be looked at, or am I just. Looking too deep? SPEAKER_05 49:26.906
Through the share, I think it's more of an indication of the types of work that we're undertaking and at what point in time. So, for example, the Council, you mentioned work based on our, the Council is about to undertake run this. A new certified agreement process, we would be seeking to support that with additional legal advice. If we were undertaking a planning scheme amendment or we had feedback in relation to that planning would then require legal advice so it's probably more reflective of policy. The cycles we were at in the organisation, where with leases, et cetera, more than an organisational sustainability so think through the deep we can probably just reflect back on how we present which side of the organisation is on from a business perspective. Amelia Lorentson 50:13.815
Fantastic, thank you. Tom Wegener 50:20.138
One little question concerning waste operations and then the standards, meaning that, you know, you can't, you have to be competitive among, you know, but there's so few places to take your waste. Resource recovery centres, there's Gympie, Is it hard to actually get benchmark? SPEAKER_05 50:43.468
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 organisations. That's obviously part of it. The primary part is making sure that what we charge is the appropriate. Full cost 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 51:13.138
Do actually look at other councils that priorities to recover our costs and provide return on 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 51:31.620
I guess the reason to preface this question, we're going to be talking Waste Strategy soon. And 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 SPEAKER_05 51:51.619
And every waste business is at a different stage of their maturity in dealing or even just different process requirements in terms of what they need to invest to make their business run effectively. So it does differ significantly between local government areas and how they manage that. Frank Wilkie 52:15.550
Increases in unimproved capital value for properties. There's the cost of living pressures that people are facing. Looking at the rates and arrears, you do a 12-month retrospective and the thing I can't tell from this is, there an increase in the number of properties that are in financial stress and putting rates in arrears? I'd have to take a notice of Because it doesn't appear to be, but it's only a 12-month look here. Based on trends, we're not seeing any increase. It's very low, it's like 5 average. SPEAKER_05 52:55.213
The teamwork proactively will ensure that arrears are possible to put on a payment arrangement. So there is that over time payment arrangement put in place. So we're not seeing the long term significant increase. Where you might see marginal increases, it's very low value, is the 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 significant change. Frank Wilkie 53:27.260
Because over the last few years it seems to be hovering around the same amount, just under five or slightly over five percent. SPEAKER_05 53:34.439
Which is our internal benchmark. There's no statutory benchmark on that. Target in terms of affordability and sustainable level of properties. Pauline 53:45.290
Time last year it was 5.4% compared to 5.6% but it could be a different factor as well. Nicola Wilson 53:50.491
Okay. Looking at the statement of financial the 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 54:06.281
Correct and also part of the QRA disaster program so that program of works that also contributed was also contributed. To that as well our general capital program. So as those works come through in the following year that will pump up our public planning equipment balances. Jessica Phillips 54:19.211
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 54:24.731
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? Pauline 54:47.238
And tier um we haven't done a benchmarking against any particular Council. It may be a little difficult because not every Council reports particularly that expenditure and at that level we do tend to give you a bit more ground in the details. We can certainly have a look at what's available, Brian Stockwell 55:07.861
Does anyone want to move the recommendation? Councillor Councillor Wilson, and in the second act, Councillor Phillips, stick to the motion, Councillor Wilson? No. Thank you for the report. Excellent anyone else like to. Just to say thank you. The reports get more and detailed. According to the Council requests, you have no problem adding the information request, so thank you very much. It's a big and interesting read every month. Okay. I'll motion. All in favour? And Councillor Finzel? Fintle? Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. And our next report is we go to something that Councillor Wegener just referred a result in the renewables hub master plan stage one concept can bring in the Acting Director and the acting manager, Kyrone and mark, and the a triumvirate. Can we see dick in the turn, Rick? Probably the honest acting manager. Frank Wilkie 56:21.684
Karen, are you the acting? I'm for the acting, yes. SPEAKER_00 56:26.304
Or 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. Master plan is split into two stages, with only stage one being considered today. The concept master plan 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 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 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 engineer applied an engineering focus supported by an engineering consultant that's informed the concept master design. 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 our site which is shown in video one of the report. 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 of the site immediately on the left, shown in figure 2 of the report. This will open up the existing Transfer Station and reviva area to enable a modern design of the maximise opportunities for diversion, improved 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, landscaping 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. It's approximately 0.5 hectares of land within the existing site. This is located between the Cleanaway 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 flows so that customers can turn left as they enter the site, taking pressure off the transfers. Station and the wave rig, which has queues from time to It'll minimise disruption to operations if the staged implementation of the Transfer Station works, and it'll avoid impacting on the Cleanaway depot, which future operational requirements in contractual arrangements. So the next steps would be for Council to lodge a code-assessable development application for the relocation of the reviva shop, the Transfer Station, proposed new layout, 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 plan. This will require a separate use requiring impact assessable 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 there s funding opportunities available for us that we re pursuing. So the recommendation before you today is 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 1 to the report. To note benefits and opportunities associated with the proposed development of and to approve stage one concept master plan, pending funding and development approvals, inclusive of section A, which is subject. Code-assessable development approval, that I referred to earlier, and inclusive of the solar site, which is subject to impact assessable development approval and public notification processes. Frank Wilkie 01:02:01.810
Just a timing question, mark. Is it required that these app DA development applications have to be in and assessed before you can apply for this grant? Not but in, so we'll move the processes concurrently with the application, so lodged, 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? You have people in potential the conflict, machinery, so it's essential that this work be done from a regulation perspective? SPEAKER_10 01:02:46.987
Yeah, and the new design will alleviate a lot of those conflicts with people, plant, machinery. Um, and. Just the sheer volume of people we currently have coming through the site provides, you know, safety issues itself and traffic packed up, didn't want to reduce the road or the leverage. So through this process, we'll be looking as a criteria to alleviate those risks. Can you tell which part? I was just going to say that graph, I think it's figure one, that shows volumes that are coming through that RRA pad, or that RRA area, and the increase over the last three to four years is huge. So we have, in general, we can have up to 600 transactions. Through that area in one day. And that's just one-way traffic. I'm not talking about just Cleanaway transactions either. 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 01:03:57.610
Grand opportunity for this transformative concept is. Can you say how large the grant is that we'll be applying for? So the grant 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 COMSEQ that we're looking at, particularly for the compost project. Will we be applying for $50 million? SPEAKER_10 01:04:25.216
That's the intent, yes. Think there's a, yeah, we will put projects through. The grant process is, I guess, a process in itself, and the application is 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 01:04:53.640
Questions? We want to know about your name. I'd like to move an amendment. Oh, excuse me. In that case, the motion with an amendment, if that's possible. Thank you. Can you nap? It's alright can read that now. So that Council A note the report by the waste project coordinator to the General Committee meeting date of 15 July 2024 regarding the recycling and renewables health master plan provided at attachment one to the report. Forge. B the benefits and opportunities associated with the proposed development of the recycling and renewable hub. Approved stage one concept renewables hub master plan pending funding and development approvals of one inclusive of section I a which is subject to code assessable development approval to inclusive solar site impact assessment development approval and public notification and D this I've added agrees to provide an extended public notification period associated with the proposed impact assessment development application for the solar site question Frank Wilkie 01:06:39.487
Has without an impact on our capacity to meet the time frame for applying for the grant if it was an extended time frame SPEAKER_00 01:06:49.107
I think it depends on the extension so we probably do understand that the extent of that extension and whether to be decided in this meeting or not, I'm sure. What did you have mind how many weeks Amelia Lorentson 01:07:03.497
Spoken to both Kyrone and Richard briefly just before the meeting yep so so I think where I was sitting was I thought it would be given the climate at the moment 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 risk reports or any associated reports at the moment we've got a public 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 to review but not an extra four weeks? Just an extension because I think there will be technical, engineering, financial reporting. Did you want to specify a length? I'm happy to but I just got that one on advice just before the meeting started. Frank Wilkie 01:08:07.282
I agree, given that we haven't got a second of this, so it agrees it. Yeah, to provide. An extra 20 days, 20 business to provide 20 business days public notification. Oh sorry, it's already in there. Which is an addition to five days, one week. And that's not going to affect the timing for the grant? No. That's great. I'll second it. SPEAKER_00 01:08:35.946
Business days. I'll second it, Cathy. Jessica Phillips 01:08:38.286
Can I just clarify, that won't impact the chances? Or the timing for the grant? No, because it we. Would be the DAS of the house. I'll just say extra, I think. Amelia Lorentson 01:08:48.768
Those dates are just 20 business days. Brian Stockwell 01:08:51.968
No extra just provide an extended public period of 20 business days associated. Yeah, that means fine. Yeah, the total. Frank Wilkie 01:09:03.073
It's not saying an extra, like 20 days. It's saying an extended period of 20 days. Jessica Phillips 01:09:09.533
Couldn't we just get rid of an extended and just say agrees to provide public be 20 extra days. Couldn't we just amend C2 and public notification? It's already been seconded. Brian Stockwell 01:09:24.457
No, it hasn't been seconded. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:25.337
I seconded it. He did before. I don't acknowledge that. Pardon? Yeah, it is. So given it's minor, can I just request the removal of the word extended? Brian Stockwell 01:09:38.898
No, no, it's not the moving room secretary, it's the Council. So are we all yeah. Yep. Okay. And, a. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Lorentson, it's your floor to speak to the motion. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:55.979
Just to ensure that the community had have an extra week commend the waste team. So I will speak to the motion. 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 to pounce on this. So thank you for the incredible work for wasting. SPEAKER_00 01:10:43.820
Yeah and I think a big kudos goes to Chelsea who's done a lot of the work here. Thank you Chelsea. Really excellent work. I've got a question. Brian Stockwell 01:10:55.525
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? SPEAKER_00 01:11:04.624
It's above three megawatts. Five? And 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, I believe. SPEAKER_10 01:12:14.806
Into mulch and sold or it's given away to the community. End and making sure that we've got the 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 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 01:13:37.749
It does I'm sorry with this I can see like over time when it's working financially for us um 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 um 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 said would SPEAKER_00 01:14:08.577
I think I personally think what is it's happening a little 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 there in Australian dollars is three hundred and fifty four hundred dollars a ton and we're at a hundred and fifteen I think at the moment so the general trend will be levies will go up and that's just to deter the landfill make the landfill the last option so as we move towards that space you know we're ever in this ever competing environment where that number is going up we have to keep up with it and if we don't where it's going to cost us more. Jessica Phillips 01:14:56.903
Okay so then do you think there'll be a time where that educational piece for our community would then be seen to increase that so see what people can do to. SPEAKER_00_b 01:15:07.996
I think we're in a good space you know the behavioural change in Noosa is an easy one compared to other areas and you know at the moment currently this financial last year sorry we diverted 52 of the total tony's that we have 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 as low plenty considering low what other councils are doing. I couldn't speak to benchmarking that but I would guess that the case because we our levy that we would attract through the public we're actually making bit more service on that rather than being a cost that's SPEAKER_09 01:15:56.555
Yes we do have staff who work in education that's their role and we take schools but it's also with the general public as SPEAKER_10 01:16:07.175
Well 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 with any of these projects that will deliver in the community. SPEAKER_00_b 01:16:25.168
We've got some good support there, tourism with Plastic Free Noosa and all that sort of stuff. They'll be a very good organisation to hang on to help us with behavioural change. Frank Wilkie 01:16:38.645
Would it be fair to say that with all these initiatives in place they will put downward pressure on what we could charge the average person bringing materials in? Time, potentially, but I wouldn't like to say that right now because it's, you know, we are against, we are fighting a levy and that's a state source. Externally imposed. Yeah. And it will depend on the materials that is in that trailer. It's quite a proportion of recyclables or green ones, for example. SPEAKER_00_b 01:17:09.826
Yeah, it is most recyclable, and most recyclables that the public bring in now is free in general. Any metal, cardboard, all those elements are free for the public to dispose of. I think what this does is try and make that easier. Moment, our infrastructure is set up for the ease to put it into the landfill, not recycle it. That's the difference. Frank Wilkie 01:17:38.900
And could you talk about the necessity of working with Gympie to make the compost facility work, please? SPEAKER_00_b 01:17:45.409
Like you will most my waste projects, it comes down to an economic size, particularly when you start to talk about processing. And between us and Gympie, we probably have that number covered, about 20,000 tonnes. For the compost site to be viable. So the relationship and part of the COMSEQ agreement for funding is that collaboration. So we've collaborated heavily with Gympie over the last year and a half, two years. I think there's further. Benefits to do so. For Noosa and also Gympie in that collaborative effect in terms of moving waste from one place to the other, backhauling on logistics and saving logistics costs, and infrastructure being more suitable for other areas than Noosa rather 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 an advantageous position in the future. Nicola Wilson 01:18:50.660
For the location for reviva, is that bigger than we currently have? SPEAKER_09 01:18:55.120
It's actually marginally smaller than the existing space. I think what it will allow us to do is actually. Optimise the layout so we can actually utilise the space a little bit better, have 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 weighbridge queue, there's a lot more to do now, improvements in design. It's a much smaller site. Frank Wilkie 01:19:25.478
When will the works to relocate the high efficiency sedimentation basin occur? SPEAKER_00_b 01:19:32.878
So it's due to occur in the winter of next year. It will straddle 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. That's and 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 we're planning to use next year. The timing of the grant, let's assume it's successful, when would these works be likely to commence, if you're successful in getting the grant? It would depend on which elements got in first. So obviously we've got two grants, we've got the COMSEQ for the compost and then regional one for potentially solar and the Transfer Station, the others we are self-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. Some of the others, including the solar, they involve capping. So we will need to make a decision at some point with the project itself in terms of the technical. Of that capping is probably a lot less work than what our traditional capping methods are. Brian Stockwell 01:21:11.824
Question, does someone want to talk to it? Tom Wegener 01:21:13.484
I'll speak to it. Sometimes you wonder. Excuse me, I'll just have a question. Karen. Karen Finzel 01:21:19.385
Oh, sorry, were you proceeding with a question, Councillor? No, Finzel is deferred to you, so you can now ask your question. 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? SPEAKER_10 01:21:56.027
Councillor, yes, definitely. So keystake. We'll work with key stakeholders, including our environmental team, reviva, on opportunities as part of the design for the reviva, noting that there 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 Lucy Bundy road. Taking Tom Wegener 01:22:41.127
So, yes, we'll definitely be taking that into consideration as part of the design thank sometimes you would when do you celebrate a project because the end goes on forever and then it begins here and there's benchmarks along the way well I think that today is actually quite an opportunity to celebrate the master plan here because it's a really big deal it's probably the 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 will save those squiggly gums but it's safety is very very important and as you know that it's getting busier and more cars are going through we have to accommodate that because not only do you the continued growth of it but you're going to be remaking everything in the first place so it's 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 um when why the previous question I asked was about you know charging more and trying to um 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 un unthinkable almost so um to transfer some of that costs now through the opportunity cost I think is actually a good idea and is reasonable um comms I think that the success of this program so far has a lot to do with the two of them bringing kids through the site opening up the site lots of people what hopped on those buses and I understand that they were completely at the capacity and our own Council going out there numerous are times that Tourism Noosa being involved, you know, extensively with the composting, the plastic-free, yeah, all that really adds up to a successful program. So I think that this is, it's a celebration, Dave, to even be able to get to this point and pass the master plan today. It's a big, step forward. So congratulations. Thank you very much, team. Looking forward to this. Frank Wilkie 01:25:07.800
Look, Councillor Wegener said that this is a transformation. 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. Need to take better responsibility for our waste. The community, through the two phases of community consultation last year, really endorsed us going in this direction. It's an innovative direction. It's but much needed and it's necessary. And thanks to the staff for identifying the opportunity, doing the work to put forward these designs, and also collaborating with the nearby councils to create the opportunity. To share resources. Sharing waste, we're sharing resource. So, thank you. It's much needed and long overdue. Brian Stockwell 01:26:05.580
See okay I'll just get a good one 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 about some of 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. It's essentially the strategy of first methodology to both cap and get better capture of methane as well as generate renewable energy. That is very exciting. The transition to a renewable. Energy system is on par with circular economy. We're in a position where no one's really quite sure whether the heavy vehicle fleets in the future are going to be hydrogen or oxygen or electric, liquid but can you imagine that we have haven't? You know, garbage trucks that after they do their run in the morning they hook up and they're getting solar energy and it's a virtual cycle. I think the concept of this is really important for the community to get their head around because the word 'transformation' that we use, in feedback on the Destination Management Plan and regarding the waste, that what was required when we went into the waste plan. It talked about, you know, there was strong support for the polluter pay, you know, the cost of dumping. Rubbish would be equal to the hours. 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. That things that can be reused, recycled and revalued. So it is a big step. 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 is an opportunity too good to turn down. We've heard about the State part of that state levy is being funneled funded. 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 leverage 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 address and to at least in part offset that revenue they've raised. 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, you 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 unit that you couldn't hold by a little bit of scavenging. So well done. Else wish to talk? Please. Karen Finzel 01:29:48.062
Yes, thank you. I just want to reiterate this is a great vision for moving forward. In 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 one and two of consultation. So I think the community has spoken quite loudly. And clearly that they are for looking to make sure that our waste is managed in a sustainable way for future generations. I want to just thank 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 01:30:39.877
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 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 can diversify our economy. This is it. This is staring at us right in the face and you know from efficiencies to economic benefits and environmental benefits we've all discussed around the table. This is for us to be leaders, reducing attracting businesses and also this 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. Great way to simplify, you know, that quote. Thank you. Excellent work. Brian Stockwell 01:32:11.564
Okay. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? And Councillor Stockwell? That's unanimous. Thank you. Now, Councillors, we've been going for an hour and a half. Are we looking to proceed? Or have a five minute break? And we so we've will return. Okay, Councillors, we're going back onto the camera. Okay, welcome back. 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 Frank Wilkie 01:32:54.071
Councillor? Sure. These are motions put together by Councillors and 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 it's similar or not to other motions that have been moved in the past and they'll make decision as to whether they'll be forwarded to the conference which LGAQ annual conference which will be held in Brisbane in October and debated on the floor of the conference. Amelia Lorentson 01:33:39.007
Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Sorry, Through the Chair, we're not going through each individual motion like we normally do? Not that you may talk to individual ones if you like. I'll speak to the three that I've 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 I attended the red shield appeal fundraiser 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 90s in my career down in New South Wales and it was a workplace giving program where staff all contributed a small one dollar voluntary contribution weekly 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 notion basically puts to the LGAQ to support councils to establish a big Council or workplace security program through the creation of a consistent framework. Should include guidelines for setting up workplace giving programs for local government employees, mayors and Councillors, the framework for selecting eligible charities, and administering the contributions and funds. Again, voluntary and I would love you know the idea of Noosa Council could be the first Council to 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 targets this one's and I'm actually asking for funding 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 a new sump to get funded. Funding for a trial similar to the Logan bi-solid gasification. Again details are in the report. The third motion came about after attending ALGA in Canberra probably a week or two weeks ago. At this stage local governments across Australia have no representation on the ministerial housing Council. I think it's the only ministerial Council that ALGA don't have a seat in and it's probably you know really important and so my motion requests that LGA. For ALGA 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 housing issues and that local 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 roundtable 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. Again I hope this gets support Thank you. Anyone else wish to talk? Brian Stockwell 01:38:59.835
Yes please Mr Chair. First Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:39:03.995
Thank you. Just a quick overview of my motion. It follows up from our conversations today. Around um creating waste into a resource. I'm seeking an alignment of specifications for recovered products and infrastructure projects. I'm calling upon the LGAQ 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. 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 type 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 wellbeing. So thank you for listening and I'm hoping that we get great support at the conference for this motion. Brian Stockwell 01:41:10.535
Thank you. That's awesome. Nicola Wilson 01:41:12.995
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. MacGillivray, the LGAQ advocates 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 statewide data sharing agreement. So this is where we have suspected STA operations that are not actually approved under the local law and help us to actually identify those much more efficiently than we currently can. Second one has been important. 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 in its recent tariff structure statement. Currently under assessment by the Australian energy regulator for the next regular 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 01:42:36.500
Oh my one was 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 luck, state and Federal governments to make the transition to a low carbon economy, the proposed tariff structure on community would reduce the uptake of community batteries. We're aware in our region there's very significant investment in large scale pumped hydro in highly significant environmental areas in the Mary catchment that's probably 15 years off before we have any benefit 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 they've ran out of fuel and 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 and hopefully also at the same time the Australian energy regulator and SPA, STA 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 the spread of short-term accommodation without reliable data. We're finding through our compliance process that the scraping we do of the internet isn't as active as we hoped and we're in fact finding that as a result of sending out hundreds and 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 having the local law they've joined with us to put this motion up and I think that adds weight to the argument. Anyone else? Tom Wegener 01:45:15.239
Well, I'll speak to it. These are exceptionally brilliant motions, so good luck to the team going to the conference and yeah, Mayor Wilkie for presenting these. I think that you're the one that presents these. I would actually like to see these in press because they are very, very smart and I'm hoping that Ken isn't here right now, but I'm hoping 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 01:45:48.381
Through the Chair, there is another motion that no one's spoken to. You want to speak to that? Chair, motion attachment 3. Does that mean the one that Councillor Wilkie put up? Yeah, that one. All the other motions have been spoken to. Frank Wilkie 01:46:07.011
I can cover that. Sure. Will mean I'm closing. No, you don't. I have a question. Yes. You put up a motion, didn't you? Yeah. Could you give me some information on that please? Certainly. Bearing in mind that all these motions with this, motion is worth. We're debating at the moment. If it's approved, means all these motions become the motions of the Noosa Council to be 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 are for registered candidates and this flows from a the recent local government elections where we had third have parties issuing how vote cards with preferred candidates with information on the how to vote cards which 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 this information misleading and confronting and if the electoral 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 responsibility to ensure that all material there is fact-checked just as registered candidates do. Hence the term levelling the electoral playing field. Thank you. I think everyone's talked now so you wish to close? 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 to have a look at. They'll make decision as to whether or not they proceed to the conference for debate and perhaps Councillor Wegener when we hear back from the LGAQ whether they've been accepted 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 good quality motions I agree and yeah I don't think anyone's going to vote against this motion. But I will leave it at that. Brian Stockwell 01:48:38.778
Okay, I will put the vote to those in favour. 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 development control, Patrick. Would you like to give us a so we've got the. I should note, that. Generally. At this point we have a range of conflicts of interest to be declared and Council will note that the reporting format has been changed so they have, the applicants have been de-identified and but if anyone is aware that they have accomplished it's still your responsibility to note it. Okay, yes you correct councils, we have changed the formatting to make it more efficient for our staff we are spending a considerable amount of time preparing reports so so we take the feedback, if you would like to see the applicant name moving forward, we could include that. For me I think it's a good idea not to say it, because then we're unaware of the conflict, we're only noting it. Frank Wilkie 01:49:48.964
Just a question then, it looks like the applicant's names are on there. They're they are. All there, are they? Amelia Lorentson 01:49:54.618
Yes. Oh, I'm not looking at the wrong column. Yes, you are correct. On page 2, 1, 2, and 3, they're all there. Brian Stockwell 01:50:01.698
The full detail is the column. Ah, okay, I didn't read Frank Wilkie 01:50:06.518
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. We can do that. We've been declaring out of an abundance of caution. We don't really need to. But if you want to read remove your names, that's fine. Brian Stockwell 01:50:30.232
No, we can certainly do that. It's just a matter of deleting the last item high, and that's basically what we have built. 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 range of work that's coming through the team. Applications this month that were decided. 46 have been very, very busy. Patrick Murphy 01:50:56.528
So, yeah, great effort by the team. Again, as I said, a varied range of applications. 46 six approved by the same one application that was refused and then four applications that came through Council. Brian Stockwell 01:51:13.888
Thank you. Any questions? Oh, would someone like to move the recommendation? I'll move it. Oh, I think Council will be the one. And second. I'll put it to the vote. All in favour? Bye bye, Isla. That's unanimous. Okay, our next items. I'll have to look up here because I've lost connection. We just heard a connection call from Councillor is it going to act up on that issue you can switch to guest if you are against 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 254J3E of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing item 7.1 Planning & Environment Court appeal number D23 of 2022 application for reconfiguration for reconfiguring a lot. One into 12 lots at 111 lake wiper drive Noosaville described at that should be as not at described as lot four um right sorry that's after on rp36729 uh public pursuant out the word public does he want to section 254 j3g of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing item 7.2 with those numbers contract variation for project management services 2022 flood recovery and reconstruction pursuant to discussing item 7.3 of flood 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 & Organisation in the motion that's just the title of the is it? Oh, okay. Okay going for me um seconder happy to serve I've got Councillor Lorentson 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 01:54:06.140
General question do we know why we're having connection problems Amelia Lorentson 01:54:11.700
My phone is on game it's because Brian Stockwell 01:54:14.140
I'm involved we're right so we have three motions uh three recommendations here to consider Council uh would anyone like to move the first recommendation into is motion a I'll move and do we have a seconder Councillor Wilson first up so it's Councillor Wilkie and Wilson do you need to talk to the man thank you very SPEAKER_05 01:54:38.850
Much. Frank Wilkie 01:54:39.251
Haven't seen I can't read it that Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the general committee meeting day 15th July 2024 regarding Planning & Environment Court appeal d23 of 2022 and B, agree to settle the appeal generally in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in attachment one to the report Brian Stockwell 01:55:01.084
Do you wish to talk to the mate no it needs to be settled anyone else wish to talk the motion no I'll put flip two to vote those in favour Council Finzel yes so that's unanimous thank you and we'll move on to the next motion Amelia Lorentson 01:55:18.914
I'm happy to move that Council note the report by the disaster reconciled reconstruction coordinator to the General Committee meeting dated 15 July 2024 and a approved increasing the value of the QRA funded contract 21 22 q 125 by 1.7 million three dollars gst exclusive from.4 3 million gst exclusive excluding to 5.1 million with program completion expected by 30 June 2025 be delegate to this CEO the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and administer the contract on behalf of Council and delegate to the amend the contract up to 11.5 percent of the total contract value and d the contract finish date to no longer no later than September 30 2025 Brian Stockwell 01:56:18.521
We have a second Councillor Phillips do you talk to the motion no anyone else wish to I'll put that into the vote all in favour and Councillor yes that's unanimous thank you we move on I'll move it, if you Frank Wilkie 01:56:42.919
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 contracts CM003170NB. CM00317B by $2,596,239.57, GST excluded, from $9,849,609. Six hundred and nine thousand dollars and twelve cents GST exclusive. To $12,445,848.69, GST exclusive. Delegate to the CEO the power to negotiate, finalise, execute and administer the contract on behalf of Council and amend the contract up to 11.5% of the total contract value. Brian Stockwell 01:57:38.907
And do I have a seconder? Councillor Wilson do you wish to talk to the motion? No thank you Mr Chair. Anyone else? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? And Councillor Finzel? Yes. That's unanimous. And we've had one more item. I'll move it. Jessica Phillips 01:58:00.985
That Council a note the report by the manager infrastructure planning design and delivery to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 9th of July 2024. These support 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 see authorised the chief executive office to execute any title transfer documentation if required on behalf of Council. I'll second it. Brian Stockwell 01:58:38.004
That's seconded by Councillor Wilkie i'll put it to the vote. Did we wish to talk to it? No? Those in favour? Yes. And that's generous which brings us to the end of today. Thank you Councillors for your diligent attention to your duty and we will close at 3:28. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
