General Committee, 14 April 2025
Date: Monday, 14 April 2025 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin, QLD 4565, Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:07:03
Synopsis: Tourism Noosa funding delay, Brand risk cited, Rowing Club relocation approved with strict conditions, Financials strong, legal/consultancy overspend, Cyber Risk noted, Industrial Action unaffected.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Brian Stockwell Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Acting Director Corporate Services Scott Ison Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Director Infrastructure Services Kyrone Dodd Deputations
Alan Golley Kathleen Swalling Sharon Raguse Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:00.040
So welcome to the General Committee for April 2025. We acknowledge that the Kabi Kabi peoples are the traditional Custodians whose land and waters we now all share. We recognise that Noosa Shire has always been a place of cultural, spiritual, social and economic significance. The traditional Custodians' unique values, ancient and enduring cultures deepen and enrich the life of our community. We wish to pay respect to our elders, past, present and emerging and acknowledge the important role First Nations people continue to play within the Noosa community. I'd like to also acknowledge that we have a full complement of Councillors with Councillor Finzel attending remotely. Our next item of business is therefore confirmation of minutes I have a mover. I'll move it Mr Chair. Happens to second. Which minutes are you moving? Frank Wilkie 00:55.938
We are in the General Committee. Larry Sengstock 00:57.641
You asked me that question on ordnance. Frank Wilkie 01:02.214
Just give me a minute. Good to see you on the land. Brian Stockwell 01:07.200
So we are moving the Minutes on to the last General Committee Meeting. No need for discussion. All those in favour? And Councillor Finzel. You're on mute. Yes. Okay, that's carried unanimously. Our next item therefore is an item referred, oh, is the deputations. Yes. And so that's a deputation from Tourism Noosa in regard to their funding agreement. If Alan Golley, the Chair of the Tourism Noosa board, if you'd like to stand where you're apparently standing and you've had up to 15 minutes to make your application. Alan Golley 01:51.429
Welcome, Alan. Thank you, Councillor. I'd like to mirror the sentiment of the Chair today and acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of land that we're meeting upon today, the Kabi Kabi people, and pay my respects to their elders past and present. We recognise their ongoing connection to country, land, water and culture. We honour their role as the first stewards of this beautiful place we're privileged to call home. Mayor, Councillors, CEO, Council staff and members of the community here and online. My name is Alan Golley and I am a Noosa resident and ratepayer. I'm general manager of Seahaven Noosa Resort on Hastings Street and I love the Noosa community. I dedicate a significant amount of time, my own time and energy, in supporting community organisations. I'm the secretary of the Hastings Street Association, I'm president of my P&C Association at Cooroy State School and I'm here today in the capacity as Chair of Tourism Noosa. I'm here representing the 450 businesses and community groups that make up our membership, those that pay rates contributing to Council's operating revenue, and those businesses that understand the critical role Tourism Noosa plays in shaping the economy and the Noosa brand, both for visitors and for locals. Tourism Noosa was established as a not-for-profit destination marketing organisation, not a private company, not a for-profit certainly marketing firm, and certainly not a political body or lobbying group. It was created but for the business community to promote the region and to promote the brand. For over two decades we have worked collaboratively with Council, not against it, in the best interests of Noosa. There is no personal benefit to the board of volunteers. Its actions are scrutinised local tourism and non-tourism businesses that make up its membership. Tourism Noosa is here asking the Council to accept the further term of our current funding and performance deed, honouring their commitment to the business community, until the destination is ready and we can renegotiate the terms of the deed. The funding and performance deed heavily emphasised that TN's strategic direction would be guided by the Destination Management Plan and that Tourism Noosa would implement relevant aspects of it. With the DMP delayed, TN needs to continue the work of the Council endorsed four year destination strategy that we presented two years ago. Originally, Tourism Noosa was funded by a specific Tourism and Economic Levy. This made the link between visitor economy support and business contribution. Business contributions completely transparent. When Council chose to move that levy into general rates, it noted that tourism and economic development activities should be funded by general rates, but applied only to businesses that are currently paying the levy. As such, the amount of revenue collected and subsequently spent on delivering these services to support the tourism and visitor economy will remain unchanged. Clearly understood by the business community that the quantum they contributed, and therefore that was spent on brand management, would not change. Businesses continue to pay these contributions year on and they have increased. There has been no CPI increase to Tourism Noosa's core funding for 10 years. Had CPI been introduced back at the start, the 10 year period, Tourism Noosa's operating revenue today from Council would be $3.2 million. Over 10 years, that's $3 million in efficiencies that our organisation has had to find. Over the last few years, as businesses' general rates have increased by CPI, those funds have been diverted into economic development activities and helping Council to weather their own inflationary pressures to the budget. And we know that tourism is not industry the only in town. It is, however, a significant industry, arguably the largest. And tourism businesses support many other local businesses within our Shire, engaging their goods and services. This is apparent through an independent study found 45 per cent of businesses rely on tourism for most of their operating income, and another 30 per cent of businesses rely on it for some of their operating income. That's 75 per cent of businesses that directly feel the benefits of the visitor economy. These businesses are owned, and operated by locals, by ratepayers, and they employ many locals to keep their businesses running. But we also need to look at the broader economic climate. I'm sure our residents are already starting to feel the effects of a volatile the market. The world is entering a period of financial uncertainty. Indicators of a global recession are appearing, and whether it's consumer sentiment, discretionary spending, or international travel patterns, we are going to feel it. Now is not a time to devalue one of the organisations that has the expertise and agility and credibility to respond when economic conditions tighten. The current deed explicitly noted that negotiations for the further term should have been completed by the 31st of December 2024. Council has delayed this process through reasons we understand but it's already having real impacts with Tourism Noosa not able to fully commit to our winter campaign which we operate every year supporting tourism through the quiet winter months supporting the Noosa economy over that period. When the global financial crisis hit during the COVID-19 pandemic when floods, fires and like recently cyclones have majorly impacted our businesses Tourism Noosa mobilised quickly local businesses, protect our brand and stimulate the visitor economy. We know that tourism activity in Noosa is not all attributed to what we do at Tourism Noosa. If we didn't exist, people would still come. But the most dangerous thing we can do right now is to devalue the Noosa brand. A premium, nature-based, values-driven brand that took decades to build. Other destinations are actively seeking the same markets that we are. And by failing to invest in that brand, our share of those markets diminishes, we get lower demand from those brands, which means we'll need to bring down accommodation rates to get people through the doors. This will attract more people from those lower value, higher volume markets. They stay less, they spend less, and they'll be there'll be increased obviously effect to residential amenity with more of those low value people, and obviously less economic stimulation from the visitor economy. This will also impact business investment into the Shire. This is not hype. A competitive market, and we must remain on the front of it. Now we know that Noosa's appeal is built not only in what we offer to visitors, but in what we protect for residents. Tourism Noosa does not aim to increase the volume for sake, or to push overflow tourism into the hinterland, or actively seek out residential properties to convert into STAs. Quite the opposite. Its strategy focuses on high-value, aligned visitation. Visitors who stay longer, spend more, and respect the place. We tourists promote staying in Noosa to visit the hinterland so that they can spread the economic value through the Shire. Our strategy clearly works. Visitation numbers have dropped since the height of 2.5 million people per year in 2015 to our recent stats showing just below two million annual visitors, a drop of 300,000 daytrippers per year when the population of South East Queensland has actually grown from 3.4 million to 4.1 million. Visitation decreasing by 22% yet the value of the visitor economy has continued to grow. Creating division in the community and spreading misinformation about our strategy is not in the best interest of the community. Collaboration is key to embracing regenerative tourism bringing community, environment, culture and tourism together towards true stewardship of our destination. We actively bring together stakeholders from across the Shire through regular round table meetings with environmental groups, business associations, Council staff and other interest groups. This collaboration ensures that tourism strategies align with shared values, that actions are informed, transparent and responsible. Tourism Noosa doesn't view itself as separate from the community, it is an integral part of the community, made up of locals, businesses, parents, volunteers, employees and advocates. These people all a deep care for this place and a genuine commitment to getting the balance right. Now Noosa doesn't need the same level of destination marketing it did 10 or 20 years ago, we acknowledge that. Exactly why our approach has changed. Today destination marketing isn't about billboards and mass exposure, it's about targeted engagement, it's about reputation management. It's about value alignment and it's about education. We're constantly analysing trends, visitor sentiment and community values to ensure that the Noosa brand remains competitive, relevant and reflective of who we are as a Shire. Tourism Noosa's strategic plan places the natural environment as a core value. This isn't lip service, it's a measurable, resourced and long-term commitment. We deliver education to visitors on how to travel responsibly, we promote low-impact experiences, have nature, we have developed campaigns around and we've wildlife nature, wildlife protection, sustainable travel behaviours, and we've partnered with and run entire campaigns promoting the UNESCO Noosa Biosphere Reserve and are a partner in Noosa Landcare through our Trees for Tourism program, which has helped to regenerate koala corridors and manage erosion in our hinterland. Tourism, giving back to the environment. We recognise, as a broader business community, that the natural environment is our economy. Protecting it isn't just good PR, it's essential. And Tourism Noosa has been leading that conversation in a way that aligns with both Council's values and the wider aspirations of the community. And there is much more work to be done in this space. Tourism Noosa has evolved to meet the moment. It's tightened its budget, strategy, it has collaborated more than ever before. And it has done so whilst being held to increasingly high standards, one that it consistently meets. We are not here asking for more. We are simply asking that the original agreement be honoured, that the funding continue to reflects the value of the business community it represents, until we can renegotiate terms based on the Destination Management Plan. This is not about marketing, it's about brand management, it's about our reputation as a Shire. It's about jobs, families, the future of Noosa as a place to live, work and visit. Thank you for your time today. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 12:31.924
Okay, so we move on to section 7 and there's been one item referred from the Planning & Environment Committee that's MCU 24 0151, built an application for Material Change of Use for outdoor sport and recreation rowing club at Lake Macdonald. I need to declare a. Conflict of interest. Tom Wegener 12:58.205
Um, Sharon, do you see? Do you have anything? See, I'll just that again. Sorry about that. It looked like it was there. Brian Stockwell 13:11.287
Can I just wait for my declaration to come back up? There we go. I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my previous work in Lake Macdonald for Seqwater. In 2019, as part of a broader consultancy project that I completed as a sole trader, I undertook land asset classification of the land owned by Seqwater around the Lake Macdonald dam. This work was at a strategic level and assessed the parcel in question as part of the broader evaluation. The project produced land capability and suitability assessments for various land uses including recreational pursuits such as that proposed in the application. In 2020, as part of the broader consultancy project, I also undertook a further assessment evaluating suitability of the land around Lake Macdonald for a solar farm. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I've had no dealings with the Seqwater in a private consultancy capacity since that time, therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting room now that I respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Frank Wilkie 14:34.708
All okay coming up I'd like to I like to move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Council Stockwell decide that in accordance with 150 ES of the Local Government Act section 150 Local Government Act 2009 and having considered the Council's conflict of interest as described decided the Council of stockholm a participated in voting on this matter related to MCU 240151 development application lot 1 RP167252 Lake Macdonald Drive. Lake Macdonald as a reasonable person will not have a perception of bias because there is no personal gain or loss involved. Have a seconder for that, please. Seconder, Councillor Wilson. Any discussion? On Tom? Unknown 15:30.806
Tom? Just trying to really let it sink in. I didn't see this in the end. Tom Wegener 15:39.074
So, you don't, I mean, you're not mentioning the club. You have no analysis for the rowing club at any time in the past? Brian Stockwell 15:51.105
No, nothing site specific like this. That parcel they've been, got the application over was part of the analysis I did around Lake Macdonald as I did for every other lake dam impoundment on South East Queensland. It's only because part of that assessment did have a look at the recreational suitability that there's a potential perception that there may. It's just being transparent for the purpose of saying that yes, I have done work as a private individual on this site, but I have no longer any private interests dealings with NCP. Can I ask a question in terms of the 2019. Amelia Lorentson 16:29.727
Can I ask to a question in terms of the. 2019 consultancy work that you engaged in. Who were you working for? Was it Seqwater or Noosa Council? Seqwater. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 16:46.789
Any further discussion? I'll put the motion that is in favour. That's yes that's unanimous, noting that Councillor Stockwell did not vote. Brian Stockwell 16:57.507
Thank you. So, we've been joined by the Director, the manager and the reporting officer, Nadine Gordon. Nadine, are you going to give us an executive summary of this application, please? Nadine Gordon 17:09.446
I certainly am, afternoon Councillors. This application. Is for a development application to temporarily relocate the Lake Macdonald rowing club from its current position along Colwood road to a new location along at the end of Hoy Road. Which is on the western side of Lake Macdonald. The move is required due to the proposed dam upgrade and spillway works proposed by Seqwater. And. This application has the site's been the applicant is Seqwater they're undertaking the application. The Seqwater has liaised with Council officers and the rowing club to find us alternative location from the current site. Had a number of requirements including access to the lake but specifically access to the lake when the dam levels had been lowered and as a result in consultation with Council they have identified this site which is also owned by Seqwater. The proposed facility is similar to what's currently located at Colwood road. It has two containers, a fence compound, a toilet, a car parking area as well as access to the lake. The use, unfortunately, is not consistent with the current environmental management and conservation zone. However, after our consideration and review, we believe it is an acceptable proposal based on it being a temporary use. The relocation is necessary. Because of the dam upgrade. It is above the flood line, no vegetation is to be removed, there is car parking on site and of course it has access to the lake. Two submissions were received in response to advertising of the proposal, most of them related to visual impacts, noise and a little bit of traffic and some antisocial behaviour. Conditions have been opposed imposed to posed to address some of these issues, including colours of materials on site, limitations on the hours of operation, limitations on the number of people, as well as the time limit. Noting that this is only for nine people, so it is a very small club. To reflect the temporary nature of the use, a seven-year sunset clause has been included with the proposal and this was requested by the applicant based on the construction works and also giving some contingency case the works aren't completed in time. I do note there is also an administrative error which was discussed previously. For some reason our computer system give doesn't the site an actual street number so in the recommendation we should give include at the end of it the recommendation says note the report by the coordinator. Of planning etc we should include the lot and RP so it should be situated at Lake Macdonald Drive, Lake Macdonald and described as lot 1 RP167252 on RP 167252 and that's reflected up on the screen. Unidentified Speaker 20:26.954
Is that liquid removed? That was already removed, I thought. Amelia Lorentson 20:30.964
No, in terms of where it's sitting in the recommendation. Were you saying it should go to the end? Nadine Gordon 20:36.409
I had it at the end. Yeah. At the end of Lake Macdonald and described as yeah yeah yeah just in front of end. Amelia Lorentson 21:05.681
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 21:06.862
Described as between Macdonald and. Nadine Gordon 21:09.105
Oh yeah sorry yes. Lake Macdonald yeah go back in front of lot 1. As described as. Larry Sengstock 21:21.098
Described. Amelia Lorentson 21:22.780
Sorry. Brian Stockwell 21:37.041
Okay that's a modified recommendation. Do we have any questions or stuff? No? Do we have anyone who's wishing to move the motion? Amelia Lorentson 21:46.592
I have an amendment that I'd like to move. Would you like to move it as the original motion? I'm happy to do so yeah. So move it as an alternate motion? I'll move it as an alternate motion, it's only a minor change. Brian Stockwell 22:08.783
Are you happy to include the change that was recommended above? Amelia Lorentson 22:12.703
Yeah, the technical changes, absolutely. I'm happy to move that Council note the report by the coordinator planning to the planning and environment meeting dated 8th of April 2025 regarding development application MCU240151 for a development permit for Material Change of Use outdoor sport and recreation rowing clubs situated at Lake Macdonald Drive Lake Macdonald as described as lot 1 RP167252 and approved the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in attachment one 1 with the following amendment to condition 2020 development approval lapses on 17th of April 2032 or within 12 months following the completion of the Seqwater Lake Macdonald Dam Improvement Project whichever occurred occurs earlier the approved use must cease operating by this date and all structures hardstand areas fencing removed within 60 days of the cessation of operations with the site rehabilitated by a removing all weed species including declared plants under the biosecurity act 2014 and Subordinate Regulation 2003 the Noosa Local Government Area Pest Management Plan 2015-2019 Planning & Environment Committee Meeting report 8th you. April 2025 be planting the disturbed areas with a species mix and density reflective of the local variation of the regional ecosystem and site-specific conditions these works must be undertaken by a qualified person and be to the reasonable satisfaction of the Manager Development Assessment be find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve the application one the proposal will enable an existing rowing club to continue to operate while necessary improvements are made to Lake Macdonald dam and important water supply for South East Queensland two the proposed use is small in scale requires direct access to the lake is temporary nature and potential impacts on the area's ecological and water catchment values have been minimised and see note the report is provided in accordance with section 63 5 of the Planning Act 2016 um. Brian Stockwell 25:03.807
I'm happy to second but I believe the as after Lake Macdonald should be after described that it should read Lake Macdonald described as not one yeah and add then as afterwards the. Amelia Lorentson 25:42.645
The reason that I've just made a minor amendment to the condition is to basically reflect that if the Lake Macdonald Dam Improvement Project is completed before the 17th of April then 2032 then the use, which is the rowing club ceases and the reasons are that it just provides the adjoining residents with greater certainty regarding the timeline and addresses some of the concerns at the time frame might otherwise seem too long and I met with the Nadine and Patrick on this one and they considered that a reasonable amendment. Nicola Wilson 26:27.153
I just want to ask a question whether there might be unintended consequences of the whichever earlier because if the works weren't completed by 2032, which hopefully is not really likely, then would they have to move because that's the earlier date? So would we be better to take that whichever occurs earlier or what? Brian Stockwell 26:53.720
So. Richard MacGillivray 26:54.623
Councillor, so essentially they've got seven years but if the works are completed sooner. Nicola Wilson 27:01.781
Yeah, but this wording says it lapses on the 20. In 2032. That 2032, that be the earlier date. Meaning that the works are not completed by that point and the rowing club isn't actually in control when that happens and so could that mean that we hit that 2032 and the works haven't finished and now. Richard MacGillivray 27:24.302
That could apply to VARIET I guess if we were at that stage. Amelia Lorentson 27:28.800
I have a question to Nadine. They have entered into a five year. A five year lease arrangement for the rowing club. So after the five years my guess is they need to come to Council to have that renewed. Is that correct? Unidentified Speaker 27:46.200
No, I don't think so. Nadine Gordon 27:50.504
I'm not sure. The leasing won't have anything to do with our land use. So we're dealing with it. We're setting the date 17th of April 2020. I understand what you're saying too. Have we given them eight years rather than seven years? Nicola Wilson 28:06.130
No. I was saying if the work isn't completed by 5:32, they have to move anyway. Nadine Gordon 28:10.846
Yes. Oh, that's right. Then they'll have to come back to us to extend it. But if the work's. Nicola Wilson 28:14.653
Not completed, they can't move. Nadine Gordon 28:16.907
That's right. So if they're not completed, they can come to us and seek an amendment to that condition and we could extend it. Nicola Wilson 28:23.066
Necessary to have those? Richard MacGillivray 28:27.932
The reason behind that is that they're anticipating the project will take between four to five years. So they've said can give us seven years, give us a couple of years of contingency. We think that's quite, you generous, an extra two years. But nonetheless, if they stick to their anticipated, you know, construction timeframe of four to five years, it should be completed well within that timeframe. If they do take up to the full seven years and work's not completed, we would be working closely with Seqwater if we need to amend their condition there to address any urgent issues due to extended construction timeframe. We consider there being limited risk, though, that they're being forced to move without it given it's Seqwater and we'll be working closely with them throughout the entire construction project. Brian Stockwell 29:21.741
Can I just clarify, Seqwater's applicant, have they nominated the seven years? Yes. So the application they've made requested to 2032, so at the moment saying they can head up to that point but if they've finished earlier. Frank Wilkie 29:37.275
I have a question, with this amendment, sorry with this motion, the change wording, if the use finishes, if they've finished the work they've on finished the work 17 April 2032 or whenever, which is, on or whenever, do they have to have everything removed within 12 months or 60 days? And then there's a 60 day period given. The original, and right now we've put a different time frame into it. Richard MacGillivray 30:17.109
So the 12 month date is the trigger of when the process to relocate should commence, I guess the 60 days is basically the time frame for them to undertake the works to relocate the equipment. So I guess the 12 months is the commencement of they must now move. And then they've got 60 days to actually remove and rehabilitate the site from once that decision point is made. So either at 17th of April 2032 or. Brian Stockwell 30:48.546
12 Months within 12 months from the date of the works being completed on the Lake Macdonald Dam upgrade project. The first date is a cessation of the use, the second date is the remediation of the site. So basically use finishes at the first date and then there's 60 days to clear the site. Amelia Lorentson 31:15.779
And condition. And the paralysis. Which date it is. Condition 20 states the approval must cease operating by the date and all structures. Hardstand areas fencing removed within 60 days of cessation of operations. With the site rehabilitated by within that 12 month period. Brian Stockwell 31:45.588
Are you clear there, Councillor? Frank Wilkie 31:47.869
Oh look, I just on board Councillor Wilson's comments as well. I think it complicates something that was quite clear. But if Councillors are comfortable with it. Amelia Lorentson 32:04.530
Can I, throw back to Nadine? So my original wording. It was a question. Oh, question. Can we use my wording? This is the wording that was provided to me. My wording was this development approval lapses on 17th of April 2032 or earlier if the works are completed ahead of schedule. Brian Stockwell 32:27.827
It's not definitive. Unidentified Speaker 32:30.230
I think whichever occurs earlier, I mean, I think it's okay because the 17th of April 2032 will always be your end date. Of ministers. Frank Wilkie 32:47.667
Question to Councillor Lorentson. Are you happy for it to be amended to say this development approval lapses on 17th of April 2032 or. Any date that occurs sooner. Is that your intention? Amelia Lorentson 33:02.378
That's correct, but my wording wasn't definitive enough that we needed to specify a date. I don't. Nicola Wilson 33:13.087
Just a follow up question on that. Why would we give them 12 months for an earlier date if they're not getting 12 months from April 32? Richard MacGillivray 33:27.404
So it just gives them time if the project does finish on the anticipated timeline, it gives them time to then make arrangements to relocate back to the other site. So it gives them still some contingency, but a smaller amount of contingency than what they're originally planning, which is currently two about two years. This is just reducing that contingency to about a 12 month period from what they initially requested. Unidentified Speaker 33:53.685
Maybe it should be within 60 days, because we're giving them 60 days from the 17th April 2032, so we just apply a similar timeframe from an earlier date. Amelia Lorentson 34:07.392
I'm happy I'm to make the change. Here, if everyone wants it. Frank Wilkie 34:11.634
Within 60 days. Brian Stockwell 34:13.621
Yeah yep. Does this have to be in the. So, we need the agreement of all Councillors. And that would be for the line to read, this development approval lapses on the 17th of April 2032. Or within 60 days following the completion of the Seqwater Lake Macdonald dam improvement project, whichever occurs earlier. Amelia Lorentson 34:42.659
Nadine, are you happy with the changes? Fantastic, thank you. I agree to that, thank you. Brian Stockwell 34:49.856
Yes. Councillor Finzel, would you be happy with that change? Karen Finzel 34:56.436
Look, I'll support it. I do question is it necessary, but happy to support. Brian Stockwell 35:05.935
I think I've already seen other people nodding. Unidentified Speaker 35:07.835
Yeah, no, I'm cool with it. Brian Stockwell 35:11.925
My question is. Tom Wegener 35:13.609
I guess there always is a hard day when the project is it takes over, but kind of nebulous. Long time to end when it's officially over, because probably we're well and truly done and dusted, all the roads are done, everything is done, so that's not really an inconvenience for 60 days after everything is truly done and dusted. Because there's no shortage of. Unidentified Speaker 35:38.196
Playing, but you know, it's not going to be rushed, we've got plenty for it when we do it. Brian Stockwell 35:43.256
I believe now that everyone's agreed to that change without an alternative motion. So does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 35:58.264
I would like to really thank staff for taking the time for these nine people, nine tavon rowers, although they're not many, they make up for it in passion for so thank you for really coming to the party and helping them out with this, which is quite a bit of work. And I'm really happy to see you have it. Congratulations and thank you. Brian Stockwell 36:24.051
I'm just looking at the. You're are you just really working it? Mr. Okay, don't look at the screen. The president. Frank Wilkie 36:32.167
Thanks, Chair. I think the key points about this item is that Seqwater has requested the club to move. They've told them they can't say the current location because of the dam improvement works. So it's a move that's being required. By Seqwater. They've made good efforts to find an alternative location for their club. There's nine members, the two submissions that came from this proposal, they raised issues of visual amenity and traffic and noise and the conditions that have been imposed address that by requiring the two containers to be painted in muted tones, non-reflective surfaces, restricting events to before 9:00am. Nadine Gordon 37:21.911
And after 3:30pm. Frank Wilkie 37:25.231
And no regattas or major events on site. So I think it's a good, a very fair and good response good by Seqwater. Working with their club, they would like to continue their activity despite the disruption of a major dam upgrade which has to occur. Brian Stockwell 37:49.396
Anything else you wish to speak to? Councillor Lorentson would you like to close? Amelia Lorentson 37:55.828
No, I think we said everything and spoke quite in length about this at the Planning & Environment Committee okay, meeting. Brian Stockwell 38:02.671
I'll put to the vote those in favour? Yes. Fever? Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you planners. And now we move on to the monthly finance report. This is excuse me, Chair. Sorry, there's no talking from the gallery. I'm the president of our own pub. Yeah, sorry, there is no talking here. Okay, all okay, welcome Mr. Acting Director, Pauline. Would you like to give us an overview, or are you giving the Acting Director the chance or the opportunity? Pauline, would you like to. Pauline 38:53.773
Give us an overview, or are you giving the Acting Director the chance or the opportunity? I'll go ahead. Afternoon Councillors. So financial performance for the month of March continues to be positive with operating revenues out of the forecast and operating expenditures under budget at this stage of the year. Operating revenue is $2.2 million above budget which is being driven by $1.7 million in interest revenue, $400,000 from sales of goods and services, $380,000 from other revenue sources and $194,000 from grant programs. For the $1,000 this has been offset by a lower than forecast rates revenue of $125,000 and Fees and Charges of $379,000. Operating expenditure is $202,000 under budget with employee costs by $540,000 under budget and this is due to staff vacancies, some savings from some work cover premiums and the forecast salary increases that were to commence in March which have not yet taken effect due to the ongoing negotiation of Council's certified agreement. Once that's finalised and the back pay is approved, those savings will be used to fund those payments. Insurers and services is $585,000 over budget. Civil operations is currently $855,000 over budget. I've priced while I've $137,000, street lighting, $136,000, and disaster management, $103,000, with at least $30,000 of that relating to our tropical cyclone stand-up. Materials and services are underspent, with waste, $130,000 under, traffic and transport, $86,000, and development assessment, $111,000 underspent. The quarterly cost summary has also been included this month, which shows legal and associated costs, $90,000 over year-to-date budget, with the majority of this overspend relating to development appeals. Also included is the quarterly consultancy expenditure summary, which shows consultancy, $330,000 the year-to-date budget. Some of this overspend is due to the timing of budget, as well as where the project budget was loaded when it was originally adopted. For instance, some may have been loaded against contract services rather than consultancy, but the spend was ultimately consultancy. It should be noted that these summaries only include operational consultancy costs, they do not include any consultancy costs that relate to our capital project program. I'd like to remind you that general consultancy costs relate to a lot of specialised services and the economy is dependent on the nature and size of the projects that are being undertaken by Council at any point in time. Finance costs are $203,000 under budget and this is due to the deferral of borrowings that we had flagged for waste capital works. Overall Council's year-to-date operating position at March is $2.4 million above budget and this will be utilised to fund any emergent expenditure through to June 2025. Capital revenue is $9.9 million above budget and that's due to the timing of receipts from Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements and SEQ PSP funding. Capital expenditure is behind budget, $48.6 million year-to-date, $35 million relating to disaster projects and $13 million relating to Council's capital, Council's base capital program. I'd like to bring Council's attention to a typo on the typo on page 31. It should read $120.9 million in cash, not $12.09 million in cash. The Council is currently holding $120.9 million in cash, with the second buy rates running run occurring in January. We are therefore coming off the second cash peak of the year, and this will diminish through to 30 June as business as usual occurs and the capital program is delivered. This month's report also includes the quarterly dissection of cash holdings, which shows 46.4 million. Point four million dollars in restricted funds, fifteen point three million dollars relating to capital projects which are yet to be delivered, twenty nine million dollars equivalent to three months cash cover to ensure Council can meet its financial sustainability requirements, and six point nine million dollars in unrestricted cash, which is the cash that's available to fund emergent or new capital works, and allows Council to leverage its grant funding opportunities by funding any co-contributions. Overall Council's financial performance remains on track, subject to any emergent issues that may arise. You. Now and the end of. Brian Stockwell 43:20.396
Questions? Amelia Lorentson 43:22.356
In terms of consultancy spending, costs are $330,100 over budget and we've budgeted $2.1 million annual budget for consultancy costs. How are we using to me that's a lot of money for consultants um and I'm wondering how are we using this information in order to guide training and professional development initiatives I note that we are on budget with our training and development does the do we do a deep dive with our consultancy and identify talent gaps what expertise is missing um what talent we need in Council because I just can't see this. Being sustainable we cannot be spending 2.1 million dollars per annum on consultancy fees. Pauline 44:28.641
So in terms of consultancy we use a lot of different consultants it's not just one consultant there can be up to 100 different consultancies comprise that number a lot of this year relates to the housing at Cooroy that project that's happening at Lake Macdonald as well as the investment in ICT so there's the migration from SharePoint there's a few other different projects that this financial year that relate to that consultancy there's also the car parking management plan which is investing in consultancy they're probably a year to date the bigger spends that we've had in terms of your question around do we do a comparison to identify training gaps that's not something formally that we would do but obviously we're aware in terms of what consultants we're engaging it's not always I suppose financially beneficial for Council to necessarily have a specific staff member who's only doing a certain type of work that's why we would use a consultant to complement a project that we might be delivering it's not something we may need ongoing it may be just a piece of work that needs to be completed but certainly there might be instances where it might flag that there is a training gap or a skills gap in. Amelia Lorentson 45:36.296
Thank you, Paul. Mr. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 45:39.160
In the summary of-- our business activity for holiday parks we talk about a variance of 100,000 but when you get down to the detailed talks about 48,000. Is that rounding or is that a typo if you look at the. If you look at the figures stand down at the table? And services. Do we have a table? Yes. And then sales of goods and services we don't get three of 16. You talk about 44.8 above budget. Pauline 46:23.746
I would say it's probably a typo. Let me just go to my notes. What was that? So, are you referring to pay? Just so I'm clear. Brian Stockwell 46:45.568
So at the top you've got a table that just compares waste and holiday parks? That's right, yes. So in terms of the business unit activity at the top, it's just rounding. Correct. Tom Wegener 47:01.831
Sorry. The question about the development assessment pool, that seems to be a pretty substantial draw, and of course I was wondering is that where we're going with the lower development other testaments. Pauline 47:20.400
Yeah. I think as we've discussed at Council before, it's dependent on the timing and what applications are coming in at any point in time. We do have some bigger applications that are currently being, that we've received funding last year for that we haven't unwound because the progress of those projects have not been completed. But yes, I think as I think Richard may have mentioned last time um that they have seen a reduction, but that doesn't mean to say that there may not be some coming through into the future. Tom Wegener 47:48.374
With the low budget, I find that interesting in that with the new. Good question. Camera, you know, the license plate camera, it just seems that there's a lot of infringements coming in, but it's still, but there's a little bit, is there something else happening? Pauline 48:03.076
It could be related I know that there's some underspend under budget revenue in registrations and more registrations so that would be feeding into local laws I'm also aware that obviously we would forecast what rem we expected through the camera car so maybe it was a slightly higher forecast than we actually anticipated I know we've had some issues with the car so it hasn't been on the road as much as we may have liked it to be. Tom Wegener 48:24.210
The last question is that financial assistance grant of seven to one billion and you mentioned that it might be pushed out six months in the budget meaning that we get it usually pre-budget and we'll get it that that's quite a big shift that you've had I love that you've swallowed for a half a year. Pauline 48:40.770
Correct so uh it's simply a tiny and usually a matter of days which is a little bit annoying I suppose we should have received it before 30 June we received it in early July um so in terms of operational for Council it's really a few days in terms of cash flow um I suppose the more important point in some of that commentary is that our amount that we've been allocated has been reduced so I think it was about 2.1 but it's not.1 now it's about 400 500 000 less than that so we've seen that decrease in revenue from our financial assistance grant which is the amount that Council would need to find. Jessica Phillips 49:18.958
The local laws um when an instrument gets referred to spur can you clarify whether or not we see um the funds and the spur followed up or um will you wait to spur for a few minutes? Pauline 49:35.222
Sure so there will be followed up by Council so we've been printed with the issue the revenue would be recognised they will follow up with reminders um and after a period of time it then gets referred to spur would then uh collect those funds and pays that money back and we pay off the debt that's owed to us as Council. Jessica Phillips 49:53.139
So um how can you tell me or it might be off for another time just how much is from spur that we're waiting for. Pauline 50:02.603
Um can I come back to you I'll take it I'll come back to you yeah. Amelia Lorentson 50:07.135
Um in terms of local laws and I'm just wondering does the um current industrial activity um has that impacted on delivery of services this report's up to March up till March so that's outside it. Larry Sengstock 50:25.045
Hasn't been effective at. Pauline 50:27.788
This point there has I just would like to note there has been a check from Tropical Cyclone Alfred with the closure of the holiday park so there's been some closer from that specific thing in this report but not from. Amelia Lorentson 50:38.541
The industrial action okay thank you um more questions um where are we currently with the Tourism Noosa we with currently the Tourism Noosa the funding agreement um and when should we expect to see a report should we expect to presented to Council that question to the CEO question sure it's not a question the CEO it's we have a Tourism Noosa it's we have a Tourism Noosa um an economic development investment summary reported in our report, I think it's relevant. Pauline 51:10.659
All I can comment in that regard is that I am aware that the agreement finishes in June and that we've paid both instalments for this financial year. I haven't been involved in the negotiation. Did you want to say a few comments on that? Thank you very much. Larry Sengstock 51:26.509
We're still in negotiation with Tourism Noosa. We have the dedication today so there's still more to come and that will come in the future. Come a little bit in the next month or so. Frank Wilkie 51:36.766
I have a question Mr Chair. There's a term there, I need a refreshing one, what is plant recharge revenue? What is that? Pauline 51:46.043
So we have our fleet of cars, trucks, yellow plants and we calculate the cost of utilisation of that plant and we charge internal charges around the organisation. Some of that will be operational, which will flow through the profit and loss. Some of that will be on capital projects which we're allowed to do. So when we're constructing. A road or a bridge or working on career projects and they're using our plant, that's being capitalised to those projects, which wouldn't show in these numbers. In an ideal world, that loss would be set equally if there was nothing being charged to capital. Frank Wilkie 52:16.560
Okay, other thank one you. Is the probably other a one is for the CEO. The training expenditure is ahead of budget, which is good. Can you talk a bit about the sort of training staff are undertaking? Larry Sengstock 52:28.455
It's a very broad I think it's a very broad scope. I I'll look at the training. There's very general training that we need to do. There's also training that we offer to staff for their own self-development and more development in line with our needs as an organisation. So it's very broad. We've probably been a little whilst we've been doing the obligatory training and all of that, um, the, um, some of the other training needs of the organisation have probably been a little bit haphazard, so we've been very conscious of trying to make sure that we up that ante. The last 12 to 18 months and that's reflected in our budgets now that we're actually spending far more of our budget in training because that's a key piece that we believe in terms of all the issues, all the things that we've got driving our workforce. I think training is a big piece of that, so we've made a conscious effort to increase our ability and our amount of training that we provide for our staff. Frank Wilkie 53:33.614
Other question I have is provide for our staff. How much longer the other with interest much longer interest rates predicted to stay at the same level? Has there been any forecasting done? Pauline 53:49.339
So the moment the book well the expectation is there'll be rate cuts coming through May and June which will see the interest rate fall off so obviously whatever we hold in the cash that will come down. We had forecast our interest rates when we developed the budget at much lower at three to four percent so we're still receiving interest above that at this terms time particularly when we've got investments in term deposits that we've locked in closer to five percent 5 at this stage. Larry Sengstock 54:15.545
We're ahead of, sorry, I'd also say that corley has been doing a fantastic job of moving that money around and making sure that we do get the best. Maximise those terms? Absolutely, we're doing a great job. Frank Wilkie 54:26.300
Yes, that's it for the time being. Jessica Phillips 54:28.725
A question maybe to the CEO, Ari, around fleet management. Can I see a breakdown in mechanical costs of our fleet and maybe, and the reason I'm asking, are we considered in-house mechanical type of? I believe we used to. Larry Sengstock 54:49.247
I believe have that, but that's sort of, most councils have moved away from that over time because of the, we don't have a huge amount of fleet either, so to have that specific skill within our organisation, it's best to outsource those things. But yeah, we can, I provide a. Workshop or a briefing for you with some of those numbers for you. That's interesting. Jessica Phillips 55:10.790
I'd be really interested because I know that there was a time we had it brought back to outsourcing, but it'd be timely to recheck that still, I feel, the most efficient. Larry Sengstock 55:22.683
We do some in town, but not all. It's just a bigger deal. Brian Stockwell 55:27.038
Yeah, that makes sense. We can't put his knees on the side. Pauline 55:30.588
Can I just comment, it is also a matter of warranty, so we need to be making sure that we maintain our warranties as well. Say, I like that amazing. Amelia Lorentson 55:38.968
Would someone like no, I'll to just. Move at the moment? I have some questions. In terms of legal costs, industrial relations advice, year to date, $9 285. I understand, and correct me, Council is a member with. PEEC's legal and workforce team. Is the advice provided by PEEC services, is that free? And if so, industrial relations advice at $9,285, what's that in relation to? Larry Sengstock 56:11.047
Ask no, big is not true. Amelia Lorentson 56:12.527
Is it a membership or we pay for the services? Larry Sengstock 56:15.499
We pay for it, we pay for the services, so that's what that is. Amelia Lorentson 56:19.744
Okay, thank you very much. And our in-house lawyer is not here, maybe a question I can take offline, but what are her main challenges or what's keeping her up at night? Larry Sengstock 56:34.780
Yeah, we can quickly provide that to you. Amelia Lorentson 56:36.762
That would be excellent, thank you. President: thank you. Larry Sengstock 56:40.080
The president okay. Amelia Lorentson 56:41.680
Okay, is that all the questions we no, I have a few more, thank you. The president okay. The president employee costs. We're budgeted at $53.1 million, and I think I've asked for this a few times. How does that number compare to employee costs over the last, say, four or five years, Pauline? And can we also have maybe a breakdown of indoor versus outdoor staff? I just would love to know, is this exponentially higher than, you know, this time last year or the year before, and what factors are contributing? High costs? And what percentage does this represent in terms of overall operating costs? And are we working to, you know, benchmarks, other local government benchmarks in terms of employee costs? Pauline 57:36.650
So just to the profit and loss, I have this month actually included the actual year to date for you. Thank you. I did request it, thank you, I've just got the report. In terms of the percentage of overall costs for the current budget, employee costs comprise 37% of our total expenditure budget. I don't have year on comparisons so I can't give you that today. Amelia Lorentson 58:02.386
That's alright. And 37% I think in one of our reports, 37% is slightly higher than other local government thresholds. It depends on the size of the there are smaller councils. Pauline 58:15.862
Some councils are sitting at 40%. Amelia Lorentson 58:20.071
At 40%, okay. It would be great to have that information also. Thank you. Offline, I can send you an email. We can work through that the budget workshop if you'd like. Budget workshop, excellent. Great place. Thank you. Cash reserves. Thank you for the breakdown and great explanation. Always an excellent report and anyone that's watching online, the reports. The report's really simple. And graphically easy to follow. The 120.9, and this is a question that gets asked a lot by residents, given that Council has low debt levels and strong cash holdings, and I understand that, you know, there's restricted, unrestricted funds, etc. cetera, again, it's in the report. Can we use our reserves to reduce rates for residents, and is that something we can discuss as part of our budget deliberations? Larry Sengstock 59:19.780
That's something we can discuss as budget deliberations, but, again, as a sustainable organisation, we need to make sure that we've got money for the unknowns. So that's essentially what that money's there. It's not a huge amount of money that's available to us. There's $121 million there, but that's, again, that's all committed to keep us, you know, to meet our obligations, to meet our obligatory or our legislative obligations as well. So there's a small amount there. But as soon as you start, and we have over the years, we've used that money for various cost overruns in some of the projects or whatever it may be that we're undertaking, and that's a decision that Council makes. But I would be very careful that we know, cut ourselves too fine in terms of what money we've got available for the rainy day or the things that we don't know that are ahead of us. Frank Wilkie 01:00:12.249
Mr Chair, if I can say, it's usually considered prudent financial practice not use. Are you Mayor, to you read the going motion so can talk to them? Brian Stockwell 01:00:20.364
I'll move the motion. Frank Wilkie 01:00:23.308
So moved, Councillor Wilkie. I'll second it. Thank you. I was just going to say it's considered prudent financial practice not to use surplus or cash reserves for ongoing operational expenses because they need to be funded every year. They're really great for one-off projects, capital projects and so on and so forth. I'd just like to echo the sentiment of the other Councillors about the detail provided in these financial reports. The graphics are excellent. They're a bit broken down, very simple to understand. They're always willing to answer any questions. Thank you and thanks for your work, both of you. Brian Stockwell 01:01:03.679
Just one last question. Pete, well, I'll let you have your last one and then we'll go to you next, sorry, Councillor Finzel, can we see the hand up? Amelia Lorentson 01:01:18.945
Under risk and opportunities. Thank you, Mr Chair. Under risk and opportunities, I note that cyber theft is not mentioned. Is it considered a risk for Council? Pauline 01:01:33.002
It is and it's been dropped off this report. It was on the original previous report. So yes, it is a risk for Council as it is for any other Council in terms of cyber activity that occurs around, the increase in cyber activity that occurs. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:50.136
And does Council have a duty to report any cyber theft? And if so, where is that reported? Pauline 01:01:58.003
So it would be reported to our insurers, it would be reported to our Councillors, it would be reported to our auditors if that was to occur, depending on the type of fraud or breach that it would be reported to the ombudsman for information. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:16.523
Thank you. That's all. Thank you very much. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:02:22.270
Thank you. Just a question through the Chair and the CEO. Given funds are for staff training, can you explain how that is then negotiated through the MBAs for those pay classifications to then reflect that training? Larry Sengstock 01:02:46.205
Oh, I don't think it actually doesn't necessarily fit into our CA or MBA, but because training is offered to all levels of staff for either their obligatory and designated training if they're required in order to do their jobs, but also for further training, it's something that's negotiated with their managers or their coordinators and managers and directors directly if it's something that they're required. And we do an annual assessment of those with the staff so that we can provide the necessary training and/or additional training that may be required. Karen Finzel 01:03:32.902
Thank you. So following on from that, how then do the specific classification and pay rates are determined through your EBA if it's not through the staff training? Sorry, I'm not too sure I understand that question, Councillor. Well, if the pay classifications are not determined by staff training. To align with paper classifications and how is that determined? Pauline 01:04:03.190
So within the certified agreement there is actually a stipulation of the different levels and types of work that those roles perform, and that dictates what level that role is. That has been benchmarked using Mercer to determine a level and that aligns to our pay rates. Karen Finzel 01:04:23.583
You for the clarification. Brian Stockwell 01:04:26.383
Okay. You. Thanks for the informative report. The biggest variation which no one has mentioned so far is obviously capital expenditure. And I thought, wow, 44% sounds a lot. So I went back and I looked and. We didn't have a March report last year because there was a pesky thing called an election. But in April, the figures post-April was $51 million. That led to the record of $71 million. The year before it was only $79 million. Which was a record at the time again. And it makes you think about in 2016, 2020, we thought a sustainable capital works budget was between $25 and $30. You know, if you had the cost price index, that's probably $35. To $40 now, but there is a huge body of work to be done, and with the level of weather disruption we've had this year, even though there's a large variance, it's a perfectly understandable variance, and it's likely that we still end up. Financial year once again breaking a record for the amount of on-ground work done by Council. So it is interesting to think longitudinally where we've got to, and hopefully we don't have any more disaster funding to expend after this current lot has been finished. And finalised, because it would mean that we have a bit of smooth sailing in this organisation. Frank Wilkie 01:05:53.200
I have one more question. You did mention that the impact of the cyclone had an impact on the holiday in terms of the revenue generally, were there, and forgive me if it's in there, were any other impacts on revenue as a result of Cyclone Alfred? Pauline 01:06:10.783
Not specifically. Holiday parks were closed last December. There would have been some very, very revenue impact. Um but there was also cost, not to the substantial extent, but there were cost implications as well from the work that we undertook in terms of sandbagging and those sorts of things that we may or not recover from curing. Brian Stockwell 01:06:30.223
Yeah. Okay. And be some. Increase in revenue from waste disposal. Which I believe we're all very busy out at the resource recovery centre. Does anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Councillor Wilkie, do you wish to close? No, thank you, Mr Chair. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you, Councillors. I'll call the meeting to a close at 1:37pm. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr Chair. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
