Ordinary Meeting - 18 December 2025
Date: Thursday, 18 December 2025 at 10:00AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 04:58:56
Synopsis: Housing over-carparks, State Land Audit sought, Destination Plan adopted, DSC dispute, Tourism roadmap/levy, Climate target missed, No offsets, Fraud controls, Appeal defended, Env-Levy confidential.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Allan Hazell Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Deputations
Willy Ostwald Jill Brownlee Public Question Time
Bruce Mouland Mary Perry Denise Phipps Pat Spicer Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie steered passage of an advocacy motion to press Qld Govt on affordable housing above State-owned car parks, adding support for the Noosa MP’s efforts and a request to release the State land audit (Item 10.1; 21:46–23:54). Amelia Lorentson framed the housing crisis for essential workers and secured the base motion; amendment by the Chair added the land-audit ask; carried unanimously (Item 10.1; 18:10–21:46). Council endorsed the Destination Management Plan with safeguards: a Delivery Risk Register; engagement requirement before impactful measures (e.g., paid parking, congestion charging); adding an economic management objective and Advocacy/Partnership Strategy; establishing a Destination Stewardship Council (DSC); and engagement with independent experts (Item 11.3.3; 36:45–53:49). Attempt to mandate community representation on the DSC failed on the Chair’s casting vote, after debate about terms-of-reference first (Item 11.3.3; 36:45–51:03). Tourism Noosa Roadmap adopted to “evolve” TN to align with the DMP; added: report on reintroducing a dedicated levy sourced from higher commercial rates, and procurement support for future funding agreements; carried on the Chair’s casting vote (Item 12.2; 1:10:46–1:26:20; 2:01:06–2:07:15; 3:57:09–4:03:53; 4:33:50–4:35:50). RADF grants approved with a corrected scoring for Jelly Productions (Item 11.2.1; 33:28–33:51). Holiday Parks fees set through 11 July 2027 (Item 11.3.1; 35:43–36:16). Organisational emissions progress noted; Council will miss its 2026 net-zero target; no offsets to be purchased; a new Climate Positive Investment Roadmap report due by April 2026 (Item 11.1.2; 32:39–33:28). Single-use coffee cups reuse transition supported with in-kind staff time and $5,600 sought via Tourism Noosa’s FY25–26 budget; fallback to Council sustainability ops budget if needed (Item 11.1.1; 32:39–33:28). Planning appeal at 1/27 Duke St, Sunshine Beach: Council will defend P&E Court Appeal D114/2025 (Item 11.1.3; 31:20–32:41). Doonan waste facility “Other Change” to existing approval approved with conditions; noted under Planning Act s63(5) (Item 11.1.4; 31:20–32:41). Environment Levy land purchase confidential: CEO authorised to negotiate, purchase using the levy, secure/fire safety measures, and pursue biodiversity/carbon offsets (Item 11.3.4; 53:49–54:41). Audit & Risk Committee : thanked outgoing Chair; appointed Ian Rushworth as Chair for 3 years (Item 12.1; 1:00:00–1:01:57). Financial Performance to 30 Nov 2025 noted (Item 11.3.2; 35:43–36:16). TMR land at Doonella Lake supported for road dedication; CEO authorised to execute title docs (Item 11.2.3; 33:51–35:43). Contentious / Transparency Matters Nicola Wilson challenged late report release timing versus standing orders and sufficiency of time; CEO stated “close of business Tuesday” standard applied; standing orders to be reviewed (56:01–59:22). DSC composition : amendment to mandate “meaningful” community representation lost on Chair’s casting vote; majority argued ToR first, with capability focus (36:45–51:03; Minutes 11.3.3). Tourism Noosa Roadmap : extensive debate on option scoring, consultation evidence, and funding clarity; two councillors argued analysis was high-level and not fully costed (1:26:20–1:46:20; 2:41:45–3:03:35). Funding deed timing risk : discussion that deed required agreement on terms/funding by 31 Dec unless mutually varied in writing; CEO indicated confidence in written variation if needed (3:29:17–3:31:49). Fraud event debate : proposed councillor-led independent review of CEO’s management lapsed for want of a seconder; robust exchange followed with a retraction requested by the Chair (4:47:24–4:53:27; Item 12.3). Public Q&A : Active Streets prioritisation and Peregian pathway impacts questioned by residents; detailed responses cited funding eligibility and environmental/parking safeguards subject to consultation (Items 8.1–8.3; 2:16–10:33). Legal / Risk P&E Court : Council resolved to defend Appeal D114/2025 re minor change for a duplex at Sunshine Beach, preserving scheme integrity and precedent (Item 11.1.3; 31:20–32:41). Planning Act : Doonan waste facility “Other Change” approval expressly noted under s63(5), ensuring decision publication compliance (Item 11.1.4; 31:20–32:41). Tourism agreement : Deed requires discussions on further term/funding by 31 Dec; reliance on mutual written agreement to defer terms poses procedural risk if not executed (3:29:17–3:31:49; Item 12.2). Procurement probity : Council required Procurement to support development of any future Tourism Noosa funding agreements, strengthening governance (Item 12.2; 3:57:09–4:03:53). Fraud controls : Post-2024 fraud event, new controls include third-party bank validation software, vendor master file policy, monthly change register reviews, mandatory cyber/social engineering training, and an independent Financial Management Assurance Program (FMAP) (Item 12.3; 4:36:42–4:45:04). Climate policy risk : Acknowledged failure to meet 2026 net-zero organisational target; decision not to buy offsets prioritises local abatement and integrity but entails reputational exposure (Item 11.1.2; 32:39–33:28). Environmental Concerns No single-use coffee cups : Transition to reuse systems backed via Plastic Free Noosa and Tourism Noosa; aligns with Climate Change Response Plan, Environment Strategy, and From Waste to Resource Plan (Item 11.1.1; 32:39–33:28). Emissions : New Climate Positive Investment Roadmap to set an ambitious, science-based target; no offsets purchase policy adopted (Item 11.1.2; 32:39–33:28). Environment Levy land : Confidential acquisition authorized with biodiversity and carbon offsets pursuit, indicating nature-positive asset strategy (Item 11.3.4; 53:49–54:41). Peregian pathway : Design to avoid sensitive dunes/vegetation and protect amenity and parking; subject to consultation (Item 8.2 Q2; 6:00–7:07). Sunshine Beach Litigation posture : Council will defend the minor change appeal for a duplex at 1/27 Duke St, maintaining Sunshine Beach planning outcomes (Item 11.1.3; 31:20–32:41). Planning Scheme / Zoning & Changes of Use Garnet St, Cooroy : Split-zoned lot retains Environmental Management & Conservation (outside Urban Boundary) and Low Density Residential; no changes proposed under Noosa Plan 2020 amendments; biodiversity overlay applies (Item 8.4 Q2; 15:35–16:39). Doonan : Approved “Other Change” for Special Purpose Waste Disposal & Recycling Facility at 561 Eumundi Noosa Rd with conditions (Item 11.1.4; 31:20–32:41). Community Transparency & Governance Cemetery/social housing site : 62 Lake Macdonald Dr DA lapsed in 2012; site contaminated and under remediation; portion proposed for social housing; future consultation committed (Item 8.4 Q1; 12:57–14:06). Report timeliness : Debate on whether Tourism funding transparency : Council requested a report on reintroducing a dedicated levy to clearly earmark higher commercial rates, addressing community confusion (Item 12.2; 1:54:24–2:07:15). DSC governance : Terms of Reference to be prepared; monitoring, risk register, and measurable economic objectives embedded in DMP adoption (Item 11.3.3; 36:45–53:49). Legal Action / Fraud / Non-compliance Fraud 2024 : Public report noted sophisticated social engineering and human error; corrective controls and FMAP instituted; proposal for an independent CEO-management review lapsed for want of a seconder (Item 12.3; 4:36:42–4:49:05). Vendor controls : Independent verification of supplier detail changes, oversight of bank changes, audit logs, and senior escalation tightened (Item 12.3; 4:36:42–4:43:11). Litigation : Defence of P&E appeal at Sunshine Beach resolved (Item 11.1.3; 31:20–32:41). Active Transport & Coastal Connectivity Shaun Walsh cited Bassendean’s 2.3 km Safe Active Street and Qld technical guidance validating Peregian’s design (Item 8.1; 2:39–3:54). Funding rationale : Prioritisation driven by 100% State/Federal eligibility via Coastal Pathway linkage, delivering no-ratepayer-cost upgrades and safety/connectivity outcomes (Item 8.2 Q1; 4:32–5:38). Community engagement : Further sessions/pop-ups and a walking tour planned; preliminary design already adjusted based on feedback (Item 8.3 Q2; 9:45–10:33). Housing & Land Use Pressures Noosa housing crisis : Council to advocate for over-carpark housing for essential workers; collaboration with Noosa MP highlighted; request State land audit release (Item 10.1; 18:10–23:54). Audit of State land : Council to seek timing of audit release to inform opportunities (Item 10.1; 21:46–23:54).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Ordinary Meeting Thursday, 18 December 2025 10:00 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 10.02am. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Acting Director Development & Regulation Allan Hazell Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Cr Jessica Phillips 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 20 NOVEMBER 2025 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 20 November 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 4.2 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 11 DECEMBER 2025 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 11 December 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 5 PETITIONS Nil. 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 7. DEPUTATIONS 7.1 APPLICANT: WILLY OSTWALD, FRIENDS OF NOOSA BOTANIC GARDENS TOPIC: MASTERPLAN FOR NOOSA BOTANIC GARDENS SPEAKERS: WILLY OSTWALD, JILL BROWNLEE TO BE RESCHEDULED TO ORDINARY MEETING DATED JANUARY 2026. 8. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 8.1 BRUCE MOULAND QUESTION 1 Can Council point to an implementation anywhere in Australia that is similar to implementation of over 2 km of four consecutive active streets to validate Council’s assertion that the design is practical, evidence based and suitable for a Coastal residential area. RESPONSE PROVIDED BY SHAUN WALSH, DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE Thank you Mr Mouland for the question. The most directly comparable example is the Whitfield Street Safe Active Street in Bassendean, WA - a 2.3 km continuous corridor through a residential area with bends, hills and multiple intersections. It uses the same design principles as Peregian Beach: 30 km/h zone, traffic calming, coloured surface treatments and strong links to schools, parks and the river. Independent evaluation showed increased walking and cycling, reduced vehicle speeds, lower traffic volumes and positive community feedback. Other Australian examples that provide good references include: Pierce Street in Toowoomba (QLD), Active Streets for Schools program (ACT Mackay Cross City Link (QLD) Liebig Street Pedestrian Priority Project (VIC) ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 Sunshine Coast Coastal Pathway Council has profiled many of these case studies on its Cycling and Walking Projects webpage and publicly available (https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/Community/Transport-androads/Walking-and-Cycling/Cycling-and-Walking-Projects). The design has also been framed by the "Active Transport Investment Program technical guidance", prepared by the Queensland Government Department of Transport and available on their website. This technical guidance references 14 different supporting standards to substantiate the design approach. 8.2 MARY PERRY QUESTION 1 Can Council please explain the rationale for unexpectedly prioritising the Peregian Beach Active Street projects - which weren't identified as named initiatives in the Council's five or 10 year walking and cycling plans - over other initiatives throughout Noosa that were previously assessed as higher priorities? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY SHAUN WALSH, DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE Thank you Ms Perry for the question. The route along Lorikeet Drive is identified as a Principle Recreational Route under Noosa Council Cycling and Walking Strategy. Whilst its acknowledged that improvements to the identified route were not noted in the 5-10 year implementation plan, it directly delivers the core priorities in those strategies: safer routes, better coastal connectivity and improved access to schools, parks and public transport. Importantly, this project was eligible for 100% State and Federal funding due to its connection to the adjacent Sunshine Coast Coastal Pathway and providing demonstrated long term regional collaboration and benefits, unlike many previously identified priorities with a solely Noosa focus. This meant Council could deliver a major network upgrade at no cost to ratepayers, including improvements to footpaths and drainage, while still progressing other initiatives as funding and opportunities arise. In short, the project matches current strategic priorities, responds to strong community feedback, closes a critical network gap and was fully fundable now - making it a responsible and timely choice for delivery. QUESTION 2 How does Council plan to implement a new three metre wide shared off-road pathway through the Peregian Beach village (PlD358) and what impact will it have oh the foreshore reserve, amenities and parking? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY SHAUN WALSH, DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE It is agreed that the Noosa Council Cycling and Walking Strategy Project Prioritisation Plan identifies a 3 metre shared pathway on the eastern side of the Peregian Beach Village with a project ID code of 358. Council’s approach to any new shared pathway, including the proposed three-metre-wide shared pathway, is guided by principles of safety, accessibility, and environmental care. At this stage, the project is in early planning, and detailed design will consider: the role of Peregian Beach Village as destination and node, rather than primarily thoroughfare and will require a specific design language and approach avoidance of sensitive dune and vegetation areas wherever possible and incorporating measures to maintain environmental values. ensuring shared pathways complement existing facilities and improve access for people walking and cycling without reducing amenity. assessing current parking arrangements and identifying options to prevent loss of spaces, such as formalising or reconfiguring parking where needed. The design will be subject to community consultation. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 8.3 DENISE PHIPPS QUESTION 1 Can Council please explain in detail how this "recreationally focused pathway" will address core community needs detailed in feedback in 2021 to Council's walking and cycling strategy, especially those aimed at improving safe connectivity, genuine cycling safety, every day usage, reduced traffic congestion and lower emissions? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY SHAUN WALSH, DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE Thank you Mrs Phipps for the question. The Active Street directly responds to the core community needs identified in the 2021 Walking and Cycling Strategy feedback, particularly around safety, everyday use, connectivity, congestion and emissions reduction. The project delivers a safe, continuous link between key destinations including homes, beaches, parks, bus stops, schools and the Peregian Village. By creating a low-speed, low-stress street environment with traffic calming, safer crossings, clear priority for people walking and riding, and a dedicated pathway for less-confident users, it provides genuine cycling safety rather than the narrow on-road shoulders or unsafe mixed-traffic environments residents identified as concerns. This kind of safe, local street corridor supports everyday trips - to school, the beach, local shops and bus stops - rather than being limited to recreational use. The Coastal Pathway Study and Liveability feedback showed strong demand for short, local, safe walking and cycling routes that reduce reliance on cars. The Active Street directly meets this need. By encouraging more people to walk or ride for short local journeys, the project also contributes to reduced local traffic, fewer short car trips, and consequently lower transport emissions, aligning with the community’s stated priorities and Council’s long-term transport and sustainability goals. In short, the Active Street improves safety, creates everyday connectivity, encourages mode shift away from cars, and supports lower congestion and emissions - exactly the outcomes the community asked for. QUESTION 2 Will Council halt the current ill-conceived, unproven and unwanted Active Street project planning, consult with all impacted residents and, based on feedback, proceed with route and design changes that address local community needs and do not compromise local residential character, amenity and safety as requested in the petition presented before council and signed by over 140 Local Residents and rate payers? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY SHAUN WALSH, DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE Council has received diverse feedback about the proposal. As well as the petition, other requests include residents seeking supply of a footpath, resolution of parking problems, concerns for speeding vehicles, as well as advocacy from stakeholder seeking safer cycling routes, all of which this project seeks to address. Council is committed to listening and working with the community. Council has made changes based on feedback during the preliminary design phase and will continue to consult with all interested residents and stakeholders as the project progresses. Council has planned additional information sessions including information pop up and a walking tour in the locality in the New Year and will send information out in the near future. Council looks forward to ongoing dialogue through upcoming communication opportunities. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 8.4 PAT SPICER QUESTION 1 Noosa Council's Facebook post on 28 January 2025 refers to land at 62 Lake Macdonald Drive, Cooroy as "unused" despite its zoning for community facilities and its allocation for cemetery expansion in 1999 with a supporting DA in 2008. Local residents, including those who as children played on the land in the1960s, have long used the land for recreation. What are the reasons the council considers the land "unused"? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY KIM RAWLINGS, DIRECTOR STRATEGY & ENVIRONMENT The 2008 Development Approval lapsed in August 2012 and was never used or acted upon. The land is zoned Community Facilities under the Noosa Plan 2020 and is owned by Council. However, while some residents may have informally used the site as open space, the land has never formally been a Park or open space area, and its usage never encouraged. It has been laying fallow since Council acquired the property. The land was contaminated and when Council was notified of this, signs were erected to restrict all public access to the area. The land is currently being remediated. Council has a responsibility to plan and to benefit the whole community, not only in relation to cemetery purposes, but for a wide range of other community purposes and needs. Housing is one of those needs to be planned for. Our Shire is experiencing a significant long-term housing crisis and once remediated, social housing is proposed on a portion of the site. This will contribute to much needed affordable housing, meaning a roof over the heads of some of our more vulnerable community. Community consultation for the use of proposed lots 2 and 3 will take place in the future. QUESTION 2 Council has marked land in Garnett Street, Cooroy with a red boundary on the zone map, labelled “Further Consultation Zone Change” in the legend. This map has been in effect since “Your Say” for Amendment 2 so this consideration has been operational for a number of years already. With further amendments to the Noosa Plan under consideration, what is council’s specific plan for this land which is currently zoned Environmental & Conservation and includes privately owned low-density residential? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY KIM RAWLINGS, DIRECTOR STRATEGY & ENVIRONMENT It has been confirmed with Mrs Spicer which lot the question refers to. The split-zoned privately owned lot in Garnet St, Cooroy has a small portion zoned Low Density Residential, and a large portion zoned Environmental Management and Conservation to protect the native vegetation on the lot. The native vegetation is also covered by the Biodiversity Overlay being an area of Biodiversity significance. The Environmental Management and Conservation area of this lot also sits outside the Urban Boundary. The zoning of this lot has not been, or proposed to be, changed under any of the Noosa Plan 2020 amendments. Previously, in the 2006 Planning Scheme the whole lot was zoned Detached Housing, the equivalent zoning to Low Density Residential under the Noosa Plan 2020. Under the first Noosa Plan 2020 the lot was split zoned to protect the native vegetation and continued as this zoning since. Council currently has no specific plans for this lot. 9 MAYORAL MINUTES Nil. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 10 NOTIFIED MOTIONS 10.1 ADVOCACY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Request that the Mayor write to the Queensland State Government seeking clarification on whether the State is considering the development of affordable housing for essential workers above State-owned car parks located at key service facilities such as schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, SES facilities and surf clubs; and B. Include in the correspondence that, if this approach is not currently part of the State’s housing strategy, request the State Government investigate its feasibility as a practical solution to address housing shortages in high-demand coastal communities like Noosa. Amendment Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Item A be amended and Item C be added to read as follows: A. Request that the Mayor support efforts by the Noosa MP and write to the Queensland State Government seeking clarification on whether the State is considering the development of affordable housing for essential workers above State-owned car parks located at key service facilities such as schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, SES facilities and surf clubs; C. Request the State Government also advise on when they will release the audit on State Owned land as requested by the Noosa MP. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Request that the Mayor support efforts by the Noosa MP and write to the Queensland State Government seeking clarification on whether the State is considering the development of affordable housing for essential workers above State-owned car parks located at key service facilities such as schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, SES facilities and surf clubs; B. Include in the correspondence that, if this approach is not currently part of the State’s housing strategy, request the State Government investigate its feasibility as a practical solution to address housing shortages in high-demand coastal communities like Noosa; and C. Request the State Government also advise on when they will release the audit on State Owned land as requested by the Noosa MP. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 Against: None 11. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 9 DECEMBER 2025 11.1.1. SINGLE USE COFFEE CUPS PROGRAM That Council A. Note the report by the Sustainability and Climate Change Officer to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 9 December 2025; B. Support the Single Use Coffee Cups program with in-kind contribution from existing Council staff resources (2-3hrs per week) to support Plastic Free Noosa to engage industry stakeholders and co-develop a program for the first cohort of businesses to transition to a reuse system; C. Work closely with Tourism Noosa to prioritise the $5600.00 required to kickstart the program through their FY25-26 budget; and D. Subject to C, should budget not be available, provide in kind support and a small allocation of funding to support the initiation and engagement phases of the program through Council’s Sustainability Operational budget as it aligns with the endorsed Climate Change Response Plan, Environment Strategy, and From Waste to Resource Plan. 11.1.2. ORGANISATIONAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRESS REPORT That Council A. Note the report by the Sustainability and Climate Change Coordinator and the Carbon Reduction officer to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 9 December 2025; B. Note the progress on reducing emissions to date and the positive impact of setting the last target; C. Note that Council will not achieve its net zero target by 2026 for its organisational emissions; D. Confirm that no third-party offsets will be purchased to help achieve the net zero target or to claim carbon neutrality, and instead agree to prioritise ongoing investment in direct emissions reduction activities and local carbon removal projects to achieve true net zero and to deliver long-term cost savings and important community and biodiversity conservation co-benefits; E. Note the progress on developing a new Climate Positive Investment Roadmap; and F. Request the CEO prepare a report to a Council Meeting by April 2026 or before, on the new Climate Positive Investment Roadmap including an ambitious, science-based target and achievable plan to reduce emissions. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 11.1.3. 132004.4552.01 - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL D114 OF 2025 FOR MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DUPLEX DWELLING AT 1/27 DUKE STREET, SUNSHINE BEACH That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 9 December 2025 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal D114 of 2025 and agree to defend the appeal. 11.1.4. 132005.638.04 - OTHER CHANGE TO AN EXISTING APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - EXPANSION OF SPECIAL PURPOSE (WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING FACILITY) & ONGOING CLEARING PURPOSES AT 561 EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD DOONAN That Council note the report by the Planning Officer to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 9 December 2025 regarding Application No. 132005.638.04 for an Other Change to an existing approval for Material Change of Use – Special Purpose (Waste Disposal & Recycling Facility) & Ongoing Clearing Purposes situated at 561 Eumundi Noosa Road, Doonan; and A. Approve the application in accordance with the conditions outlined in Attachment 1. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. 11.1.5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – OCTOBER 2025 That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting on 9 December 2025 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for October 2025 as provided at Attachment 1 to the Report. 11.1.6. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – ENVIRONMENT LEVY PROPOSED LAND PURCHASE That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 9.1 be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. 11.1.7. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the Recommendations of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 9 December 2025 be received and adopted. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 11.2 SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 9 DECEMBER 2025 11.2.1. REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND (RADF) ANNUAL ROUND GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS 2026 The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Refer to Attachment 1 to the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting dated 18.12.2025 - updated Moderator Panel Summary RADF 2025-26 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Note the report by the Arts & Culture Manager to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 9 December 2025 regarding the RADF 2025/26 Annual Funding Round assessment; and B. Approve the RADF Committee funding recommendations for the 2025/26 round, as outlined in Attachment 1 to the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting dated 18.12.2025 - updated Moderator Panel Summary RADF 2025-26. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 11.2.2. NOOSA HOLIDAY PARKS - FEES AND CHARGES That Services & Organisation Committee Agenda Item 7.2 be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. 11.2.3. CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – PROPOSED DEDICATION OF TMR FREEHOLD LAND AS ROAD - DOONELLA LAKE That Council A. Note the report by the Director, Infrastructure Services to the Services and Organisation Committee dated 9 December 2025 B. Support the Department of Transport and Main Roads proposal to dedicate Lots 5RP219193, 4RP219193, 412RP800226 as road reserve: and C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to execute any title transfer documentation if required on behalf of Council. 11.2.4. SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the Recommendations of the Services & Organisation Committee meeting dated 9 December 2025 be received and adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 11.3 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 15 DECEMBER 2025 11.3.1. NOOSA HOLIDAY PARKS - FEES AND CHARGES (REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE DATED 9 DECEMBER 2025) That Council A. Note the report by the Commercial Business Advisor to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 9 December 2025 B. Set fees and charges for the Noosa Holiday Parks to align with the end of the January 2027 Queensland school holidays; and C. Adopt the proposed General Cost Recovery Fees and Commercial Charges schedule for the Noosa Holiday Parks for the period ending 11 July 2027 as detailed in the tables contained within the report. 11.3.2. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - NOVEMBER 2025 That Council note the report by Revenue Services Manager and Financial Services Manager (Acting) to the General Committee dated 15 December 2025 regarding Council's financial performance to 30 November 2025. 11.3.3. ADOPTION OF DESTINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council A. Note the report by the Director Environment and Strategy and Manager Economic Development and Destination Management to the General Committee dated 15 December 2025; B. Endorse the Destination Management Plan (DMP) – For the Love of Noosa provided at Attachment 1; C. Note the Draft Implementation plan, provided at Attachment 2, to support the implementation of the DMP, noting this plan will be refined with input from partner/support organisations, reviewed and updated on and annual basis and informed by Council’s annual budget considerations; and D. Delegate authority to the CEO to make minor changes or amendments to the DMP and associated appendices if required prior to designing and publishing final documents on Council’s website. E. Amend the heading in the final column of the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework to read: "Potential Measures.” F. Establish a DMP Delivery Risk Register and include in the Terms of Reference for the Destination Stewardship Council (DSC) and report to Council annually as part of the annual review. The register will outline delivery risks, dependencies, resource constraints, and mitigation strategies. G. Ensure that any action likely to materially affect local business activity or the amenity of nearby residents including paid parking, congestion charging, one- ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 way corridor trials or precinct closures, be subject to an engagement with affected sectors before Council decision. H. Amend the DMP to include a clear objective for the economic management of the visitor economy, supported by defined strategies, actions and measurable outcomes. I. Amend the DMP to include an action that proposes the development of a Council Advocacy and Partnership Strategy to support implementation of the plan. J. Endorse the establishment of a Destination Stewardship Council (DSC) as a priority action to support implementation of the Destination Management Plan, with its purpose to provide oversight, monitoring and evaluation, guidance and transparency. A Terms of Reference be prepared outlining the process for establishing the Destination Stewardship Council and report back to Council for consideration be provided as the first priority following adoption of the Destination Management Plan. K. Ensure that during implementation, monitoring and review of the Noosa Destination Management Plan, Council officers engage with appropriate independent experts and key stakeholders to further refine the Plan’s strategic settings, assumptions, and delivery approach, ensuring it remains responsive to changing economic conditions, State policy and regulatory settings, market dynamics, delivery risks and emerging strategic opportunities. Amendment Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Item L be added to read: L. Ensure that the Destination Stewardship Council include meaningful representation from community stakeholders, ensuring local residents and groups have a voice in decision-making, monitoring, and reporting on the implementation of the Destination Management Plan Lost on the casting vote of the Chair. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council A. Note the report by the Director Environment and Strategy and Manager Economic Development and Destination Management to the General Committee dated 15 December 2025; B. Endorse the Destination Management Plan (DMP) – For the Love of Noosa provided at Attachment 1; C. Note the Draft Implementation plan, provided at Attachment 2, to support the implementation of the DMP, noting this plan will be refined with input from partner/support organisations, reviewed and updated on and annual basis and informed by Council’s annual budget considerations; and D. Delegate authority to the CEO to make minor changes or amendments to the DMP and associated appendices if required prior to designing and publishing final documents on Council’s website. E. Amend the heading in the final column of the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework to read: "Potential Measures.” ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 F. Establish a DMP Delivery Risk Register and include in the Terms of Reference for the Destination Stewardship Council (DSC) and report to Council annually as part of the annual review. The register will outline delivery risks, dependencies, resource constraints, and mitigation strategies. G. Ensure that any action likely to materially affect local business activity or the amenity of nearby residents including paid parking, congestion charging, oneway corridor trials or precinct closures, be subject to an engagement with affected sectors before Council decision. H. Amend the DMP to include a clear objective for the economic management of the visitor economy, supported by defined strategies, actions and measurable outcomes. I. Amend the DMP to include an action that proposes the development of a Council Advocacy and Partnership Strategy to support implementation of the plan. J. Endorse the establishment of a Destination Stewardship Council (DSC) as a priority action to support implementation of the Destination Management Plan, with its purpose to provide oversight, monitoring and evaluation, guidance and transparency. A Terms of Reference be prepared outlining the process for establishing the Destination Stewardship Council and report back to Council for consideration be provided as the first priority following adoption of the Destination Management Plan. K. Ensure that during implementation, monitoring and review of the Noosa Destination Management Plan, Council officers engage with appropriate independent experts and key stakeholders to further refine the Plan’s strategic settings, assumptions, and delivery approach, ensuring it remains responsive to changing economic conditions, State policy and regulatory settings, market dynamics, delivery risks and emerging strategic opportunities. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson 11.3.4. CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE – ENVIRONMENT LEVY PROPOSED LAND PURCHASE (REFERRED FROM PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 9 DECEMBER 2025) That Council A. Note the report by the Coordinator Conservation and Environment to the Planning & Environment Committee dated 9 December 2025; and B. Authorise the CEO to 1. Commence negotiations with the owners or their agent regarding purchase of the subject property as detailed in this report; 2. If purchased by Council, utilise funds from Council's Environment Levy; 3. If purchased by Council, undertake the necessary establishment actions for security and fire safety; 4. If purchased by Council, undertake necessary investigations and actions to pursue biodiversity and carbon offsets over the property; and 5. Where relevant and to the satisfaction of the CEO, enter into agreements and arrangements for the property to receive biodiversity and carbon offsets. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 11.3.5. GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS EN BLOC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the Recommendations of the General Committee meeting dated 15 December 2025 be received and adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 12 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS 12.1 APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON TO COUNCIL'S AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE Council Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council A. Note the report by the Executive Officer to the Ordinary Committee Meeting dated 18 December 2025 regarding the vacancy in the Chairperson position on Council’s Audit and Risk Committee; B. Thank Tim Cronin for his valuable contribution to the Audit & Risk Committee in his capacity as the Chairperson of that Committee for the past 6 years; and C. Appoint Ian Rushworth as the Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee for a term of 3 years. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None The meeting adjourned at 11.02am The meeting resumed at 11.13am 12.2 ADOPTION OF TOURISM NOOSA ROADMAP Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Ordinary Committee dated 18 December 2025 regarding the Tourism Noosa Roadmap; B. Approve the Tourism Noosa Roadmap (Attachment 1) in accordance with the requirements of the current 12-month Tourism Noosa Funding Deed; ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 C. Endorse Option 2 – Evolve Tourism Noosa to align with the Destination Management Plan (DMP) as the immediate and primary service delivery model as outlined in the attached and proposed Tourism Noosa Roadmap: and D. Request the Chief Executive Officer to bring back a report for endorsement of final terms with Tourism Noosa to February 2026 round of Council meetings. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Item E. be added to read: E. Request the Chief Executive Officer prepare a report to Council on the reintroduction of a dedicated levy, specifically to consider whether the higher rates currently paid by commercial properties, should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated levy rather than as part of general rates. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Tom Wegener The meeting adjourned at 12.16pm. The meeting resumed at 12.43pm. Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item F be added to read: F. Request the Chief Executive Officer prepare and present to Council a draft Tourism Noosa roadmap for further consideration, including full costings of all potential delivery and governance models, with all reasonable alternative options fully assessed, costed and compared, and supported by meaningful consultation with industry stakeholders and the broader community, to provide Council with a complete and evidence-based basis for decision-making. Lost on the casting vote of the Chair. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Tom Wegener Against: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Nicola Wilson Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Item B be amended to read: B. Approve Agree to the Tourism Noosa Roadmap (Attachment 1) as the guiding framework in accordance with the requirements of the current 12-month Tourism Noosa Funding Deed; and That Item C be amended to read: C. Endorse Option 2 – Evolve Tourism Noosa as outlined in the Tourism Noosa Roadmap to align with the Destination Management Plan (DMP) as the immediate and primary service delivery model as outlined in the attached and proposed Tourism Noosa Roadmap, however, noting Council has just completed the DMP the specific actions, programs and services to be delivered, final funding amount and terms are subject to further consideration; and ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 That Item D be amended to read: D. Request the Chief Executive Officer to bring back a report for endorsement of final terms outlining clear DMP deliverables, funding and terms with Tourism Noosa to February 2026 round of Council meetings. Amendment WITHDRAWN by Cr Finzel Withdrawal Carried. Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Frank For: Wilkie, Cr Tom Wegener Against: Cr Nicola Wilson The meeting adjourned at 1.43pm The meeting resumed at 1.59pm Amendment No. 4 Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item F. be added to read: F. Request that in relation to Item D, Council's Procurement department support the development of any future funding agreements. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Ordinary Committee dated 18 December 2025 regarding the Tourism Noosa Roadmap; B. Approve the Tourism Noosa Roadmap (Attachment 1) in accordance with the requirements of the current 12-month Tourism Noosa Funding Deed; C. Endorse Option 2 – Evolve Tourism Noosa to align with the Destination Management Plan (DMP) as the immediate and primary service delivery model as outlined in the attached and proposed Tourism Noosa Roadmap: and D. Request the Chief Executive Officer to bring back a report for endorsement of final terms with Tourism Noosa to February 2026 round of Council meetings. E. Request the Chief Executive Officer prepare a report to Council on the reintroduction of a dedicated levy, specifically to consider whether the higher rates currently paid by commercial properties, should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated levy rather than as part of general rates. F. Request that in relation to Item D, Council's Procurement department support the development of any future funding agreements. Carried on the casting vote of the Chair. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 18 DECEMBER 2025 12.3 2024 FRAUD EVENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND STATUS UPDATE Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the report by the Acting Director Corporate Services to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 December 2025 regarding the December 2024 fraud incident. Amendment Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: That Item A be added to read: A. Request a Councillor-led, independent review of the Chief Executive Officer’s management of the December 2024 fraud incident, commissioned by Council, to assess all decisions, actions, and oversight taken by the CEO during and after the event, including how the situation was managed and any consequences arising. The findings are to be reported back to Council in a publicly accessible manner. The amendment lapsed for want of a seconder. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the report by the Acting Director Corporate Services to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 December 2025 regarding the December 2024 fraud incident. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 13 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 14 NEXT MEETING The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican St, Tewantin on Thursday 22 January 2026 at 10.00am. 15 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 3.01pm.
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:00.000
Well welcome everybody to the ordinary meeting of Thursday 18th of December 2025, declare the meeting open at 10:02am. Acknowledge we are meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi people, pay my respects to Elders past, present and emerging and reiterate their invitation for us to join them as joint custodians in respecting and caring for this beautiful place we all love and respecting and caring for this beautiful place we all love and respecting and caring for this beautiful place we all love and respecting and Noosa is a beautiful place we all love. Respecting and caring for each other. Also note that the Noosa community, like many around Australia, are deeply affected by the Bondi tragedy and people in our community, including people in this organisation, are feeling that strongly. So if we can be respectful and kind in our deliberations today, that will help. We have an apology from Councillor, who's on leave, and that all other councillors are in attendance. Item 4 is confirmation of the minutes. May I have a move and a seconder of the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 20th of November 2025, please? Councillor Lorentson? Seconded. Karen Finzel 01:03.538
Happy to second. Councillor Frank Wilkie 01:04.819
Finzel? Any discussion? No. All in favour? It's carried unanimously. Can I have a move and a seconder for the minutes of the special meeting held on 11th of December 2025? Karen Finzel 01:17.219
Happy to move. Frank Wilkie 01:17.462
Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Wegener? Any discussion? All in favour? That's unanimous. We have no petitions. There are no presentations. We have one deputation. 15 minutes for the deputation. The applicant is Willy Ostwald, Jill Brownlee, Friends of Noosa Botanic Gardens. The topic is Master Plan for the Noosa Botanic Gardens. I don't think they were on it. Shaun Walsh 01:44.849
Yeah, they're not even 10 seconds. Do you want me to see if they're downstairs? Frank Wilkie 01:48.057
They're outside. Or downstairs. Amelia Lorentson 01:50.797
They haven't made themselves known to us. Frank Wilkie 01:54.557
They could still be downstairs. Well, in the meantime, we'll move on to question time, if that's okay. The first application is from Mr. Bruce Mouland, who couldn't be here today. Our CEO, Larry Sengstock, will read Mr. Mouland's question, which will be answered by Shaun Walsh, Director of Infrastructure Services. Our CEO... Mr. Sengstock. Larry Sengstock 02:17.688
Okay, thank you. So the question from Mr. Mouland, question one, can Council point to an implementation... Anywhere in Australia that is similar to implementation of over two kilometres of four consecutive active streets to validate Council's assertion that the design is practical, evidence-based and suitable for a coastal residential area? Thank you. Shaun Walsh 02:36.956
Director Walsh. Thank you Mr Moulton for the question. The most directly comparable example is the Whitfield Street safe active street in Bassendean, Western Australia. A 2.3 kilometre continuous corridor through a residential area with bends, hills and multiple intersections. It uses the same design principles as Peregian Beach, a 30 kilometre hour zone, traffic calming Other Australian examples that provide good references include Pierce Street in Toowoomba, Queensland, Active Streets for Schools Program in the ACT, Mackay Cross City Link, Queensland, Liebig Street Pedestrian Priority Project, Victoria, and the Sunshine Coast Coastal Pathway. Victoria and the Sunshine Coast Coastal Pathway. Council has profiled many of these case studies on its cycling and walking projects website and publicly available. The design has also been framed by the Active Transport Investment Program technical guidance prepared by the Queensland Government Department of Transport and available on their website. This technical guidance references 14 different supporting standards to substantiate the design approach. Frank Wilkie 03:53.757
Thank you Mr Walsh. The next is two questions from Ms Mary Perry who also couldn't be here today so our CEO will read Ms Perry's questions which will both be answered by Shaun Walsh Director of Infrastructure Services. Okay question one from Mary Perry. Can Council please explain Can Council please explain the rationale for unexpectedly prioritising the Peregian Beach Active Street projects, which weren't identified as named initiatives in the Council's five or ten year walking or cycling plans, over other initiatives throughout Noosa that were previously assessed as higher priorities. Shaun Walsh 04:30.240
Thank you, Ms Perry, for the question. The route along Lorikeet Drive is identified as a Principal Recreational Route under Noosa Council's cycling and walking strategy. Whilst it's acknowledged that the improvements to the identified route were not noted in the five- to ten-year implementation plan, it directly delivers the core priorities in these strategies: safer routes, better coastal per cent state and federal funding due to its connection to the adjacent Sunshine Coast Coastal Pathway and providing demonstra- ted long-term regional collaboration benefits, unlike many previously identified priorities with a solely Noosa focus. This meant Council could deliver a major network upgrade at no cost to ratepayers, including improvements to footpaths and In short, the project matches current strategic priorities, responds to strong community feedback, closes a critical network gap and was fully fundable now, making it a responsible and timely choice for delivery. Larry Sengstock 05:37.890
Thank you, Ms Walsh. Mr Sengstock. Okay, question number two from Mary Perry. How does Council plan to implement a new three metre wide shared off-road pathway through the Peregian Beach Village, PID 358, and what impact will it have on the foreshore reserve amenities and parking? Shaun Walsh 06:00.033
It is agreed that the Noosa Council cycling and walking strategy project prioritisation plan identifies a three metre shared pathway on the eastern side of the Peregian Beach Village with a project ID code of 358. Council's approach to any new shared pathway including the proposed three metre wide shared pathway is guided by the principles of safety, accessibility and environmental care. At this stage the project is in early planning and detailed design will consider, first dot point, the role of Peregian Beach Village as a destination and node rather than primarily a thoroughfare and will require a specific design language and approach. Dot point Dot point two, avoidance of sensitive dune and vegetation areas where possible and incorporating measures to maintain environmental values. Dot point three, ensuring shared pathways complement existing facilities and improve access for people walking and cycling without reducing amenities. Dot point four, assessing current parking arrangements and identifying options to prevent loss of spaces such as formalising or reconfiguring parking where needed. The design will be subject to community consultation. Frank Wilkie 07:06.728
Thank you Mr Walsh. The next application, two questions, is from Denise Phipps and the same process will stop. Okay, so question one from Ms Phipps. Can Council please explain in detail how this recreationally focused pathway, in inverted commas, will address core community needs detailed in feedback in 2021 to Council's walking and cycling strategy, especially those aimed at improving safe connectivity, genuine cycle safety, everyday usage, reduced traffic congestion and lower emissions. Shaun Walsh 07:44.530
Thank you, Ms. Phipps, for the question. The Active Street directly responds to the core community needs identified in the 2021 walking and cycling strategy feedback, particularly around safety, everyday use, connectivity, congestion and emissions reduction. The project delivers a safe, continuous link between key destinations, including homes, beaches, parks, bus stops, schools and the Peregian Village. By creating a low speed, low stress-free environment, with traffic calming, safer crossings, clear priority for people walking and riding, and dedicated pathway for less confident users, it provides genuine cycling safety, rather than the narrow on-road shoulders of a bus. or unsafe mixed traffic environments residents identified as concerns. This kind of safe local street corridor supports everyday trips to school, the beach, local shops and bus stops, rather than being limited to recreational use. The coastal pathway study and liveability feedback showed strong demand for short, local, safe walking and cycling routes that reduce reliance on cars. The active street directly meets this need by encouraging more people to walk or ride for the short local journey. The project also contributes to reduce local traffic, fewer short car trips and consequently lower transport emissions, aligning with the community's state of priorities and council's long-term transport and sustainability goals. In short, the active street improves safety, creates everyday connectivity, encourages modal shift away from cars and supports lower congestion emissions, exactly the outcomes that the community asked for. Thank you. Larry Sengstock 09:14.716
The final one from Ms Phipps. Second question from Ms Phipps. Will Council halt the current ill-conceived, unproven and unwanted active street project planning, consult with all impacted residents and, based on feedback, Impacted residents and based on feedback proceed with route and design changes that address local community needs and do not compromise local residential character, amenity and safety as requested in the petition presented before council and signed by over 140. Shaun Walsh 09:42.287
Local residents and ratepayers council has received diverse feedback about the proposal as well as the petition other requests include residents seeking supply of a footpath resolution of Supply of a footpath, resolution of parking problems, concern for speeding vehicles, as well as advocacy from stakeholders seeking safer cycling routes. All of which this project seeks to address. Council is committed to listening and working with the community. Council has made changes based on feedback during the preliminary design phase and will continue to consult with all interested residents and stakeholders as the project progresses. Council has planned additional information sessions including information pop-ups and a walking tour. in the locality in the new year and will send out information in the near future. Council looks forward to ongoing dialogue through upcoming communication opportunities. Frank Wilkie 10:33.130
Thank you Director Walsh. In the last application, two questions is from this, this is Pat Spicer who is here. Mr Spicer, can I collect and read your two questions please, which will be answered by Kim Rawlings, Director of Environment and Strategy. Pat Spicer 10:47.101
Through the Chair, with background information. In 1970 the Lands Department miscalculated Noosa Shire's need for cemetery space for the next 50 to 100 years, so allowed the land to be privately purchased. The 1999 Council had refused two applications for subdivision of blocks on 62 Lake Macdonald Drive, Cooroy, because the land does not have suitable access from its own frontage. The 1999 Council pledged the land for cemetery expansion because the Shire cemeteries were showing a need for Council to consider acquiring more land for cemetery use. With this site sharing a boundary with the existing cemetery, it provided an opportunity for easy expansion. This was forward planning to meet a core responsibility of Council. Cemetery space was not an immediate need, but a DA for cemetery use was submitted in 2008 with the intention of activation of that DA in the next 15 years. For residents who purchased nearby properties after 1999, it is a justifiable expectation that land purchased for cemetery remains the intent use of the land. Because there isn't development on the site, does not mean the site is not serving any purpose. My question: Noosa Council's Facebook page, post on the 28th of January 2025, refers to the land at Lake Macdonald Drive, Cooroy, as unused, despite its zoning for community facilities and its allocation for cemetery expansion in 1999 with a supporting DA in 2008. Local residents, including those who, as children, played on this land in the 1960s, have long used the land for recreation. What are the reasons the Council considers the land unused? Frank Wilkie 12:49.862
Director Rawlings, welcome. Thanks for the question, Pat. So the 2008 development approval lapsed in August 2012 and was never used or acted upon. Kim Rawlings 13:05.881
The land is zoned community facilities under the Noosa Plan 2020 and owned by Council. However, while some residents have informally used the site as open space, the land has never been formally a park or open space area and its uses for that never encouraged. It has been fallow since Council acquired the property. The land was contaminated and when Council was notified of this, signs were erected and restriction to public access to the area. The land is currently being remediated. Council has a responsibility to plan and to benefit the whole community, not only in relation to cemetery purposes but a wide range of other community purposes and needs. Housing is one of those needs to be planned for. Our Shire is experiencing Our Shire is experiencing a significant long-term housing crisis and once remediated social housing is proposed on a portion of the site. This will contribute to much needed affordable housing, community consultation for the use of the proposed lots In terms of the proposed lots, two of the three will take place in the future. Thank you. Pat Spicer 14:05.860
Question two, background information. First of all I would refer to the zone map of Cooroy, but unfortunately I was looking at the wrong zone map. Staff has stated that as soon as one of the amendments have been adopted, planning staff are working on what changes need to be made to address future site development. The update nine, March update to the housing strategy, gives an indication of some of the current planning for future development. For example, staff have reviewed various housing types that have turned... to a part-time heritage advisor position with strategic planning team, has been approved to assist with character guidelines and recruitment is underway. I'll give these as examples of planning that's going on. Councillor Mark Lanning, my question. Councillor Mark Lanning, Garnet Street, with a red boundary... with a red boundary on the zone map labelled further consultation zone change in the legend. This map has been in effect since your say for amendment two. So this consideration has been operational for a number of years already. With further amendments to the Noosa Plan under consideration, what is council's specific plan for this land which is currently... For this land, which is currently sown, environmental and conservation, and includes privately owned, low-density residential. Kim Rawlings 15:35.537
So just also acknowledging that my understanding is one of our staff have contacted you, Pat, just to confirm the lot in question. So in that context, it's been confirmed with Pat which lot the question refers to. The split-zone property, privately owned lot in Garnett Street, Cooroy, has a small portion This lot in Garnett Street, Cooroy, has a small portion of zoned low-density residential and a large portion of zoned environmental conservation and management to protect native vegetation on the lot. The native vegetation is also covered by the biodiversity overlay being an area of biodiversity... Significance. The environmental management and conservation area of this lot also sits outside the urban boundary. The zoning of this lot has not been or proposed to be changed under any of the Noosa Plan 2020 amendments. Previously in the 2006 planning scheme, the whole lot was zoned detached housing, the equivalent zoning to the lot to low density residential under the current Noosa Plan. Previously in the... Under the first Noosa Plan 2020, the lot was split zoned to protect the native vegetation and continued as it is zoned since. Council currently has no specific plans for this lot. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 16:39.971
Thank you, Director Lorentson. Thank you, Pat Slyson. We normally have an adjournment when there are questions and deputies here, but given that there is only Pat, can I have We've only had an adjournment. Larry Sengstock 16:53.139
Some feedback on the deputation? So we've just found out that unfortunately the email we sent back to the speakers, Willy Ostwald and Jill Brownlee, was because our last meeting was at 5 o 'clock, we actually had 5 o 'clock on their email, so their understanding was that this meeting was at 5 o 'clock, so we can't even count 5 o 'clock. SPEAKER_16 17:20.326
So unfortunately, we've only just found out, but that's... Yeah, but that's the reason why they're not here, so we'll go back and apologise to them and find another time for them to come and speak to us. Thank you. Shaun Walsh 17:35.658
I just wanted to note in the next... Thank you, Chair. In the next period, we'll be going through all the submissions on the Noosa Botanic Gardens Master Plan, and we'll be meeting with the friends as well, so we'll be certain to raise the aspects of their deputation as well, but noting that... But noting that they should still present that to the full council. Frank Wilkie 17:56.645
Okay, there are no Mayoral minutes. We have one notified motion. Advocacy for affordable housing. Councillor Wilson, would you like to talk about the motion? Amelia Lorentson 18:07.720
I'll move the motion. That council A request that the mayor write to the Queensland state government seeking clarification on whether the State is... considering the development of affordable housing for essential workers above state owned car parks located at key service facilities such as schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, SES facilities... Stations SES facilities and surf clubs and B include in the correspondence that if this approach is not currently part of the State's housing strategy request the State government investigate its feasibility We need to investigate its feasibility as a practical solution to address housing shortages in high demand coastal communities like Noosa. Can we have a second for that please? Councillor Frank Wilkie 19:00.015
Wilson, Councillor Lorentson. Noosa Shire is experiencing a severe housing shortage particularly for essential workers including teachers, Noosa's, police, emergency services and I'll second. Amelia Lorentson 19:12.831
Other frontline staff. Rising property prices and limited rental availability have made it increasingly difficult for these workers to live locally which is already impacting service delivery and community resilience. The Queensland Government has undertaken a state land audit building houses above existing state-owned car parks at essential service location offers a cost effective and strategic solution that avoids costly land acquisitions and makes better use of public assets. Noosa faces an essential worker housing crisis that threatens the delivery of critical services. State-owned site State-owned sites often include large, underutilised car parks that could accommodate housing above existing facilities. Developing housing on these sites would optimise public assets, reduce costs and ensure essential workers, can live within the communities they serve. the State Land Audit identified numerous parcels suitable for housing, but clarity is needed on whether vertical development over car parks is being considered. Seeking this information will inform local advocacy and planning and support ongoing efforts by our local Member of Parliament Sandy Bolton and the community to secure practical housing solutions. I'm just going to throw in some data and also note that I was planning to move this at the LGAQ conference this year but unfortunately didn't complete it. And this is basically in response to the excellent efforts that our State Member of Parliament, Sandy Bolton, has been making in this space. Just some data in Noosa. Households in housing stress: 1,104, 5.1%. Median house price in Noosa is $1.4 million versus $735,000 in regional Queensland. Our median weekly rent is $950 for houses and $700 for units. Vacancy rate here in Noosa Shire: 1%. A healthy rate, for example, is 3.6 to 4%. And a lot of our essential workers at the moment are commuting long distances and live outside the Shire due to the lack of rentals. And again, this undermines emergency response and service delivery. Frank Wilkie 21:57.140
Okay, the amendments are an addition to Clause A and the addition of Clause C. And the changes requested the Mayor support efforts by the Noosa MP and right to the Queensland State Government seeking clarification, one of the status considering the development of affordable housing for essential workers. because the Bible says it's not us. and part C is request the State government also advise and when they release the audit on state owned land as requested by the Noosa MP As Councillor Lorentson said, this strengthens the work already done by our Noosa MP. It also acknowledges the efforts by our Noosa MP in the context and our NOSRAMP is has made this request to the State government about using state-owned car parks for this purpose she's also requested the State government conduct the audit on state-owned land with options for their use and i'm advised that the member has also requested the release of that report and by adding this our voice to the request to release the report i think we might be closer to 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 62, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 62, 63, 62, 63, 62 Recognising that we're working in tandem with our local member on this very important state issue. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? SPEAKER_08 23:54.855
I just have a question please Mr Chair. Yes. Karen Finzel 23:59.075
Given that Councillor Nicola and myself are on the housing group and we haven't even had one meeting this year, I'm interested in how we've arrived at this point without any input from councillors around any discussion tables. That's been non-existent in terms of us representing on that. So I guess my question would be I do support the intent given our housing situation. In terms of Noosa, like I'm just wondering in my mind I'm just wondering, in my mind, I can't think of any state owned car parks that would be high enough to, or any that would facilitate further building on top of that, so. Frank Wilkie 24:44.115
Is that a question to me? Karen Finzel 24:45.255
Yeah, that's a question to you as to why we've raised this and there's been no conversation in the committee around housing. This has just come before us today, so I'm just wondering. Where you've had those conversations, obviously it's not been brought to the committee, so can we have some background on that? Frank Wilkie 25:02.624
Well, in answer to your first question, state-owned car parks are, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, are in, Noosa, Tewantin, Cooroy, Doonan, Kabi Kabi, Director Rawlings can inform councillors about the progress of the housing action plan, but we'll just deal with the amendment first, if that's all right. Amelia Lorentson 25:59.341
Sorry, given it's my motion, I'm happy to respond also, Councillor Finzel. There was a discussion about this when we were proposing LGOQ motions. I actually circulated this and there was quite some discussion about it. I actually circulated... At the time we were told that we were restricted with the amount of motions that were allowed to be brought to State, so I had to pull out a couple of my proposed motions. So discussion again and it was supported around the table by the councillors. I have spoken with our local MP Sandy Bolton who is supportive of any efforts that we make in this space and again clarity In this space, again, clarity has been given by the State in terms of whether vertical development is allowed over car parks, but we have lots of really big car parks, Councillor Finzel, and I'm talking our state schools, our police stations, and this is, again, an opportunity to endeavour any potential opportunities and optimise underutilised Underutilised car parks, the same way that we're doing as a council in terms of looking at volumetric leasing above car parks on council-owned land. Thank you, Chair. Karen Finzel 27:13.479
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. As I said at the beginning, I support this. We're all about the housing and exploring. My question then is to the Chair, or through the Chair, how come there's been... SPEAKER_08 27:31.359
Point of order. Amelia Lorentson 27:32.699
It has nothing to do with the notified motion in front of us. Frank Wilkie 27:37.219
Point of order is sustained. But when we move to the... When we move to the discussion of the substantive motion after we deal with the amendment, we can ask questions of staff... We'll ask questions of staff about work done in the housing... The housing... Actions from the housing strategy. Thank you, Mr Chair. I don't wish to close. I'll put the amendment those in favour. That's unanimous. That becomes part of the original motion. Councillor Finzel, do you have a question of staff about the actions of the housing strategy? Karen Finzel 28:19.540
Yes, I would just like to know, this is a high priority matter. At the start of the year, councillors are invited to participate on the committees and that is formally through a motion ratified. So my question is, given this is a high priority issue identified by council, how come we have not had a committee meeting regarding anything around housing and potential discussions outside what Councillor Well, Lorentson has pulled a jerk through the motion. today, which I'm grateful for because we need to address this. I'm just wondering when we talk about transparency and identifying gaps. Frank Wilkie 28:54.559
I think we've got your question. Thank you. Your question is what work is being done in that space Kim Rawlings 29:01.840
Through the Chair. I understand the question about the Stakeholder Housing Reference Group. The Stakeholder Housing Reference Group as Council know has about 20 organisations on it, external organisations as well as council reps. When it was formed it was also understood that it would be brought together on a needs basis. It was brought together very regularly during the development of the housing strategy, the comprehensive housing needs and to help inform the action and priorities for the housing strategy. We have now got very clear direction on what those priorities are from council. We've got a very clear budget and a number of key projects that we are in the process of implementing and advancing. Council has also endorsed two advocacy strategies which both have housing advocacy in them. So we haven't felt there to be a need to bring together all those 20 organisations to deliberate something when we are working through very clear direction, very clear priorities, and very clear budget allocation for implementing the housing strategy. Frank Wilkie 30:15.473
Thank you, Director Rawlings. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 30:24.853
Just to add that I personally know I personally know lifeguards, I know teachers, I know police officers and fireys who are commuting only 30 to 40 minutes away from Noosa Shire and when an emergency happens and they're commuting at the middle of the night, 30 to 40 minutes to get here, there's something just not quite right. Central workers, by definition, they're the people that keep our town functioning. they create a They're critical. Without them, our Shire doesn't function. What's in front of us, again, thank you for the inclusion, supporting the efforts of the Noosa MP, Mayor Wilkie. That's exactly what we do. We have to collaborate with all levels of government and really put pressure on state to deliver outcomes that are of greater benefit for our community. Thank Thank you. Frank Wilkie 31:20.619
You. I'll put the motion. I'll put the motion there. Those in favour? That's unanimous. And it brings us to consideration of committee reports. 11.1.1, single use coffee cups program, 11.1.2, organisation emissions reductions progress report, 11.1.3. It's a planning and environment court appeal, D114 of 2025 for minor change to a development permit from the MCU. For a duplex at Duke Street, Sunshine Beach, 11.1.4 was an other change to an existing approval for material change of use, expansion of special purpose waste disposal and recycling facility and ongoing clearing purposes at 561 Eumundi Noosa Road, Doonan, 11.1.5 were the planning applications decided by delegated authority in October. In October 2025, 11.1.6 was referred to the General Committee as a confidential item about proposed environmental levy purchase. 11.1.7 planning and environment committee recommendations on block. Can I have a move and a seconder for these planning P &C, P &E committee recommendations to be adopted. Councillor Wegener, seconder. Amelia Lorentson 32:38.792
Happy to second, Thank you. Councillor Frank Wilkie 32:41.592
Morrison. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. 11.2 is the services and organisation committee recommendations. 11.2.1 is the regional arts development fund annual grant recommendations. We need to deal with this item separately because as explained in the SNO committee there was an error in the attachment provided in the report. Staff has now provided an updated copy of the attachment. And if we can have Director of Community Services, Kerri Contini, point out the error. Kerri Contini 33:28.440
Thank you. Through the Chair, we did have an Excel cell error in the previous attachment. That's been corrected. It's for Jelly Productions. And at the time when we presented the first report, in the column that has the moderated score, there was an error that's now showing the correct score of 13.3. There are no other. Kim Rawlings 33:49.940
Corrections. Frank Wilkie 33:51.220
Okay. So the, we have the amended motion please. So I'll move that the report by the Arts and Culture Manager to the Service and Organisation Committee dated 9th of December 2025 regarding the RADF 2025-26 annual funding round assessment and be approved the RADF committee funding recommendations for the 2025-26 round as outlined in attachment 1 to the minutes of the ordinary meeting dated 18-12-2025. Updated moderator panel summary RADF Summary rat of 25-26. May I have a seconder please? Second. Councillor Wilson. As explained this is a minor technical error and no need for me to wax on about that. Anybody else wish to speak? All wax off. Brian Stockwell 34:43.369
I'll just wax off. Frank Wilkie 34:47.969
All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you director Contini. 11.2.2 was referred to the general... 11.2 was referred to the General Committee, which was the Noosa Holiday Parks Fees and Charges. 11.2.3 was a confidential item, not for public release, proposed dedication of TMR Freehold Land as road Doonella Lake. Doonella Lake. 11.2.3 was referred to the General Committee, which was the Noosa Holiday Parks Fees and Charges. 11.2.4 is the Services and Organisation Committee recommendations on block. Can I have a move and a seconder for this, please? Happy to move, Mr Chair. Thank you. Moved by the Chair of the S &O Committee, Councillor Finzel. And a seconder, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's unanimous. After General Committee recommendations, Noosa Holiday Parks Fees and Charges. 2, Financial Performance Report, November 2025.11.3.11.3.3, Adoption of the Destination Management Plan. Amelia Lorentson 35:43.634
I would like to pull that out and test an amendment, please. Frank Wilkie 35:46.710
You're wanting to move it, or do you have someone else move it? Amelia Lorentson 35:51.130
If someone else can move it, and I just want to test an amendment, please. We have someone to move Councillor Stockwell. Frank Wilkie 35:58.330
We have a seconder, please. SPEAKER_08 36:05.386
It's the general committee recommendation. It's the recommendation from the general committee that... Tom Wegener 36:14.586
Which is Frank Wilkie 36:16.086
The... Which is, we're moving the recommendations as passed on Monday. Okay, so... Yeah, so, Councillor Morris would like... Yeah, so, Councillor Morris would like to test another amendment. So, in order to start that process, we need to move this as a starting motion. Right. For the purpose of debate. Okay. Councillor Wegener. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell... Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to speak? No, I'll hold it to the end if I may. Yes, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 36:44.706
Amendment that the Destination Stewardship Council include meaningful representation from community stakeholders ensuring local stakeholders ensuring local residents and groups have a voice in decision-making monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the destination management plan okay can we have a seconder for the motion the amendment seconded by Councillor Wilson This amendments just come about I have been speaking to some of the some of the residents and community groups that have been involved now for some time some up to four years and being part of the destination management process they were concerned that there wasn't enough clarity in terms of their involvement in particular around the destination stewardship council so the amendment explicitly the amendments I put this amendment together to explicitly ensure that community voices are formally included and alignment in terms of a destination management plan are aligned with local expectations understanding that what was delivered in terms of the destination management plan was a community led and community driven Frank Wilkie 38:19.460
I have a question. Was the intention of the DMP to include groups and agencies that have capacity to physically implement the actions of the DMP? Kim Rawlings 38:50.447
Through the Chair, thank you for that question. Do you mean the intention of the Destination Stewardship Council? Frank Wilkie 38:57.267
Stewardship Council, yes. Kim Rawlings 38:59.847
So yes, the intention of the Destination Stewardship Council is to be a collective of people and... groups that have the capacity and capability to drive implementation, oversee monitoring and evaluation, help identify and manage risk, help prioritisation, sourcing of funds, things like that. And with the levers and the capacity to implement. In saying that, we also... In saying that, we also still have, as per the action in the DMP, the terms of reference to be developed and to be worked through with Council. So there's still a process to go through with Council about the finer details and the core purpose and priorities of that group and the process for establishing that. Frank Wilkie 39:59.840
Questions or comments? Professor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 40:03.540
Speak to it. The motion talks about, the original motion talks about developing a terms of reference Terms of reference: In my mind the Definition Stewardship Council to be successful will have to have a highly collaborative interface with both community, business and an important expertise to drive and to undertake the monitoring and evaluation. The wording of this amendment talks about ensuring local residents and groups have a voice in decision-making. I think it's important to set out the terms of reference. I don't think that the purely representative model will get to the outcomes of a destination stewardship council that we may want. I think it's far more desirable to set the terms of reference and then work out should we be asking for groups to nominate or should There's a problem in saying quite clearly that I think the only way it'll work if it's a collaborative model that brings together key people both in our community and others who may, at a higher level of government for example, that may assist in driving some of the more strategic initiatives, but also people with real expertise in monitoring and evaluation as well as local knowledge. So to me, I think the existing motion is the right way. To establish the terms of reference and then determine the make up, rather than putting in something that may, in the end of the day, be somewhat frustrating if groups think it is, for example, a little bit like the body that we had in 2016-20 council that had lots and lots of community groups and couldn't get to a resolution. So, to me it's important to sit down and attempt to reference first. Frank Wilkie 42:10.735
Anybody else want to speak to the amendment? Nicola Wilson 42:12.795
Just quickly in support, I think we've had some members of the community who were initially involved in the external reference groups and PRG that felt that they then were kind of neglected or dropped off through the process, so I think it's really important that we since we won't be actually drafting the terms of reference that we put a stake in the ground and say that community members have to be involved in that process. Frank Wilkie 42:40.020
Councillor Finzel? Yep. Karen Finzel 42:41.960
Look, I think it's very important as a council, I want to reiterate, like the other day, that we do legitimise our community's voice and engagement. Everyone around the table here takes that role very importantly and makes it a priority, that's why we were voted to council. I, in amendment the other day, prioritised the Destination and Stewardship Council, which was supported by everyone around the table and got put up as amendment. So I think this just adds another layer. I don't think that it's going to create an issue. Meaningful representation, I'm sure we can hear back from staff about how that will be undertaken, noting also for good fiscal management how that might look to cost to our budget, but I'm sure that we'll find a creative way as we all work collaboratively to open this up to include voice from our community, which certainly deserves illumination, deserves to be... Deserves illumination, deserves to be taken on part of the journey, given that it's a collaborative process and that's what we're putting forward. We are in a space and time and place where we are great facilitators of change and we are trying to bring community... bring community along as facilitators and include everyone and every voice matters. So I will support this. I think it will take a bit of work to draft how we take this meaningful representation to the community given there's not a clear direction on the amendment. I've got confidence in staff and council that we will be able to engage the community in a meaningful way. payment, but how we roll it up. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 44:21.296
But in order to do that we need to first draft the terms of reference to very firmly understand what this destination stewardship council is there to do. And I'm concerned that if you approve this amendment that will give signal to the community that anyone who wants to be on there can. And that may not be the case. As Councillor Stockwell said there was a come one come all We've got various agencies to account and we'll involve various agencies with the real capacity to implement the DMP actions, so sure, there's likely to be some community representation on the DSC, but until we nut out the terms of reference, I think this sends the wrong message and raises the expectation that anyone who wants to be on it So for that reason, as a precautionary approach, I won't support it but certainly when it comes to drafting the terms of reference, will we have a mind to Karen Finzel 45:55.283
In terms of going out to community for positions on the Destination Stewardship Council, would that not be a process through, say for example, expression of interest and then once that has gone through that process, is there potential then for the group to draft their own terms of reference independently once that, the people around the table, through the EOI process? Through the EOI process or meaningful representation before it's formed and then there's opportunity for the terms of reference to be set at that point. Larry Sengstock 46:32.657
Thank you through the Chair, Councillor. That's a difficult question to answer in terms of cart before the horse. Generally, in my experience, the terms of reference is what we control in terms of reference. As Council, set the terms of reference, those terms of reference need to be brought back and discussed and then you can make the decision on whether you go out for expressions of interest, whether you go and identify people in the, because you'll identify on your terms of reference what groups or what expertise you might want on that group and then we try to look into the community and whether that's groups or We have proposed that we do the terms of reference first so that councillors, you can decide, you can understand exactly what you need and then go to the community to do that. To have a group and then develop the terms of reference from that group is just a little bit. I just have a question. With the Chair, just from memory, I just probably need staff for clarification. I thought when we did the Noosa River plan group, Kim Rawlings 48:03.278
Just to build on what the CEO said, with a group like this, very important to be really clear about the purpose of the group and then the capacity and capability of who might be needed, what organisations might be needed to enable that purpose and deliver on that purpose. I think it is a standard process that once you have established a group, that the group review... the Terms of Reference. So that is a standard process, but not develop the Terms of Reference. We need to develop the Terms of Reference. We did the same for the River Management Group, but groups do then check in on their Terms of Reference and review things like rules of engagement of the group, numbers of meetings, times we'll meet, protocols as a group, the values that... So, yes, I think that check-in process of terms of reference once the group's established is an important governance step, but for a group like this, we definitely need to set the terms of reference first. And the process for establishing of that and allow for that group once established to check in on aspects of the terms of reference. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 49:18.598
Anyone wish to speak before Councillor Lorentson closes? Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. Amelia Lorentson 49:25.858
I will. I hope that those around the table may reconsider their position. For many of the residents that were actively involved over four years in the establishment of this destination management plan, the first time... The first time they ever heard of a destination stewardship council was when the report was released. This amendment doesn't tie council into anything. Sometimes we read too much in the amendment. The intent, and the intent is live stream and I'm telling you what the intent is. The intent is to ensure that the poor use of voluntary... The intent is to ensure that the poor use of voluntary participation by residents and community groups in the establishment of the destination management plan is respected and that we respect their wishes. They approached me in terms of clarity around participation and meaningful representation in the Destination Stewardship Council. We respect their four years and understand also our job is to represent them. That's why we're standing here today. So I ask everyone please reconsider the amendment and again don't make a mockery of four years of really great work from some of our incredible residents and community groups who poured heart and soul into this Destination Frank Wilkie 51:26.500
Yeah I will. Brian Stockwell 51:29.760
It's important after the last discussion that we do reflect on how we've got to this point and where we're heading. And councillors you may remember I put around a detailed table and a couple of different options of governance of the Stewardship Council and I'm just looking here and I mentioned about 20 different groups across about 10 different functions. And the decision about who goes on the Stewardship Council should respect the work that those who came before would have done. But in my experience in developing long-term strategies, the people who are quite useful and suitable in strategy development are sometimes not the right people to help you guide the implementation. If you've got a purely representative model, you tend to slow down the implementation in my experience over a couple of decades of this sort of thing. You have to think about Think about what is that group there to do? Are they there to drive the implementation, to provide council with some really good insight into what's working, what's not working well, what could change? You know, look at the innovation that they might come. So to me it is essential to understand that the stewardship council is a concept that's been around and may not have been used in specific words but has been part of the concept for a long time. It is what's happening overseas in some of the leading areas looking at trying to improve the sustainability of tourism. of tourism. So to me it's not a question of whether there will be collaborative partnerships and people from our community involved in the stewardship council. So to me it's not a question of It's about just making sure that we set the terms of reference about what we want to achieve from that council, respect what's come before, but some of the groups involved there may not have little to do with what's going to come next. in the implementation phase. To me it's really important to understand what we want people to be able to provide in terms of that partnership body and I think leaving it as was adopted at the General Committee is the appropriate way to go. Frank Wilkie 53:49.420
Thank you, put the motion those in favour? If we can ask Stockwell, so we're voting for the substantial motion which was... We're going to Stockwell, Finzel and Wilkie against, councillors Lorentson and Wilson, the motion is carried. Um, 11.3.4 confidential not for public release, environment levy proposed land purchase, 11.3.7 general committee recommendations on block, can I have a move and a second for the general committee recommendations? Except we dealt with it separately. Councillor Wegener, seconded. Councillor Lorentson, all in favour? It's carried unanimously. Um, next item, three reports direct to the ordinary meeting. The first is. I would like to, through the chair, I would like to move a point of order. Um, the reports were not delivered. Um, the reports were not delivered by close of business day Tuesday, um, as required under our standing orders. Um, the reports were not. And I'd like the breach to be formally noted in the minutes. Brian Stockwell 55:03.444
So I dispute the point of order because my reckoning is I got an email at 4:49 saying, you know, access before five o 'clock. Frank Wilkie 55:13.184
Okay. So that's in dispute. So some councillors The question is, when is the time for the release of the reports for the ordinary meeting? Amelia Lorentson 56:06.640
It's standing. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 56:10.960
What's the standard time for the release? Yeah, my understanding is that it's the close of business on the two days before. Yeah. Not 10:00am.? No, not 10:00am. We're saying close of business is what we're working to. Okay, thank you. SPEAKER_16 56:25.564
I'll ask a question then. Nicola Wilson 56:26.884
The standing orders say that councils be given sufficient time to go through agenda items. Is less than 48 hours considered sufficient? Frank Wilkie 56:40.120
I'll say that it was close of business Tuesday was the time frame. I believe that's sufficient. My question was actually to the CEO. He makes the decision on when the reports get released. I think it's a subjective call and it's not the CEO's decision. Not the CEO's. Not the CEO's position to answer whether it's sufficient time or not. It's a subjective call depending on each councillor's disposition. Nicola Wilson 57:07.886
Question again to the CEO. Whose decision is it when the reports get released and whose decision is it to decide whether there's sufficient time in releasing the agenda given that the CEO releases the agenda? Larry Sengstock 57:20.606
Yes, ultimately it's my decision. That was the decision that I understood as being reasonable to release them. As we all know, we're working under extreme pressure to get some of these things done before this time of year and we were working to get that done. My understanding was before the close of business on Tuesday was acceptable in terms of our terms of reference. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 57:44.087
I'd like to ask a question to the CEO. So ordinary meetings, our standing orders say close of business Tuesday, two days prior to the meeting. When we updated our standing orders and changed our ordinary meeting from 5:00pm. to 10:00am, was that updated? Larry Sengstock 58:08.065
That's what's in the standing order, so that's maybe something we... we need to look at when we review the standing orders, but that's currently how... how it fits in the standing orders is that it's closed for business on the Tuesday before. Amelia Lorentson 58:22.942
Chair, again my understanding two days means 48 hours and that standing order close of business Tuesday was under the assumption that we were having our ordinary meetings at 5:00pm. Was that updated when we changed our standing orders to 10:00am.? Frank Wilkie 58:42.940
The question is, can it be updated, Mr. City Manager? Amelia Lorentson 58:45.800
No, that's not the question. Larry Sengstock 58:48.740
The question is, was it updated? Obviously, it wasn't, well, standing orders remained as they were. We've all been working towards those standing orders. We're all subject to those standing orders. I'm more than happy to review that and understand now that that's been made a position. We can certainly look at that from looking at our standing orders but moving into a 10:00am. start and then close of business on the Tuesday is something that potentially we accepted or I accepted but that's maybe if it's not acceptable to you going forward then we can certainly look to change that. Nicola Wilson 59:21.910
Another question please. That less than two days may be reasonable when there are Terms in two days may be reasonable when there are no new reports coming to ordinary meeting, but do you consider it reasonable when there are new reports coming straight to ordinary, which we haven't been advised of in our agenda briefing? Frank Wilkie 59:38.528
Okay, look, I'll just draw a line on it out there. We can take this conversation offline. Thank you for bringing it to our attention, the disparity, we can make that, we'll have a discussion about adjusting the standing orders. Absolutely. Thank you for raising that. Thank you for raising that. Now I come to the appointment of the Chairperson to Council's Audit and Risk Committee. We have Executive Officer Yancey Wook here to give us a summary. Unfortunately, Larry Sengstock 01:00:00.749
Yancey's not around, so I'll take that. Okay, you'll deliver the report? Yes. Just a quick summary of where we're at. Thank you. This report seeks the appointment of Ian Rushworth as the Chairman of Council's Audit and Risk Committee. The term of the former Chairperson, Tim Cronin, concluded on the 12th of December 2025. recommended the appointment of Ian Rushworth as Chairperson for an initial three-year term. Ian has significant experience in internal audit and risk management and is currently He has served as an independent member of the committee since June 2023 and his appointment will ensure continuity and seamless transition for the committee to deliver independent oversight and advice on audit and risk management matters. The report recommends The report recommends that Council A, note this report, and B, thank Tim Croman for his contribution to the Audit and Risk Committee for the past six years, and C, appoint Ian Rushworth as the Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee for a term of three years. So I'll give that to you, Councillors. Thank you. I'll move the motion. Frank Wilkie 01:01:04.369
Councillor Wilson moves the motion. Can I have a seconder? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wilson will speak to the motion. Commission. Nicola Wilson 01:01:11.695
Just briefly, I've worked with both Tim and Ian since my appointment to the Audit and Risk Committee last April. Both have been great to work with so I also thank Tim for his contribution in the last six years and I'm really pleased to see Ian appointed as our new Chair. I think he'll really add value to the committee. Frank Wilkie 01:01:30.495
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:01:34.508
To thank Tim Cronin for his work and contribution he this he takes our some well speaking for myself uninformable questions very seriously and and treats us very very well and is very clear and I'm sure that Ian Ian is also very competent and we look forward to him as the chair with the Auditor's Committee Is there anyone else that would like to speak about this appointment? Frank Wilkie 01:02:03.462
Put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. We now go to item 12.2 which is adoption of the tourism use of roadmap. We have Director of Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings here for the report. Now we might take, this is an opportunity to have a five minute break because we could be here for some time while Director Rawlings is also here. SPEAKER_13 01:02:29.081
So we'll have a five minute recessed comfort break. Yes. Frank Wilkie 01:10:35.423
Welcome back everybody. We're up to item 12.2 which is the adoption of the Tourism Noosa Roadmap and Director... Okay. Larry Sengstock 01:10:53.985
So we're looking at the adoption 12.2, adoption of the Tourism Noosa Roadmap. This report is an outcome of the meeting of the 8th of May 2025. This report is an... I'm going to take the report as read, but I am going to draw your attention to the executive summary. In line with Council's consideration of the DMP, it is now equally important to work with our partner organisations, including our local tourism organisation, which is Tourism Noosa, industry and businesses associations, community-based organisations, in our community to enable delivery and success of the DMP. In officers' opinion, a strong, aligned local tourism organisation is considered essential to the success of Noosa shift toward regenerative tourism. This transition cannot be achieved by Council alone. Noosa ambition goes beyond attracting visitors. It is about ensuring tourism actively contributes to the health of our environment, the wellbeing of our community and the protection of our unique lifestyle. An aligned local tourism organisation plays a pivotal role in supporting Council in turning the aspirations of the destination management plan into everyday practice, shaping visitor expectations, supporting local businesses and ensuring tourism contributes positively to Noosa community, environment and lifestyle. As I said, in May 2025, Council called for a collaborative roadmap to be developed with Tourism Noosa, detailing Council's future expectations of Tourism Noosa role, structure, future focus and actions. And any further funding arrangements aligned with and informed by the Final Destination Management Plan, ensuring consistency of purpose and long-term strategic alignment between Council and Tourism Noosa. For the goals of our DMP and regenerative tourism to succeed, the role of the tourism organisation, Tourism Noosa, must evolve into one grounded in stewardship of place. This means aligning marketing, industry development products and experience. Sustainability programs and visitor engagement with what Noosa can sustainably support, reinforcing respectful behaviours and actively supporting businesses to deliver experiences that reflect our shared values. When this alignment is clear and consistent, tourism becomes a force that protects what people love about Noosa rather than placing additional pressures on it. Tourism Noosa are a mature local tourism organisation with strong local national and international connections and robust channels to market developed over many years. They have strong networks and have been very successful in upholding Noosa brand as an iconic destination. Now is the time to ensure that tourism continues to be in line to council and community expectations and the DMP. In this context, a process of review and consideration of a range of options for a fit-for-purpose local tourism organisation has occurred through the development of a roadmap. This roadmap provides council with a comprehensive, evidence-based framework for the future of tourism delivery in Noosa. Developed collaboratively by Noosa Council and Tourism Noosa and informed by independent benchmarking, global best practice, the roadmap is intended to respond to community expectations for change. How we manage and market our destination while ensuring tourism supports economic value, while protecting and prioritising Noosa unique environment and lifestyle. So the roadmap assessed a range of eight options, considering role, structure and service delivery model for in alignment and alignment with the destination management plan. The roadmap process was rigorous, incorporating a review of tourism Noosa current operating models, strengths and challenges, benchmarking against destinations globally, highlighting success factors such as cultural change, partnership based governance and sustainable funding mechanisms. Funding mechanisms: an assessment of eight service delivery options against governance, financial sustainability, strategic alignment and risk. There were a number of workshops that were carried out during this process. The eight options for future delivery of tourism destination management functions are, I won't go through them in detail, summarised below is one, status quo. Two, evolve the LTO, Tourism Noosa, to deliver the DMP. One, evolve the DMP. Okay, three, two, one, go. Three, scale back LTO model. Four, collaborative shared services model. Five, council in-house delivery. Six, outsourced brand management. Seven, partnership with regional tourism organisations, RTOs, which in this case is Visit Sunshine Coast. And eight, establish a new entity. Council's newly adopted DMP provides clear direction and roles for the local tourism organisation. These are summarised in this document as lead, regenerative destination marketing and storytelling, support industry development and capability building, help deliver visitor and community behaviour, change initiatives, align events, experiences and partnerships, support funding alignment and diversification, operate within strong destination governance. Considering the requirements of the DMP, the eight service delivery model options were evaluated as part of the roadmap development process, ranging from maintaining the status quo to structural reform through a new entity. Option 2, Evolve Tourism Noosa to align with of DMP emerged as the preferred immediate approach scoring highest for strategic alignment to the requirements of the DMP and lowest risk. This option maintains continuity of core services while embedding cultural change, evolving KPIs and improving governance. An alternative medium term option involving a phased pathway combines option two with shared service efficiencies option four and the potential structural reform option eight if new funding mechanisms are secured in the future. The recommended option includes core and aligned services to the DMP such as destination marketing, international trade, visitor servicing, industry development and strengthening sustainability while balancing continuity with managed evolution ensuring transparency, efficiency and alignment with the destination management plan. The recommended option also recommends changes to aspects of current service delivery that reflects an estimated 40% absorption of identified DMP actions within TN's Tourism Noosa existing core activity, demonstrating some capacity and agility with TN to adapt and make these adjustments within current funding and resources. The option also includes commitment from TN to increase other non-council funding streams separate to the visitor pay options being explored by council over the same period, prepare a transition plan map mapping the evolution of the organisation's structure and strategic focus in readiness for the new financial year, 26-27, and undertake a review to make an organisation name change, for example, Destination Noosa, a title aligning seamlessly with the Noosa Destination Management Plan and perceived as more inclusive of the wider community. whilst maintaining its relevance with the tourism sector locally, nationally and internationally. A change such as this signifies a new era alongside Council's new strategic direction for the destination as whilst articulated in the DMP, the shift to stewardship. The report recommends Council endorse option two as a preferred model. Option two is based on core annual funding of two million dollars plus CPI. This option reinforces the importance of an involved approach and model for the delivery of destination marketing, industry development, sustainability programs and visitor services for Noosa and that an involved this option Noosa plus CPI. Dated 18th December regarding the Tourism Noosa Roadmap Part B approve the Tourism Noosa Roadmap Attachment 1 in accordance with the requirements of the current 12 month Tourism Noosa funding deed. Endorse Option 2: Evolve Tourism Noosa to align with the Destination Management Plan as the immediate and primary service delivery model as outlined in the attached and proposed Tourism Noosa Roadmap and Frank Wilkie 01:19:49.484
Given we are in a formal meeting, I'll move the motion. Will we have a seconder please? As we've heard, this roadmap outlines the way in which this tourism Noosa will evolve after serving the Noosa community very well for 25 years into a new organisation that reflects the community's aspirations for a model that better protects our environment, our liveability and prosperity. And has captured community sentiment in the destination management plan. The roadmap sets out how we will evolve tourism Noosa from a business as usual model to regenerative tourism. Where all marketing and industry development shifts to a regenerative focus. Where visitors are encouraged to join residents, businesses and residents as Noosa custodians. environment, respect our community and liveability in a way that leaves Noosa in a better place for future generations. This adaptive change is being done now to help Noosa responsibly manage and mitigate any risks to environment, prosperity and liveability from increased pressure from unprecedented population growth in South East Queensland and impending Helping to care for our environment, respect our community and liveability in a way that leaves Noosa in a better place for future generations. Visitation from the Olympics. The proposed new model is informed by industry benchmarking and research into global best practice for destination marketing organisations. Independent benchmarking of ATOVA... Australian and New Zealand local and regional tourism organisations indicated that Tourism Noosa was unique in many ways that it operated more like a regional tourism organisation than a local tourism organisation. The report notes it is difficult to compare like-for-like organisations due to differing visitor numbers and types, population, funding arrangements, structure and strategic focus. and helping determine TAN's next form into independent experts from URBJEC did a comparative analysis of leading destination management organisations globally with a focus on regenerative tourism governance, funding models and operational structures. It also identified lessons learned from these agencies in US, Canada, Ireland and Denmark that are relevant to Noosa unique context. It found most were not-for-profit entities, were funded by a bed tax, had dedicated sustainability staff as well as marketing specialists, community engagement roles and also focused on visitor education. TN's funding is modest when compared to international destinations with access to bed taxes and diverse revenue streams. Domestic LTOs and RTOs were mostly funded by councils but unlike Noosa where TN is funded by a higher rate for commercial properties only, others are funded by residential and other rates. Lessons learned from these global success stories and insight into global TN's funding is more... Best practices were that adaptive change over time was critical. They had KPIs to measure regenerative goals. Most had evolved over time rather than transformed radically and suddenly. That sustained and reliable funding was critical. That effective partnership between council, tourism organisations, industry and community was essential. As proposed by the Destination Stewardship Council and that no one size fits all. In determining the best fit for Noosa Council, eight service delivery models were mentioned and they've already been read out so I won't go into them but the third option, option two is the Evolve TN model. It rated the highest against the criteria of governance, financial sustainability, transition complexity. and strategic alignment of DMP's regenerative tourism goals and the roadmap proposes how tourism Noosa over three to four years will evolve to integrate these DMP priorities. Council will Council will continue to provide oversight via the funding deed and require quarterly reporting by TN against the deed requirements to Council. The transition plan has recommended a base funding for TN at the current rate of $2 million funded by the differential... rate on commercial properties. No residential rates will be used. Phase one in year one will be to align and evolve the tourism services and KPIs to the DMP and injecting a regenerative focus into destination marketing, visitor servicing, industry development and sustainability programs. All marketing aligns with the Noosa brand and sustainability position. Now here's the thing. Drafting the terms of reference for the Destination Stewardship Council will also take place. In year two, it's a year of strengthening shared governance and expanding sustainability initiatives. The Destination Stewardship Council, if adopted today, is proposed to be established by then. And TN will be a participant as a member. Other revenue, new revenue opportunities will be implemented where feasible. Regenerative tourism messaging fully embedded across campaigns and more progress made towards having Noosa achieve eco-destination certification. It's already a leader in that regard. Year three is a year focused on consolidating, embedding the roles of Destination Stewardship Council, scaling up sustainability programs and visitor contribution initiatives. Years three plus: future evolution, expansion, expand revenue generation and explore other models, evolution into other models if deemed appropriate. This change starts now and this roadmap is again, like the DMP, the start of a journey that recognises the value This is the start of a journey that recognises the value of partnerships and where all of us has a role to play as custodians in keeping Noosa different by nature and I commend the staff and the councillors and TM on the work done. on the work done in coming to this roadmap some questions please questions councillor Wilson I've got quite a few but they're generally pretty short and hopefully yes no answers the resolution by council in on the 8th of May Part B 2 the second graduated payment of eight hundred thousand to be made at six months subject to completion of the roadmap and KPI achievements have those KPI achievements been met those KPIs were due by the 31st of December so we received those we still we're now currently reviewing those KPIs KPIs but we won't be making a decision on that until those until we review those KPIs. One of the KPIs was to be delivered by 30th of November which was to enter deliver a report outlining a minimum of three alternative revenue stream options to be completed and presented to Council by 30th of November has that been received Kim Rawlings 01:27:25.600
Through the Chair that report has been received. Nicola Wilson 01:27:29.240
It was received after the 30th of November and it's currently under assessment Part E of the resolution was that the roadmap consider agreed service levels, organisational efficiencies, revenue diversification plans I can't really see organisational efficiencies or revenue diversification plans It's another question. I'm referring to the resolution and asking if these things have been met. So could you please tell me where the organisational efficiencies and revenue diversification plans are in the report? Kim Rawlings 01:28:15.820
So a raft of things have been considered throughout the process and the roadmap refers to those things. It refers to estimated costs for services and within that has been a review by TN around efficiencies and organisational changes. So that sits within that. Nicola Wilson 01:28:45.400
And part G of the resolution was ensure any future proposed funding decisions for tourism Noosa include consultation with industry stakeholders and residents, ensuring transparency and input into strategic investment in Noosa tourism future. Has that Kim Rawlings 01:29:06.480
There's been significant consultation on the issues relating to our local tourism organisation, Tourism Noosa, funding of tourism activities and how we manage the destination through through two phases of the DMP process, including you know, there was specific feedback through those phases on the issues I just outlined, that all of that information has been shared with and presented to Council and has been incorporated into the deliberations and analysis process of developing the roadmap. Nicola Wilson 01:29:47.416
Since this May resolution, so the DMP phase two process, how was the How were residents specifically engaged on their thoughts on funding for TN? Were there any questions in the survey? Did residents voluntarily provide feedback? Kim Rawlings 01:30:06.231
Yes, there was quite a bit of feedback through the process, the phase two process of the DMP, both in survey qualitative data and in written submissions relating to tourism Noosa. Nicola Wilson 01:30:23.505
Could you be more specific please in what that feedback was in terms of TN funding, whether we specifically asked about TN funding in the About TN funding in the survey questions and what the sentiment was towards funding in the written submissions. Kim Rawlings 01:30:40.296
The question specifically in the survey, I can't, I don't have a word for words. But the questions in the survey were directly related to the actions listed in the DMP, the draft DMP and the draft DMP had a specific action relating to reviewing Tourism Noosa and the organisation around their role. So there was a specific question around that which we received feedback from I'd have to refer to a document to get exact stats but we did get both Both people offered up comments on Tourism Noosa, on funding, on amounts of funding, on marketing the destination and linking. So there was a specific question. And linking those things to the challenge and the feeling in some parts of our community that we are experiencing periods of congestion and using language that was used in submissions and feedback over tourism and linking investment in marketing and tourism Noosa to those impacts. so yes we definitely received feedback both in comments on the survey qualitative comments and in written submissions about that I was about to try and quite figures but I think I should just check before I quite figures. Amelia Lorentson 01:32:18.403
I have been in front of me i can send them to you thanks just from my recollection um if you could please confirm this was the general gist of it um was that sentiment was for a review of the tourism model so about 90 or more and the general sentiment against funding was Kim Rawlings 01:32:47.311
So we had you know over I think we had 1100 responses to this phase two since May. Amelia Lorentson 01:32:53.931
I think we had a of those 150-ish responses either through survey and submissions made comments specifically on tourism Noosa and of those 150 I think it was about 80% of those that had that were that called for a review of tourism Noosa and a reduction of funding and I think the remaining 20 I'm gonna get this wrong Councillor Lorentson did you want to put I just have some percentages in front of me participant sentiment regarding tourism Noosa 62 percent negative 17 percent positive 21 percent neutral I also have proposed actions per thing for destination management in terms of stop public funding of tourism 31 percent stop promoting Noosa Shire to all visitors 35 percent reduce public funding of tourism 2 percent reduce destination marketing 4 percent read direct public funding of tourism 2 percent so just final one then I'll come back with more later but does this roadmap and preferred option reflect that Larry Sengstock 01:34:17.340
I can just need to draw back the attention to the to the roadmap and the report what we focused on here is we've got a DMP that needs to have a delivery model and we've tried to focus on what is required in order to deliver the DMP what that what this then spells out What this then spells out is these are the items, these are the elements that need to be delivered and we need support with. The cost to do that is a figure that we have is around $2 million. That's to be still, I think, now that we have a DMP only three or four days ago, we need to now work through the actual actions and the final figure of that. But that's where the focus has been, is what do we need in order to deliver. And what do we need in order to deliver and continue to deliver for our community in terms of tourism and promotion and marketing. Nicola Wilson 01:35:12.479
How does that start it by part G? Ensure any future proposed funding decisions for tourism, Noosa and food consultation when you're asking us today to make a decision on three years worth of funding. Actually, I wasn't even expecting, never mind the community. Frank Wilkie 01:35:25.385
I think that's a highly critical question. It's up to us to decide how we manage that. Nicola Wilson 01:35:36.105
I'm asking how the CEO's comments satisfies, if we're deciding on three years funding today and we were supposed to ensure any future proposed funding decisions for tourism, Noosa and food consultation, we haven't had that consultation. So how can we satisfy Part G, is the question. Frank Wilkie 01:35:53.471
I think you've heard from the staff that there was consultation which garnered feedback about and that's the answer. Nicola Wilson 01:36:02.311
And it was against the funding. Sorry. SPEAKER_08 01:36:04.811
Let's just ignore it then. Larry Sengstock 01:36:05.831
See, I'm happy to. In the recommendation, you'll see that we haven't actually requested that three years We haven't actually requested the three years of funding, we haven't requested to put a number in the recommendation, what we've said is we'll bring back the terms in February, so the idea today is to understand the roadmap, understand whether that's the right model to go forward with, and then the funding is for us to then, if we have that, is to bring that back in February with further terms and further discussion for Council's decision and /or further... further work. We don't know at this point in time, but that's the position we're in. Amelia Lorentson 01:36:41.950
Councillor Lorentson. Just some clarity. Firstly, CEO, can you confirm whether adopting the roadmap today commits to Council to $2 million of funding for 2026? And I've got in front of me page 20 of the roadmap. And again, just clarity. It says finalised three-year funding agreement, base score funding aligned to DMP. So my question is whether page 20 confirms a three-year funding arrangement of $2 million per year. Larry Sengstock 01:37:22.400
I guess what we're doing today is putting this to you, and that's why the recommendation is to finalise the terms. It's up to you to decide today whether you wish to commit to that or whether you want further work to be done. Which is really good for discussion today. My intention is not to commit us to the three years in that roadmap, it's to bring it to the table and say here's the option, please discuss, please give us some direction. Amelia Lorentson 01:37:50.493
So back to the roadmap, it identifies additional funding for tourism news actually delivered DMP actions and there's about 1.3 million dollars over three years and when you go to the funding sources says TBC. Is council expected to fund this? So where is the funding source is my question. Larry Sengstock 01:38:19.262
I agree. There's no commitment for that. That's just what they're... Remembering this roadmap was done in collaboration with Tourism Noosa. So that's what this document has. It has both our input and Tourism Noosa input. This is what Tourism Noosa believes, looking at the DMP and the... timing of this, is what they think is required to do it. It's for us to decide whether we're the ones who have the ability to fund or not fund, based on what we want in As in terms of to deliver, what delivery outcomes we want from Terrace and Wesson. Frank Wilkie 01:38:58.258
Anybody wish to speak to the motion? Nicola Wilson 01:39:00.638
I've got a question. Frank Wilkie 01:39:01.938
Councillor Wilson. Yes. Nicola Wilson 01:39:04.633
On the scoring of the eight options, how was the process arrived at? Sorry, how were the scores arrived at? Was it just one person's assessment or were there multiple? people involved in arriving at these scores? There was multiple people involved in arriving at the scores. The working group were involved in that process and then there was a moderation process that also happened. Thank you. I've got a few questions that will again require me to read out a few different Parts of this report, roadmap and assessments. Just for clarification. Option one, the status quo seems to assume the existing funding agreement is extended beyond... June 26th, which isn't currently the case, but it also scores lower on the assessment because lack of alignment to the DMP and regenerative tourism. However, the key findings report, page seven, says the existing tourism Noosa strategy overall aligns strongly at the principal and goal level with the DMP. across key themes including destination marketing, regenerative tourism, industry development and cultural storytelling. Could you tell me why the strategic alignment only scores two, which is poor? Kim Rawlings 01:40:43.003
Yes, there is there is alignment at the moment at the strategic level with Tourism Noosa and the Australian with Tourism Noosa and their strategy that Council signed off on it does enshrine in some of the themes a shift towards regenerative tourism but as as mentioned in the report there's definitely room for evolution of their service delivery and you know that's that was really the difference between option option one and two was more focus on alignment and evolution of their current services and that that be reflected in any future funding agreement and KPIs thanks a lot from that again I'll need to quote a few things first the existing agreement already has a clause that the DMP must inform TN's at annual operational plan the May resolution The May resolution part F said should the DMP be adopted during the term of the agreement, provisions will be in place to allow for variations of the agreement to ensure tourism Noosa activities align with the DMP's principles, outcomes and relevant actions. Nicola Wilson 01:41:53.356
On that basis, I don't really see much difference between options one and two. Both have base funding of two million dollars, both don't have any funding for DMP initiatives, so TM will still need to continue to request budget. So just could you explain please why the two are different and why one would be preferred over the other? Kim Rawlings 01:42:20.405
Yeah, it's a good question. Our current funding agreement only runs until June, so it's limited to requiring Tourism Noosa to evolve and change and adapt. DMP for a period of six months. Option two is looking beyond June and into the future so you know that's probably you're right they do similar things. Similar things and if the current agreement was beyond June then we probably could have relied on the current clause in the current agreement but it's not that ends in June so this process is about what happens after June and yeah and yeah option two does pick up on the fact that make no mistake we want our tourism organisation to be aligned with our destination management plan. Nicola Wilson 01:43:12.751
I've got a few more. on the different scores again so we'll stick on their financial one for now financial sustainability option one status quo stable under current two million dollar council funding so assumes that it does get extended membership extended membership revenue some minor new revenue streams hard depend dependency on council persists so that's a three moderate two which is the preferred option based on base funding stable so same but needs further diversification like a visitor levy which doesn't exist and support for DMP project delivery delivery we're currently not funded but this has been ranked a full which would suggest a lower risk so how is this scoring higher than the stable current state I'm also noting the outsourced brand management has predictable costs potential savings stable still only gets a three potential cost deficiencies Potential cost deficiencies of option seven is a four, because the council contribution is likely lower, so I don't know how a greater contribution by council with no ability to deliver the DMP would be a less risk. So number four is... Is there a question in there? You've lost me. Yes. Why is this pouring? Frank Wilkie 01:44:42.012
Could you raise it in a clear question, please? Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:44:45.572
Option one, financial sustainability, scored three, which is moderate. Option two, which has a base funding stable but needs further diversification, i.e. there's no further funding to deliver the DMP promises, scored four, which is good. Seems to me that that one's more risky than option one. Frank Wilkie 01:45:02.197
So the So are you making a comment... Kim Rawlings 01:45:06.317
Assumption with option two is that there are new products, services, experiences potentially aligned to regenerative experiences that tourism Noosa could be So involved in so there there is is some some assumptions about potential revenue generation for tourism Noosa in an evolved model. Nicola Wilson 01:45:38.103
Just to clarify, the only thing that was actually mentioned was a visitor levy in that assessment? Question? Yeah, well, it didn't talk about any of these revenue... revenue streams, only a visitor levy. So since we don't have that yet, I still think this one should have been scored lower, so I still don't really understand why some of these scores... I've got a few more, but how these scores have been arrived at... You're making a statement. No, I'm not. I'm asking what the process was of scoring these, that this option was deemed less risky than the Stable State. Frank Wilkie 01:46:13.358
Why was option X less risky than the Stable State? Nicola Wilson 01:46:16.405
Yeah, and that was my answer. Frank Wilkie 01:46:18.705
Yeah, okay, thank you. Got a couple more. Nicola Wilson 01:46:22.905
Governance. Option one was ranked three. Governance remains strong. However, it lacks enhanced transparency in council oversight proposals. I'm not sure why, when we have a seat on the board. Option two was ranked four, so higher, because it has strong governance with potential for council to sit on the board. But we already have that. And then... And then number three, which is a pared-back model. Governance remains compliant under Corporations Act, but reduced remit may weaken board engagement and oversight relevance. So why would it weaken board engagement and oversight relevance? And then, in that case, why does it still the same as number one? Kim Rawlings 01:47:07.181
So option two had in it the evolution of the Destination Stewardship Council, which brings another level of governance and not that they have particular governance oversight of Tourism Noosa, but there was another level of governance around destination management. Option three the board yeah it starts to reflect that potentially. Thanks. Another one on stakeholder risk and engagement again there's different scores between options one and two. First one current state industry is comfortable with continuity. Community site might be negative. Expectations for change are unmet. Two industry support Two, industry supportive community sentiment mixed with concerns regarding public funding. Three, high risk of industry backlash. Community may perceive as a positive related to assumption of reduced tourism and then blah, blah, blah. How were these arrived at in terms of assessing industry, whether the industry and community are supportive to be able to give those different weight? So that was, you know, based on those who took part in the assessment, which was the working group, and an understanding and, you know, being, having a good sense by Tourism Noosa of their, how their members and industry reps might perceive these changes. Um, and also it was to reflect the, some of the feedback we received through the process around community sentiment. We know that there are some parts of the community, um, who, uh, are looking for change. Amelia Lorentson 01:49:14.432
Sorry, Nicola. Um, just to follow up on that, Kim, in terms of the working group, can you just Working group, can you just remind us who was formally included and were there any independent or community members included as part of that working group? Kim Rawlings 01:49:33.398
So as it's outlined in the report, the working group consisted of the Chair of Tourism Noosa, a board member of Tourism Noosa, the CEO of Noosa Council, the Director of Environment and Strategy Noosa Council, and the CEO of Tourism Noosa, and a senior coordinator. Nicola Wilson 01:50:05.840
I've got one more. Apologies, I would normally email these, but given the time. In option three, we have financial funding implications. Council contribution could reduce significantly, for example, from $2 million to $1 million or less. I assumed as part of the assessment this would actually be funded. Was there any work done to see what this Paired Back model would actually look like in terms of cost efficiencies, workforce, any of those things before evaluating it? Was there any work done to see... Kim Rawlings 01:50:39.193
Yes, there was various scenarios. Looked at from scaling back majority of the services and it just being about maybe destination and marketing to a scale To a scale back of each service with some service delivery around each of them and then what that scaling back meant to the service. And the organisation's viability and all the things that go with considering an organisation's viability. Frank Wilkie 01:51:23.924
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. I think I'm done unless anything comes up in the debate. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. A different question. Brian Stockwell 01:51:34.104
We've heard some of the statistics about the feedback from the survey. The economic development department in terms of their activities plus what we provide in the current agreements with tourism nurseries funded out of a component of commercial... Component of commercial and accommodation rate, variable properties. It's no longer the tourism levy, but we carried through the same amount, which is $3.9 million. The question is, since they are dominant rate payers who are paying for this, did we receive any submissions either for or against the amount going to tourism levy? From any business groups other than tourism levy, was there any business groups suggesting to reduce it or opposing it? Kim Rawlings 01:52:30.803
I would have to confirm that, but my recollection, looking at Lynne, so feel free to jump in here, is that we received submissions from business organisations, representative business organisations, seeking support. for ongoing and stable funding for tourism Noosa. SPEAKER_04 01:52:52.612
In the submissions we had 131 submissions. And we had an independent assessment of those submissions and it almost was half and half. What we observed is that residents were anti-funding but the business community was anti-funding. They didn't say amounts, it was sentiment. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:53:22.877
Councillor Lorentson. I'd like to move an amendment please. Amendment? Yep. There's a lot of questions I've got here. Consideration on the reintroduction of a tourism and economic levy, specifically to reconsider whether the higher rates currently paid by commercial properties should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated levy rather than as part of general rates. Can we remove the estimator to generate please? Kim Rawlings 01:54:10.300
Can we remove the estimator to generate approximately Amelia Lorentson 01:54:13.560
8 Million? No, I'll just talk to, I'll talk to that, but can we remove that from the amendment? Kim Rawlings 01:54:29.140
No, it's just approximately 8 million per annum, delete that. Amelia Lorentson 01:54:45.752
And accounted for as a dedicated levy rather than as part of general rates. At present, commercial properties in Noosa pay a higher differential rate, which is estimated, according to the report, to raise approximately $18 million this financial year. These funds are currently collected as part of general rates. Historically, this same contribution was collected under a clearly defined tourism and economic levy, providing transparency about its purpose. and use. There is a widespread confusion in the community about who funds tourism activity in Noosa. A common misconception is that residential ratepayers are subsidising tourism in Noosa. They are not. The high contribution already comes from commercial ratepayers, but because it is absorbed into general rates, this distinction is unclear and poorly understood. Reconsidering the collection of this contribution as a dedicated levy would clearly separate the high rates paid by commercial properties from general rates, improve transparency and allow both residents and businesses to better understand how tourism related funding is sourced and applied. A CEO report would enable Council to assess governance arrangements, accounting treatment, legal and regulatory implications and best practice models used in other local governments. It would also allow Council to consider how a levy structure could improve clarity, accountability, and confidence in how tourism-related funding is managed. Importantly, this amendment does not predetermine a decision. It simply requests clear, evidence-based advice ability. So Council can make an informed choice about whether reinstating a levy would better reflect fairness, transparency and fiscal responsibility while addressing long-standing community needs. Brian Stockwell 01:57:04.780
This is about revenue raising. So I'm wondering whether it is a valid amendment to the motion in front of us which doesn't address where the money comes from. I'm not clear whether there are discussions, if there is discussions on sources of revenue in the roadmap in May. If there's no discussion on the source of revenue it may not be an appropriate amendment because it goes broader, so that's a question to the CEO or to, is revenue sources part of the roadmap? Kim Rawlings 01:57:48.908
Well the roadmap does and the council report. And the council report states where tourism is funded from. It does have in it that council collect, council levy a differential to the commercial properties and that is the source of where tourism is funded from, so that is in the documents. Brian Stockwell 01:58:23.284
I think there is an easy way to address it that this becomes part of the report identified identified in recommendation D which would make it more consistent with the notion of it. Nicola Wilson 01:58:34.524
As Director Walling said, there is reference to commercial rights and the historical levy and it also talks about potential future revenue streams such as bed taxes and visitor levies so I think every kind of revenue in that is... I'll support, yeah. Karen Finzel 01:59:02.140
Question to the Chair. I support the intent of this. It has been challenging around the community since that change came into being. From my understanding the levy was originally set up to promote an embryonic tourism organisation. From my understanding at the time of the change came it was about that that organisation had matured and that we had reached a point in time when that constrained hash for that purpose was wavering. So I welcome the idea that we bring this discussion to the table to clarify that process. I'm not sure today is the right place to actually do that initially because in my mind around discussion could be that it's perhaps not even called Tewantin on 11. It could be a destination future Noosa levy or, you know, there's so many options. I'm not sure if Councillor more, and so we'll be prepared to run, as I say, reintroduction of tourism and economic levy that we'd let this fall and we could look at, like, I love the idea of going, like, we'll re-look at it and we'll revisit it. I think that's really important and highly valued when we're looking at transparency and providing a community with clear eyes on why we're making these decisions, how we're making these decisions. How are we making these decisions, how are we making these decisions, how are we informing these decisions. Thank you Councillor Lorentson, I really appreciate the intent and it is timely that probably we have these discussions, especially when we find ourselves at an intersection of change. Not sure this is the right forum for that, but let's get out of the way and continue. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:01:06.278
If I could provide some clarity, can you speak, Finsel? Frank Wilkie 02:01:09.978
There was no question. And if you can answer, then we will close it. Tom Wegener 02:01:19.839
My understanding is that with the destination management plan and the roadmap, we're moving away from destination management. We're moving away from destination marketing, which was the original intent for the tourism and economic levy, and we're moving into destination management, so I don't think that the two fit any more. We're moving away from destination management. A tourism levy is not really in line with where we're going with the destination management. Frank Wilkie 02:01:47.000
Mr Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 02:01:51.380
I remember the reasoning and it was around the technicality of what levies can be raised for. So reintroduction of the tourism economic levy might not be consistent with the Act but I like what Councillor Finzel is suggesting is I would suggest in the report back In the report back in February that we do look at what our alternative, whether it's a levy or some other mechanism or some broader remit, that does bring it back in levy because I do believe that... I do believe that a lot of angst in the community has resulted from moving away from tourism. It's clear that it's created social harm, it's created division, and it's all just through the names... So if we can, in some way, that it fits with the Act, and I think, Councillor Finzel, this is just asking for a review of it, so I would hope, as part of that, there's other options to review as well. So after that, we do look at it in some way really clearly and definitively, saying this is what we collect this much, on top of all the standard rates, we're collecting this much from the commercial enterprise. Amelia Lorentson 02:03:29.034
Make it consistent with the wording at the end. wording and Requests the CEO prepare a report to Council on the reintroduction of a dedicated levy specifically to reconsider whether the high rates currently paid by commercial properties should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated levy rather than as part of general rates. Frank Wilkie 02:04:17.643
Reintroduction of the dedicated liberty, specifically to consider whether the higher, whether we reconsider? Amelia Lorentson 02:04:29.903
Yes, specifically. Frank Wilkie 02:04:34.126
Whether the higher rates currently paid by commercial properties should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated levy rather than as part of as part of general rates. SPEAKER_16 02:04:47.368
Everyone's happy with that? Amelia Lorentson 02:04:54.668
Oh, I do. So basically, again, the amendment doesn't commit us to anything except a report to come back to council. And the report, you know, what I'm envisaging is this discussion that we're having around a good table. Options for levy design, collection mechanism, what are the eligible and ineligible uses of the levy funds, governance, accountability reports accountability reporting frameworks, interactions with existing funding arrangements for example like for tourism Noosa. Looking at regulatory and legislative considerations. More importantly, and I think this is the part where I really, I think I've put this amendment up I think maybe three times in the last 12 months, but I just think it's really important there is too much confusion in community and also we need to also recognise that it is our business community that are paying the high differential rate. I just think an amendment like this also pays respect to our business community by acknowledging that their high contribution and ensuring that whether it's through a dedicated levy that the purposes, the agreed purposes are in effect and whether those purposes are destination management, infrastructure protection, environmental amenity and economic resilience. Again, but that's part of the discussion, debate and review of the possibility of reinstating a dedicated levy to collect what's already paid by our business community. Again, we need to... Again, we need to really sort out this confusion between who pays and this is, to me, the only way we're going to be able to do that. Frank Wilkie 02:06:59.251
As Councillor Stockwell, Lorentson, Wilson, Finzel, Wilkie against, Councillor Wegener the amendment is carried and becomes part of the suspended motion. Any other amendments? Nicola Wilson 02:07:15.005
I do have an amendment but I just want to see, it might be redundant depending on if I can ask the CEO a question. So I noted that in this recommendation currently it doesn't actually refer to the funding agreement but from what you said before we're not deciding on the three year funding agreement today. Larry Sengstock 02:07:45.640
It's up to you, it's simply up to you. We've put it in its terms, if you want to put funding in there then that's that, to change that it will be back to terms that are, to be more specific but final terms was timing, length of funding, KPIs in funding attached to that or associated with that, so it was really important. Nicola Wilson 02:08:17.101
I think it's pretty impossible to decide on a preferred option without knowing what it costs and the next step says confirmed future base funding of tourism Noosa for three year agreement so we haven't actually decided to have a three year agreement so I'm just not sure what we're actually committing to today and where. Given that there's references to the funding agreement and the three-year figure in the report and the roadmap, how are we not deciding on that today? Larry Sengstock 02:08:53.540
What I guess we're proposing is that if you agree that option two is the model to go forward with, and then we come back in February with what the actions are based on the DMP now that we know what is the DMP that has been decided. We're working through this again, people are still in pain. So we need to go back and understand that. Our assumption currently as you see in the roadmap is they're requesting $2 million to deliver that, whether that's the final figure, that's why I want to bring back the terms and the funding to that February meeting for us to discuss and agree with. Brian Stockwell 02:09:45.540
I think there is a problem as be, because in the roadmap there is a number of recommendations including alternatives. I think it may be worthwhile having a short break to try and work out whether instead of approving the roadmap is we approve specific recommendations within the roadmap. So, and then leave D to February because that's just my thinking is B actually is too long of a bus to be useful to interpret D. Frank Wilkie 02:10:42.424
Question, when you say too many options, are you referring to the roadmap, referring to option two and option four? Because here's C says you want option two. Brian Stockwell 02:10:56.054
Yeah but that's in page 19 you have service delivery recommendations and there's a option to in C but then you have four is governance and oversight so three does say allocate base core funding at two million dollars per annum so I think if B and C stand then we are committing two million dollars and it might be good to break it down so if certain councillors do or don't want to approve that. SPEAKER_16 02:11:42.360
I'm happy with that. That's just my thinking. Nicola Wilson 02:11:45.005
Can I add another element? If you are relying on the scores from this process they refer to the amounts as well. Frank Wilkie 02:11:55.865
So what are you proposing councillor Stockwell? What would be the change that you're proposing? Brian Stockwell 02:12:01.305
I'm not proposing any change but I'm saying if we want to separate our funding, the amount, then we would need to specify what recommendations in the road map that we are agreeing to and what will be determined as part of D. Frank Wilkie 02:12:27.170
Specifically, the funding amount as, say, a part, make it clear that we're not committing to 2 million as part E to this recommendation. Brian Stockwell 02:12:39.910
Yeah, refining B. I think it will take a little while to get to the point where that makes sense. I don't think we should do it. Amelia Lorentson 02:12:46.422
Can I just maybe make it a little bit simpler? Again, I reference page 20. By 31st of December, finalise a three-year funding agreement, base core funding aligned to DMP. That's where my confusion started, where the question I asked the CEO, were we confirming today a one-year, $2 million base agreement? agreement funding agreement with DMP or whether we're actually today confirming a three by two million dollar year plus any other destination management plan actions on top of the two million dollar core base. So my suggestion is maybe it just needs some wording. Finalise three-year funding agreement, base core funding, maybe that just needs some wording. Suggestions? Kim Rawlings 02:13:44.220
I think Councillor Stockwell's suggestion is the best one so far in terms of having a little break and just getting the wording right around this just to make sure it's completely accurate. Frank Wilkie 02:13:54.006
All right, everyone's agreed to that? Yep. We'll have a ten minute adjournment. SPEAKER_08 02:14:03.706
Are we okay with the public in the gallery? Adjourned. Can we have the public in the gallery? Frank Wilkie 02:41:16.180
Thank you. Well, welcome back, everyone. We have an amended motion that is the result of the adoption of an amendment. But so far, Only myself has spoken to the motion. Does anybody else like to speak to the motion? Amelia Lorentson 02:41:45.113
I still have quite a few questions I'd like to ask. Questions? Frank Wilkie 02:41:48.553
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:41:49.513
So I'm going to go back to Appendix B. Again, I just need some clarity. In terms of the scoring in Appendix B, the report states it's of high level. and as it reads, it's largely descriptive. I'm just trying to understand, have I missed something? Are there any quantitative or evidence-based analysis that underpins the one to five scores for each criteria? Kim Rawlings 02:42:36.120
Through the chair, on page 12 of the attachment one outlines the scoring scale and explains the scoring scale and what was considered as part of that criteria and then provides And then provides an interpretation for that scoring. Amelia Lorentson 02:43:00.841
So there's no other analysis other than what's presented on page 12 of the report? Kim Rawlings 02:43:08.041
The analysis is presented as the attachments in the eight tables. Appendix Amelia Lorentson 02:43:14.981
B. Kim Rawlings 02:43:16.381
The explanation of the scoring and the criterion ratings is on page 12. Amelia Lorentson 02:43:20.003
So okay where I'm going with this I'm just trying to understand would a two million dollar funding arrangement constitute what we would consider a significant procurement under Council's policy and I'm just trying to understand what documentation and evaluation standards would apply and and should we be applying them to Arrangement. Larry Sengstock 02:44:00.140
Yes it is a significant amount of money, there's no question about it. It's a significant funding arrangement so it would be subject to and that's why we were suggesting they would come to a future meeting for endorsement. Amelia Lorentson 02:44:17.243
There were other options that we discussed in the many, many, many workshops that we did. I'm going to use by example one that I really wanted costed. It was a hybrid option that looked at combining in-house, moving tourism in-house and having an independent advisory group and then a roadmap towards something like an economic, a Brisbane economic style development agency. My question was were all other reasonable options properly assessed and reported before committing to long-term arrangements or the only ones the eight presented? Kim Rawlings 02:45:02.643
So the ones you just described are part of the eight presented. So option five is bringing it in-house. Option eight is a new entity like an economic development and tourism organisation and as you can see option the hybrid option The hybrid option combines in a number of those. So, yes, what you just articulated was assessed and considered. Karen Finzel 02:45:34.736
Yes, through the Chair. Just a question around when you are negotiating with jurors in Noosa, is a procurement option one of the considerations that can be brought to that conversation? And how would that work? Is that a possibility? Option six. SPEAKER_08 02:45:55.353
Option six is that. Larry Sengstock 02:45:58.613
Sorry, Councillor, when you say a procurement option one, can you elaborate on that for me, please? Karen Finzel 02:46:03.152
As a service option that goes like any other procurement process? Larry Sengstock 02:46:08.992
Option six? Yes, option, sorry, option six, consider that. So in terms of, sorry, in terms of each of the actions you were looking at procuring, that's right. Yes, that was option six that we considered in this one. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:52.103
Consideration include including full costings of all potential delivery and governance models with all reasonable alternative options fully assessed costed and compared and supported by meaningful consultation with residents and industries sorry with industry stakeholders and the broader community to provide council with a complete and evidence-based basis an evidence-based basis for decision-making just council's been asked to make significant in long-term decisions about the future of tourism governance and funding in Noosa and these decisions carry financial operational and reputational implications and to me it should not be made without a complete and transparent understanding of all viable options to me at the moment I don't see in front of me a fully costed comparison of all reasonable delivery and governance models including alternatives and hybrid models to the current arrangements without this information I can't be as a councillor confident that selecting a model of selecting a model that delivers the best value accountability and outcomes for our community preparing a clear roadmap that assesses costs and compares all options side by side will provide council with the evidence needed to make a sound and defensible decision it will also help It will also help avoid unintended consequences, cost escalation or governance risk that may otherwise emerge over time. Meaningful consultation with industry stakeholders and the broader community is essential. To ensure that the preferred approach reflects local conditions, business realities and community expectations and is aligned with long-term strategic objectives rather than short-term convenience. This amendment strengthens transparency and also responds acts responsibly in the best interest of Noosa by basing its decisions on complete accurate and publicly defensible information. Karen Finzel 02:49:18.934
Thank you Councillor Lorentson for your intent behind this. I have a question through the CEO. Is this possible given the timeframes around the funding deed and what the requirements are around that? Is this actually feasible? Can this actually be done? Larry Sengstock 02:49:42.312
Look I think you can see that the number of options that we've provided is and what you've said councillors there are other options potentially and other hybrid options and other for us to go back into to review those and provide absolute on each one of those is something I don't think that we as an organisation are geared for and or the timeline for this would be would be quite It would be quite extensive just to do that amount of work and then I'm not sure that we would actually come to a position where we're still able to make a further decision because there are still going to be so many assumptions built into any modelling that we do. going forward so that's why we've tried to keep it as broad but as simple as we possibly can to help us to to make a decision also recognising that the roadmap is designed as a as a So as a phased exercise, so there's opportunities in there to review and to change and to meet the needs of the community or the needs of the environment at the time. So it's really trying to get us to a point, and there's no question that we've been successful over many years with Tourism Noosa, to say it's an immediate fix is really not the case. This is really looking at it and saying this is the most appropriate, from our perspective, the most appropriate going forward is to continue to use Tourism Noosa. Karen Finzel 02:51:52.017
We take it out to community for further consultation and review in terms of like the funding agreement or dollars you know allocated and will that potentially come back to councillors for a decision and when's the time that we could take it back to community. Larry Sengstock 02:52:16.280
Absolutely the decision comes back to council so there's no question about that in terms of the quantum of funding. If the decision is not taken today for the for the quantum that's being proposed in here then that will come back we'll do more work come back with it with a future. I'm comfortable with that. that timing of that, um, I would have to have that conversation with Tourism Mission if that's the decision or the direction. Does that answer your question, Councillor? SPEAKER_08 02:52:45.560
To some degree. Larry Sengstock 02:52:47.620
Sorry. It's a timing thing and I'm not sure when the timing is. We're talking February here. Obviously we're sitting in December, right at Christmas. You know, everything's squeezed. So, you know, I'd much prefer to have a bit more time, but I'm not sure that we can given the limitations of the organisation of Trews and Noosa. They're at a point where they, you know, they want to make decisions going forward as well. Frank Wilkie 02:53:13.324
We've had consultations, many consultations with industry stakeholders over at least three years and two phases of consultation on the roadmap. We already have a roadmap, councillors. It's already well researched. It's a very good advisory way forward. It has explored eight different models, different options. It's benchmarked global best practice. It's benchmarked local tourism organisations in Australia, regional tourism organisations. regional tourism organisations in Australia and New Zealand and come up with a proposed way forward. This to my mind is another obstructive delaying tactic. It's paralysis by analysis. Councilors we already have a tourism Noosa roadmap for consideration. That's what we're doing here today. It is hard, there's pressure, a deadline is upon us, but pushing the thing down the road to ask for another roadmap to be done in my mind is just absurd and a waste of ratepayers money. Nicola Wilson 02:54:25.740
I'll support it. I think it's absurd that we've taken seven months to get to this point and still don't have full costings. We don't really have a roadmap that's got analysis of all the different options. We've just ended up back at the base case level of what we already spend. That's really not what I was expecting after seven months of research and analysis. And I think the community deserves better. We need to be transparent. We need to have meaningful consultation as we promised in the resolution back in May. And we need to have as councillors a complete and evidence based basis for decision making. I don't feel I've got that today and I don't need to be patronised about that. When you've got evidence based decisions. It's hard. It's not hard. It's actually pretty easy. So yeah, I'm appalled that we're in this situation today. And we don't need to be making a decision on it on an unfinished document and items that haven't been posted. If we adopt this roadmap today. If we adopt this roadmap today, there's a two million dollar figure that's all over it. How do we ever decide that we're going to have a different funding amount when the public has seen this two million dollars? Obviously the working group has decided on this two million dollars and where does council actually get to decide on this? Frank Wilkie 02:55:43.642
The councillors will speak to the amendment. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:55:46.702
Yes, please. A question back through the chair to the CEO. Given we're at this decision-making place, we've arrived here today, we have to, in my opinion, make a decision one way or the other. Where does Council come back to Council for us to actually make the decision around the amount of funding allocated? Will that be brought to us as in a report? Or will that be through the budget process? Or what is the process after your negotiations with TM around the dollar value? I think we're all seeking confidence today given the pressure from the community that we We've been under pressure from the community that we heard and listened way back as far as our campaign to run and represent our community today and be transparent with our conversation. Yes, it's a question. Would you cut to the chase? Do you see though, at what point does the two million dollars, I don't know, the question is, is the two million dollars a figure that can be... Larry Sengstock 02:57:12.820
Thank you, Councillor. The report makes a recommendation for option two. Option two has a figure of two million dollars attached to that as a recommendation. The report is also based on the DMP and the actions out of the DMP. The DMP was only decided on Monday in terms of the actions. So yes, my... If you wish today to go down that path, then my opinion, my position would be yes, you could... What I propose is we go back to tourism Noosa, understand exactly what the works and requirements are, what the figure is to deliver that, and bring that back to council. And that's very much what the recommendation... or the resolution is attempting to say, in that we bring the terms and funding opportunities back. Now, that requires you to then say, well, we're not accepting, we can accept the roadmap, but not the funding. And the funding Funding, and the funding is a separate piece that comes back at a future meeting for you to decide. That's what I'm, that's what is possible today. Frank Wilkie 02:58:23.980
So just a clarifying question, so if we approve the motion, sorry not this amendment, the motion as it stands, we're committing to the road map as it stands, option two, which basically is the TM deliver of this range of proposals. Range of proposed services, the indicative cost is $2 million a year, perhaps more if extra services are going to be offered, and there's a three year implementation plan. We endorse the road map today, that's what you'll... That's what you'll go away and come back with after talking to Noosa in terms of the deed, when you agree the final terms, and Council will decide in February whether they accept that or not. That'll be the other decision for you. Larry Sengstock 02:59:12.154
I think the only piece for that is that the recommendation says $2 million. So if you want to make a... So if you want to make a part of your amendment or resolution that you don't accept that $2 million at this point, but you accept a future report that outlines what the potential costs for those services are, then that's a safer way to go, if you like, in terms of the position we're in. Karen Finzel 02:59:40.039
So then the question, through that negotiation, you're saying there's possibly opportunity to actually reduce the amount of $2 million, based on your negotiation with TM? Amelia Lorentson 02:59:52.061
Point of order. We've got an amendment in front of us. I'm confused as to where this conversation is going. I'm allowing it because it talks to funding, which is instrumental to, central to what is being proposed by this amendment. Larry Sengstock 03:00:14.106
Councillor, I can't say whether it will be more or less, but what it will be is more properly costed and understood at that point. Again, more than likely we'd be looking to understand exactly what it is, and you would get a costing against each of the actions, and then it's a decision for Council as to whether you accept those actions. Frank Wilkie 03:00:34.703
So far only Councillor Lorentson, Wilkie and Wilson have spoken to the amendment. Anyone else wish to speak? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 03:00:49.480
I do. I'm going to start off with the formation of the working group. It's made up of Tourism Noosa board member, Tourism Noosa CEO... Yes. Brian Stockwell 03:01:07.167
There was no mention of the working group in the debate. A close should only respond to what was raised in debate or it will close what's in there. It's bringing in new business into a close which is not permitted by the standing orders. Frank Wilkie 03:01:22.067
That is true, Councillor Stockwell. Please sit down, Councillor Lorentson. There was no mention of the working... There's no mention of the working group in the amendment, so we'll amend your comments, not mention the working group, thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:01:39.819
So in my opening speech I talked about risk, so I'm going to continue on that basis. The options analysis and the roadmap carries a risk. Risk of bias due to the composition of the working group who assessed the potential... who assessed the potential models. There was no independent or community representation. While the analysis looked... is professional in appearance, the absence of external scrutiny, independent oversight makes... and the level of detail makes the assessment less robust and potentially... skilled towards preserving the existing model. I hope we do support this. We've been put in a really extraordinary position today to make a decision without the information that we need to make an informed decision. I am going to reference, because it's not once but quite a few times that Mayor Wilkie makes mention to delay and obstruction or deferment, I want to really make clear that requesting information or requesting a complete report is not obstruction, it's not delaying, it's not deferment, it's due diligence. I am going to... It's good governance and it's doing our job, doing what's required under the Local Government Act and doing what we get paid to do, to represent the voices of our people, to make decisions, the most informed decisions that we can in the best interests of the community, so please Mayor Wilkie I ask that you refer from referring to delay, defer or obstruction tactics when all the councillors are asking for is complete information, robust information. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:03:35.636
I'll put the amendment, those in favour? Wilson, Wilson and Finzel. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie, I'll use my casting blood, the amendment is lost. Anyone else wish to try and speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel? Is that what you want to do? SPEAKER_08 03:04:14.220
You don't want to roll that out? Frank Wilkie 03:04:17.620
Yes please, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 03:04:25.120
Um, right. That item B may be amended to read B, agreed to the Tourism Noosa Roadmap Attachment 1, as the guidance framework in accordance with the requirements of the current 12 month Tourism Noosa Funding D, and that item C be amended to read C, endorse option 2, evolve Tourism Noosa as outlined aligned in Tourism Noosa Roadmap to align with the Destination Management Plan, DMP, as the immediate and primary service delivery model, however, noting Council has just completed the DMP, the specific actions, programs and services to be delivered, final funding amount and terms are subject to further consideration. Amelia Lorentson 03:05:52.816
Someone care to second that? Sorry, question to the Chair first. Is the amendment in front of us ultra-virus? What do you mean by that? SPEAKER_08 03:06:04.856
Well... Amelia Lorentson 03:06:09.236
It doesn't negate the intent of the original motion. It doesn't negate the... Frank Wilkie 03:06:17.696
Not from what I can see, it's... Larry Sengstock 03:06:25.048
The original motion, sorry, if I can speak... The original motion refers to bringing the report back in February in terms of the agreement. So this is really just refining that. Frank Wilkie 03:06:49.060
Would someone like to second this for the purpose of debate? Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Karen Finzel 03:07:04.400
Well, firstly, this whole process has put us all in a challenging position. I want to say that first. It's been a long road. I wish it had arrived at a different intersection today. It's been very distressing on everyone involved, I want to say. I think when we talk about psychosocial hazards in the workplace and the pressure that this has put us under at the end of the year in a short amount of time, not just us, our community, that have contacted me in a short amount of time to read the plethora of documents presented before us, the legal challenges, the transparency challenges, you know, it's a lot. You know, it's a lot. However, today, I'm choosing to put this amendment up to help you with some clarity and progress this forward with the intent to try with the intent to try and provide leadership in a very difficult intersection that we have found ourselves up against the wall in December, I might add, right before Christmas. We're just going to try and get some leadership around this table and I bring this forward for debate to see if we can progress it any further. That's all I want to say. Frank Wilkie 03:08:31.086
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 03:08:34.866
Councillor Finzel, could you actually explain to me how the changes, what you're changing about the original recommendation? Karen Finzel 03:08:52.280
Yeah. Well, I think it's trying to just bring debate around the table to try and bring to the light that the $2 million amount of funding through the deed, like, is not what we're deciding today. We're agreeing to the roadmap, in my opinion, so that then that allows the agreement with Tourism Noosa to continue. That has to come to a conversation, from my understanding, correctly, if I'm wrong, to the CEO. We can't move forward, apparently, based on legal advice. That, you know, that's... That, you know, that's where we're at. We can't change that. Is that correct? That's the given. So how do we inch ourselves towards an outcome that can progress the conversation around aligning a future agreement with TN as the preferred person or organisation? And provide opportunity for the amount and whatever's agreed on to come back to Council in February, I think I've got this right, correct me if I'm wrong, for Council to make a decision around funding and the agreements in alignment with the DMP to deliver some actions to our community we to are say pressing this forward because we ultimately want to see the Noosa we love looked after for future generations now I don't know how else we're going to move forward today there's a lot of complexities in the matter so I just invite councillors to have a debate around the table and see where Frank Wilkie 03:10:44.960
I want to thank Councillor Finzel for all this amendment, but it goes to the fundamental difficulty that we face when we receive input from the community about how much money Tourism Noosa ought to receive. For the services they provide and also for the services we would like them to provide. Some around this table and some in the community want Tourism Noosa to receive no funding or less funding. Some want the same funding. Some want an increase in funding. What this What this does, this motion, is it takes us away from saying, making a call and saying, yes, we're endorsing option two. does, this... And for option two, the indicative costs are $2 million. So, make a decision, you support that or not. This says endorse option two, but we may not agree to a figure, and it leaves tourism Noosa in the uncertain position of not knowing how much they may end up, whether it would be enough for them to be sustainable beyond February. So, because of the uncertainty inherent in this, and again, the delay in delivering that certainty, I won't be supporting this amendment, because I don't know how other councillors feel. If you support the two million as proposed in the roadmap, Roadmap. Then vote for it. If you don't, vote against it. And that's legitimate. So, I'm quite comfortable with the original recommendation because it gives certainty of funding. Let's just get on with it. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 03:12:43.840
Yeah, a question to the CEO. From the responses to questions presented to you prior, please clarify if I've got this wrong. That I felt that this gives us the opportunity to endorse the roadmap to give the certainty to TM. So they need that certainty to progress forward. I don't believe this amendment supports... Frank Wilkie 03:13:16.140
Is this a question or are you debating? Karen Finzel 03:13:17.260
Does this support a locked-in figure of $2 million or does it support a negotiation at the table for TM and you guys to come together, come together, look at what they want to deliver within an amount of money that's unbeknown to us yet? look at what they want to... That's agreed upon. It comes back before us to make a decision around funding and services. Thank you, Councillor. Larry Sengstock 03:13:48.736
Through the Chair, Karen, Councillor Finzel, yes, you're correct. So what we're proposing here is that we agree that the tourism roadmap... So that then we can... The second tranche of funding for tourism Noosa, for this current deed, could be progressed as long as the KPIs are met, we still have to finalise those, as we talked about earlier. But then it also... What it does is we endorse the... Endorse the option two as a guiding framework and then we we negotiate we come back with what does that mean in terms of the actions the KPI and the potential cost for that again for debate and discussion and decision in February. Nicola Wilson 03:14:47.152
I'll speak to it. I think back to Councillor Wegener's question maybe part of the problem here is that some of the new text hasn't been shaded red so it's one of the key things for me is that it says council has just completed the DMP so the specific actions programs and services to be delivered and the final funding amount in terms are subject to further consideration so I think that's a strong indication. I think that's a strong addition here that means we're not locked into that figure of two million dollars because they were still costing it to be done it simply gives tourism Noosa assurance that they are the primary service delivery model but without costing what that primary service model is we're not committing to the figure so I think this strengthens strengthens the original amendment it means that we're not actually endorsing any funds today for any particular period but we are saying there will be an ongoing relationship with TN if this is supported I believe in the resolution in May last year we we ended up with some parts that gave unintended consequences of things that maybe could never have been delivered and therefore I think any additional clarity that really separates parts of the process is really important So I'll support this. Thank you. Tom Wegener 03:16:21.120
I'll speak to it with with the funding like we I totally get where you're coming from where but we are giving that to we have to make a decision for tourism Noosa now our weakness and where we've come unstuck is we didn't give surety in the past and I want to give surety now so that we can get on with the job of the destination management plan which we approved and I think is really important so I don't I want I want them to be to feel confident to be funded right off the bat so we can start Frank Wilkie 03:17:08.600
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:17:12.080
With all due respect I think that we should be also considering what's important to our community, not just tourism Noosa. I am in support of the motion amendment in front of us and I think it's a really good middle ground. It doesn't commit us to funding and requires that we get more information before we actually make any decisions. Tom Wegener 03:17:42.876
Question? Without committing to funding, are we doing anything at all? I mean, committing to adopting the DMP without funding means nothing. Question? That is the question. Does... Is it enough to agree to the roadmap but not agree to any funding? Larry Sengstock 03:18:08.632
From my discussions with Noosa and Noosa, I believe it is. I believe that we... I believe that we've got the ability to, what it gives them is some surety between now and July 1, or June 30, for the second tranche of funding. And the negotiation, we've taken the position where as a guiding framework, we accept that they are the relationship we need to continue with, and we'll work through what that looks like based on the DMP and based on the fact that it's only just come through the system in terms of... So I believe that this will be acceptable. That's my understanding. I can't speak for them. Tom Wegener 03:18:52.305
Good. So there's not much of a change at all as far as the... the change at all as far as the funding goes with this. Is that right? Or it's assumed that there's a $2 million funding straight off the bat with the previous. So how does this change the funding model going forward between here and February? Larry Sengstock 03:19:12.221
What it does is basically says to deliver the DMP as best we knew beforehand, the costing That way you'll be able to see how much money you're going to spend. In order to deliver what you want or not. Frank Wilkie 03:20:01.506
Question. If we go with the original motion which has the recommendation for the two million dollar cost and you go back to tourism Noosa and by February you've worked through the costs and whatever, is it likely to be, is it locked into being two million or could there be other, could it be another fee? Larry Sengstock 03:20:21.230
No, that's what I'm saying is by this amendment is saying we're not locked in, we need to work that through and we have to make a decision and if they need to make a case for each of these pieces. So, to be honest I'm comfortable with this as an amendment, I think this meets the needs and gives us the ability, which we always wanted to do, but timeframes and getting this through. Hadn't allowed us to do it, but this gives us a bit more time to actually work it through and come back to some more detail. It's really just giving us the ability to to finalise the 12-month planning agreement, the deed, and also to say, well, tourism Noosa is the body that we believe has got the ability to, at this point, the ability to help us with the DMP. What that means is we just need to now really knock down and come back to you in February with a further plan. Frank Wilkie 03:21:21.398
So if this is yours... yours, the figure that you may come back with may be $2 million, maybe more, maybe less. And I can't... You've seen... Sorry. Yeah, it could vary. We don't know what the cost is. Larry Sengstock 03:21:36.254
Yeah, you've seen the breakdown of costings in our... in our workshops of what tourism Noosa spend on various parts currently. So all I can say is that needs to be further scrutinised or further itemised and based on the DMP. So, you know, we've got quite a lot of detail... you know, we've got quite a lot of detail but we don't have the final detail and that's what I'd like to be able to do for February. Will you be able to... Frank Wilkie 03:21:58.687
Will you be doing that if the other motion gets up? Larry Sengstock 03:22:02.707
No. If the other motion... The other motion, the original. The original motion. No. That would commit us to, well, we still bring it back in February, but we committed to an actual number. This, what this does is it doesn't commit us to the number, but it commits us to doing the work to come back with a number. Or numbers, that you can then decide upon. So we're not locking ourselves in. So it commits us to following through and delivering option two, which is the Evolve TN model. Yep. Evolve TN model, and whatever that may cost. And that's what you'll come back with in February, as opposed to with the other one, it's locked into TNURF. Yes. Okay, thank you. I like that then. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:22:49.311
I think we need a bit of clarity, because I know councils are feeling under pressure. The councillors are feeling under pressure and I know emails flying from the community are suggesting that staff are driving this. Councillors, staff recommended to us that the existing funding... require a Tourism Noosa roadmap by February. Very strongly recommended to us. It was councillors who gave advice to staff to say no, for the fiduciary duties of the board of Tourism Noosa, we need to have this by December. When we made that decision, we didn't perceive that there'd be... Such an extended period of negotiations. And those negotiations have resulted in what's in front of us as the roadmap. And we've been subject to very detailed spreadsheets provided by Tourism Noosa and on page 14. Page 14 you can see how they've allocated what they think is the core funding and of just over three million dollars and of that they're suggesting two million dollars would be needed from council to provide those core services and that's really The chances of that coming any lower from the advice we've been given are low because we've got a company limited by guarantee that has I guarantee that has certain requirements that generate the need for a certain amount of core funding to continue on. The way I read this motion, there is a key difference. Because we're not approving and only agreeing, it probably draws into question compliance with the existing funding deed. And it probably means we have to then get the written agreement of tourism nursery before 31st of December to go down this track. If that written agreement doesn't come, we're technically in breach. That's the risk. Acceptance that this is a reasonable way forward probably gives us some reassurance that it could happen, but I don't think if councils are voting this because they think there's going to be a significant cut and they'll be able to go back to the council. They'll be able to go back to the community saying we've achieved that. We've already done those negotiations and we already know what the answer is, that for the services that we think we want it's going to be around that much. So while I'm neither here nor there, I do think we have to be really realistic that the time pressure was a result of the decision we made as Council. A number of months ago it is all linked to this whole process of funding which we have had continuing short term. The whole purpose of the roadmap was trying to give that security if we're going down this path. So yeah that's where we're at and as I said I'm neither here nor there on the amendment. I think the Tom Wegener 03:26:37.021
That the CEO, the semantics between approve and agree to. There seems to be quite a difference between the two. Larry Sengstock 03:26:53.565
In the deed, it requires us to agree the roadmap by 31st of December. So that's why we've changed it to that term, agree. That allows me to then continue through. Again, it's the roadmap as well as the KPIs before we can provide the second tranche. Amelia Lorentson 03:27:12.965
Question to the CEO, just a follow-up from what Councillor Stockwell just referred to, agreeing to this the amendment, as I've understood from Councillor Stockwell, is there is a very slim likelihood that $2 million, given the work that's been done in terms of what is core service delivery for tourism Noosa, that $2 million isn't really going to change much. Am I correct? Larry Sengstock 03:27:43.686
Based on the information, and you've all seen the spreadsheets, based on that, that's where it's at. But I can't say whether it will or won't, but that's what tourism Noosa is saying is required to run their business. I think there's an ability to negotiate, but I can't say whether we... And again, it comes back to And again, it comes back to what do we want. There's pieces in there, there are elements, and we say we want those, but we don't want that, and that could come down, that could change the funding element as well. Amelia Lorentson 03:28:13.218
So accepting the amendment in front of us, we made... Yes, we may essentially be agreeing to against what was the original, maybe a little bit less, 1.8, maybe a little bit more, we don't know. So we agreed, the amendment in front of us, we... agreement in front of us, we're agreeing to something that we don't know. I figure we, we don't know. Larry Sengstock 03:28:35.510
That's, that's correct, but it's also what it's agreeing to is the ability for us to go back and understand exactly what the elements that we want from the DMP and what each of those cost and whether we're prepared to actually pay for those elements. Amelia Lorentson 03:28:49.710
Sorry, just a quick question. So I've understood that those actions are additional costs, not core business. So there was $1.3 million identified in the agreement as actions to be confirmed in terms of funding sources. sources. Larry Sengstock 03:29:07.691
But none of those have been agreed by us. Nicola Wilson 03:29:12.391
Yeah, I think we're going around in circles with conflicting advice here because when we asked earlier, we were told even in the original recommendation, we're not logged into Tewantin. But now it's sounding like we are. But the the original Part D said request the CEO to bring back a report for endorsement of final terms in February 2026. So there was still further negotiation, even though, as I've said, lots of documents refer to the Tewantin, but that wasn't locked in or it is? Well, in my opinion, it wasn't. This clarifies it clearly. Frank Wilkie 03:29:52.360
Okay, um. Karen Finzel 03:29:53.640
Oh, just a question. Frank Wilkie 03:29:55.380
Yes, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 03:29:56.680
Yeah, um, given Councillor Stockwell's comment around that we may be in breach of the current agreement, can we get some clarity on that? Because I certainly don't want to be putting up anything that puts us in a position where we're breaching the current agreement, so I'm not comfortable. Larry Sengstock 03:30:33.960
I have confidence that that will happen in my discussions and that's all I can say but I have confidence that they understand that and that they're willing to accept that. Karen Finzel 03:30:48.622
Through the Chair, that didn't really satisfy me. Are we in breach of the current agreement with the wording on this amendment? Larry Sengstock 03:31:00.842
No, we're not currently in. No, we're not currently in breach of the agreement because it says we need to be, it needs to be in writing from both parties. So until that's not agreed, we're not in breach. Brian Stockwell 03:31:11.964
Just the clause that I read said we have to agree to the terms and the funding for those terms. Again, the funding for those terms for that period, which would be three years according to this report, unless otherwise agreed in writing. And what the CEO is saying is he feels that that agreement in writing is a likelihood. Yes, full problem. Frank Wilkie 03:31:38.342
By December 31st? Not by 31st, Larry Sengstock 03:31:43.942
December 31st, before we agree on the actual funding. Karen Finzel 03:31:49.022
So it sounds like there's a risk if this goes out. The risk is that it will still proceed to over $2 million. Do you identify that as a risk? It's an unknown. Is that a risk? I'm concerned now about breach and risks and gaps, which are huge. Larry Sengstock 03:32:17.320
I don't... Firstly, I don't believe that... I think it's a very, very, very small risk because of my discussions with Theresa Noosa. And I don't believe we're in breach. And there's also, within the deed, there's opportunities for dispute and resolution of disputes. So I'm confident that we can, if that happened, we could come to that agreement fairly quickly. So I'm not... I think this is... Nicola Wilson 03:32:48.722
I think I asked this back in May. Clause 2.10 says, and this is potentially where we're at, in the event the roadmap is mutually agreed by the parties but not yet endorsed, which is why we've got agreed rather than endorsed still, by 31st of December, Council may, in its absolute discretion, acting reasonably to allow continued operations, elect to pay the further funding, which is the $800,000, where the KPIs have been achieved, which we don't know yet. I remember asking, when it says by the parties, who does that mean, and how do you have that mutually agreed? Because we've just said now it has to be in writing, but that's not clear from this. - mutually agree, and who are the parties that make that agreement? Kim Rawlings 03:33:41.630
The wording of the agreement-- Agreement is very specific to anticipate this scenario that so it says two things it says that the roadmap needs to be mutually mutually agreed agreed the the roadmap roadmap has has been been mutually agreed it's being reported to council as mutually agreed by the CEO of Noosa Council the chair of tourism Noosa so that components been met your your component your is whether or not you want to endorse it or not the wording was very specifically crafted on that basis because of this potential scenario um there was a second part to that question sorry councillor Wilson um I think you may have covered it but I said how is it mutually agreed so you've just said by bringing it to council yep um and who are the parties so so parties are the signatories of the funding agreement and they're signed by the CEO and the CEO of both organizations the endorsing of the roadmap is is council's decision um i think that's one cause the cause i was referring to is separate can you just clarify yes the clause the second clause is that um discussions about any uh the current agreement is a 12-month agreement expires on the 30th of June 2026. there's a clause in there that says um discussions must be undertaken um in starting in November um on any on potential for a further funding agreement and um provide i should have the agreement yeah thanks nicola thank you that would be helpful thank you so the parties will commence discussions after the 1st of November 2025 which has happened regarding a potential further term funding for the further term and the terms on which the funding may be provided and will conclude those discussions by the 31st of December so we have to have had discussions um around any potential further term or funding agreement um funding Funding by by an and advised advised by the 31st of December, unless there is mutual agreement in writing to something else, which is what the CEO has referred to, that mutual agreement in writing potential. There's a third clause that says if Council does not intend to provide further funding or a further funding agreement, we must advise Tourism Noosa by the 31st of December. Frank Wilkie 03:36:30.700
Councillor Wilson. SPEAKER_08 03:36:32.680
Thanks, I'm sorry, I was just going to ask. Frank Wilkie 03:36:35.640
Councillor Stockwell, do you have a question? Brian Stockwell 03:36:37.480
No, that's clarified where we're at. Karen Finzel 03:36:42.900
Alright, Councillor Finzel. Yeah, look, through the Chair, look, I'm not, I think I'm going to withdraw this because I'm not comfortable. I'm not comfortable, it doesn't give us a surety, you know, I'm not certain where tourism Noosa's want to sit, what they're prepared to agree to, we've seen their figures, we've seen their projections, you know, by endorsing the DMP, we certainly sent a strong message that we preferred them as that provider, you know, however, where they're going to meet on that negotiation with the CEO is not in front of me. that if we, you know, rely on them to have an agreement in writing that we might not reach, you know, I think for me that's risky. I am not in that negotiation. I am not the risk is I am not legally trained. What I am is a representative of my community and they clearly stated through the campaign and on several things that they are not interested. In having status quo, revolving door, that money just going through. We haven't met KPIs, some of them are still unmet. Yeah, given those things I'm pulling this because I'm not confident that moving forward that we're going to even get the intent of this... I don't even get the intent of this was to try and progress it, to minimise risk and to ensure our community that we've debated around the table and tried to take every step available to us today in a very challenging situation. SPEAKER_08 03:38:19.388
I don't think that this is going to deliver what my intent was. Frank Wilkie 03:38:23.328
Councillor Wilson, do you have a seconder? Do you consent to the amendment being withdrawn? Yes. It has to be in the hall. It had to be an agreement with the council. Okay, and all in favour? That's councillors Wegener, Stockwell, Lorentson, Finzel. Finzel and Wilkie against. Councillor Wilson, that is withdrawn. We go back to... SPEAKER_08 03:38:46.706
No, it has to be consented by the former council to be withdrawn. Oh, I don't think, no. There's the standing orders. With the consent of the seconder Frank Wilkie 03:38:59.992
And... The Councillor shall not speak. I don't think it has to be 100%. and councillor, councillor That's a majority, isn't it? A majority. A majority? Yeah, councillor, that's a majority. Okay. Good double check. Nicola Wilson 03:39:16.610
Just going back to the clause before Friedman Horne, the parties will commence to... The parties will commence discussions after 1st November 2025 regarding potential further term funding for the further term and the terms on which that funding may be provided. We'll conclude these discussions by 31st December 2025. When we said earlier that we weren't agreeing or endorsing funding today, that sounds pretty much like we have to. Larry Sengstock 03:39:50.580
Unless we've got a written agreement to take it further. Yeah, do we have that? SPEAKER_08 03:39:54.720
No. No they don't? Larry Sengstock 03:39:56.060
No. That's the reason for the withdrawal as far as I understand it. But my... I feel confident that we... Frank Wilkie 03:40:07.984
Okay so so far only myself has spoken to the original motion which is as the amendment added about the... Can we go back to the... I'm just trying to... Okay, this is the motion as it currently is before us, councillors. Can we just have a break before we go to that point? Councillors, would you consent to have a break? We have been going for a while. It is past lunchtime too, so 15 minutes. Welcome back everybody. We're now, we have a five-part motion before us and to which only Councillor Wilkie has spoken. Who else wish to speak? We'll move an amendment. Councillor Wilson. I'd like to move an amendment please. Yes, Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 03:57:08.940
Let item F be added to read. Request that in... relation to item D, Council's Procurement Department lead the development of any future funding agreements. Karen Finzel 03:57:23.053
I'll be the second for debate. Frank Wilkie 03:57:25.313
Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Nicola Wilson 03:57:29.013
We've had a lot of going around in circles today trying to establish what exactly we're voting on today, whether it's just a road map, a few relationship funding, how many years, what amount. I said earlier and I'll say more about this later, but I think the motion that we, the resolution from May 2025 put us into a position with maybe some conflicting parts and then a funding agreement was rolled over from the previous one and then tried to pick up the parts of this resolution. The parts of this resolution. We've had some conflicting advice and ideas today about whether that funding agreement has put us into a position where we have to decide on funding today and I'm just really concerned about the risk that Concerned about the risk that's put us under. It's clear from the amount of hours that this has gone on today that no one really seems to know exactly what we're approving under this resolution today and where the decision... about funding will be made. Usually, if we're spending amounts of $2 million or more over a multi-year agreement, we use our procurement team, as Councillor Wilson said earlier, to... to do the assessment and evaluation, but also to draft a supplier agreement. And while this isn't technically a supplier agreement, it's very similar to one. And therefore, I've been saying for a while that I think our procurement team should certainly be involved in that development. In that development, obviously with input from various parts of the organisation, from finance, from everyone, but just keeping a bit removed from the people who've been involved in negotiations, I think that's best practice to have that kind of other level of governance, and so while it's not completely clear if we're talking about a future funding agreement today, rather than just development. Yeah, rather than just roll this agreement over, I'd really prefer that we start with a new agreement that's kind of based on our standard supplier agreements, and then tweak to whatever we need to do in terms of the roadmap and the DMP Frank Wilkie 03:59:37.681
Question CEO isn't councils procurement department involved in all funding agreements? Larry Sengstock 03:59:58.049
As Councillor Wilson said, this one's a little bit different because it's been a relationship agreement as opposed to a strictly service agreement as such. And that's something that we've been looking to do going forward. Anyway, I've been pushing is that it is more of a service agreement. But, you know, that's But that's the evolution of our relationship with Tourism Noosa over many years. It's become this sort of rollover and /or, because of the way the funding was allocated, but also just the relationship that was built to deliver. So that's where it's sort of gone to. I know when Scott Waters was here, he moved it. The dial a little bit more towards KPIs, whereas in the past it wasn't even that strict, but we've got more KPIs and then it's gradually been evolved from there with my involvement as well. So I'm comfortable with that. It's just whether they lead it or whether they... In all of our service agreements, they're a service provider, so they're part of it and they provide that service to us, but it's led by them. The experts or the people who are absolutely involved. Support? Support. I'm comfortable with that. I absolutely think that they should be involved and that's a really good point, so I'm not going to dispute it. Nicola Wilson 04:01:15.718
Sorry, just to answer Mayor Wilkie's question, they're not currently involved, is that correct, in this agreement? Larry Sengstock 04:01:22.058
They haven't been at this point. We've had legal advice, absolutely, lots of legal advice, but not, you know, and that sort of is inherent in the legal advice is the procurement advice as well, to make sure that we don't step outside the bounds, but yeah, in terms of the actual procurement department. Nicola Wilson 04:01:39.750
I'm happy to amend that to support, if that doesn't change it too much. Brian Stockwell 04:01:43.719
I'm happy to agree to that. Frank Wilkie 04:01:45.199
I think that's a good change. Can we change up these cabinets? Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Amelia Lorentson 04:02:01.188
I'm happy to support the amendment. I think it just gives another level of probity and governance and audit assurances and you know for expenditure of this significance. Again, two million dollars it's not our money, it's community funds. I think this is Community funds. I think this is a really good addition. Happy to support. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 04:02:28.181
Yes, thank you Councillor Wilson for bringing this to the table. I'm happy to support this. I think that any layer of extra eyes over governance and assuring to our community that processes are being adhered to and that there's several layers of governance, I'm happy to support. Terms of Governance. I'm happy to support that. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 04:02:49.994
Thank you. Yeah, of course we support it. I think the change from LEED, the Development and Future Funding Alliance, to support is a really wise one. Obviously the departments involved need to lead the discussions and to have that procurement there and support. Brian Stockwell 04:03:13.560
I'm happy to support it and just building on what the CEO was saying. I think they will have a, you know, procurement will have a very rigorous and finance and propobity type mindset which is good. I think where else it might help is that where we, it will depend on where we eventually wind up, end up. is at least an efficient process. and allows them to do those extra tasks. So, I will support it. Frank Wilkie 04:03:53.565
Councillor, would you wish to close? No. Put the amendment those in favour. That's unanimous. It becomes part of the substantial... Are there any more amendments? Anyone wish to speak to the substandard motion? The reason why... Brian Stockwell 04:04:20.616
The reason why this is a difficult decision is that we have a really diverse set of opinions in the community and as we heard from those who are engaged enough to bribe written comment into the phase 2 of the destination management plan, there is a sizeable body of people in our community who would not support this approach and I can tell you a lot of the people that I've heard very vocally advocating for that approach, a lot of them have been very long term supporters of my role as a councillor. So it's really important that I take the time to explain why I think I understand that they see this that they see that defunding tourism in Noosa is a lever to address over tourism and why I don't think that's a wise move. And there's another whole group in the community who just see an amount of money and think well that could be better served. And we know that a previous amendment will try and look at an outcome so that people are really aware that this is an amount of money as part of the overall pie for economic development. And that those who pay those rates have not raised opposition to it and so what I think on a big picture it's important to follow the roadmap is we've got We've got a very significant analogy, an aircraft carrier which we call the visitor economy in Noosa. It's been one of the biggest economic boats we've had for a long time and what I think just pulling the pin would do would be setting that adrift so that the visitor economy will rock The visitor economy will rock back and forward with tides and currents and if there's no energy in it when there's a storm coming you won't be prepared. So why I think we should be investing in a local tourism organisation is I think the DMP sets a new destination for that boat. And I think the whole crew has to be on the boat to make that change. And I think we should be investing in it. You can't put out a strategy and then hope to achieve it. And the level of support for a number of actions which the industry will be better capable of delivering compared to Council or other organisations are quite clear. And that's what we list in this, the roadmap lists some of them. So, and what are those actions? And what are those actions? And so I suppose, to me, it also brings in this concept of not having consultation. I don't need any more specific questions going out to the public and saying, "Do you support this amount of money? " because I know what the response is. We've heard from them. They've been very effective advocates and a lot of the people who oppose are very effective long-term advocates for the good of Noosa and they're doing it because they see it as a good for Noosa. And I'm not going to argue that I'm right and they're wrong. I'm going to argue I have a different view. And I think the phase two consultation was an excellent consultation because it sought support for different functions to achieve a different outcome for our destination. I'm going to lead that back to what the lessons learned from our global benchmarking from the experts in the field set. Number one was in terms of the function, form follows function. Organisational structures and governance should be shaped by the task and priorities outlined in destination plans. So, I understand there's been a very short time frame between adopting the destination management... Adopting the Destination Managed Plan and having the contractual obligations to make a decision but it's clear from that and to me that there is these tasks and there's a subset of these tasks which is more effectively Delivered by industry in association with council and other community and that then we just have to make the decision is Tourism Noosa the best the best vehicle to undertake that and we did look at the other options in terms of do we just rely on a regional tourism organisation do we go out to the to the just brand management have a small group of tasks and that's what the appendix analysis done you know I'm quite happy to make a decision based on the scoring and the analysis of those different options the next one is cultural change is crucial and it within the roadmap is really a guide for how council is suggesting investment should lead to cultural change and it's really an evolution rather than a major change to tourism the industry and to the organisation evolution the organisation evolution over revolution that was another one that came back all the successful ones were tourism destinations that have evolved to a point where they're now world's best practice they and we gave one example of where they tried to make a significant change in the way they delivered it and they were successful in that transformation partnerships matter effective collaboration between council tourism organisation communities and other stakeholders and that's another area where I think the we've had that I think the we've had that discussion this morning is the partnership model is basically the destination stewardship council the local tourism organisation is part of the service provider to achieve some of the actions in the DMP but they are a partner okay funding is a key enabler sustained investment and that's what we're talking about now now it's been the driver of this trying to get more than a year after year and constantly having to run up against deadlines for this funding and no one size fits all so they're the key messages that came out of our global benchmarking and while I understand all the queries and comments today I have enough within what's in this roadmap and with what we've heard in our numerous workshops to say that it option two is the best fit at this point The best fit at this point in time. I think once we get the stewardship council moving to a more collaborative service delivery model may also, that's option four, may also be a thing that we consider in years to come. So I'm happy to approve the tourism destination map and to get the fine details sorted out in February. Frank Wilkie 04:11:12.865
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Who else wants to speak before I close? You go ahead. Councillor Wilson, Councillor Finzel. SPEAKER_08 04:11:26.785
Alright. Tom Wegener 04:11:31.025
This is a typical Tom speech. Excuse me. A great mayor said that a nice place to live is a nice place to visit. And that is Noosa. But there's a threat. And the threat is from that this is maybe deteriorating. It's a nice place to live. There's a threat out there. the residents have let us know about this threat. And it's come through loud and clear. And we've listened. And we have taken on the threat of over tourism of overpopulation around us. We have taken action, and that is the destination management plan. And we've taken action. We have actually done what a good council does. You learn about the threat, you study it, you create an answer. And we have endorsed the destination management plan. And now we need to get it going, to enable it. And so today we're looking at the road map, the tourism Noosa road map, and... that is what we're counting on to enable the destination, the DMP. And there's good groups. We have a very, very big group of groups that The groups that are stemming a little bit, it's been a long morning, but the groups that are for this, of course, the Tourism Noosa, the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation, ZEN, they're all on board. They want the destination. management plan. They want to make Noosa a better place. They see the threat out there and they want to improve it. And that's what we're doing here today with the roadmap. Some say we don't need to visit this visitation, the tourism. And I think that we do need the visitor economy. When I came here in 1998, I was just starting to make In 1998, I started making surfboards. In 2001, we bought a house on the back of making surfboards, and we sold surfboards to the locals, and we exported some overseas, but the cream of the crop of our surfboard making, of my business, was the visitors that would come to Noosa, pour a bucket of money on my kitchen table, they would stay and surf for a couple of days, and then enjoy Noosa. Noosa. And that's the visitor economy in my lifetime, and that really helped me. And that's the... And then I met the Majestic Theatre, where I volunteer, and they're in the same situation, where on... Well, first of all, the Majestic Theatre is run by the Pomona Arts Incorporation, and they run the markets in Pomona, and the Majestic Theatre, and it's a top-class organisation, and the theatre itself is in great nick, and it's an incredible value to the community, the theatre. You have Little Seed Productions and all these other community groups using this fantastic theatre that is not funded by Council, it is privately funded through the arts. And what is the cream of the air? They need visitation. On Saturday morning I'm there and you have 40 people show up for the silent movie at 12 o 'clock and they pay $15 a piece and they buy 20 dollars worth of food and drink while they're there and it's a great organisation but we need visitors. We actually have a visitor economy and without that we're going to be very compromised just like my own business. So I want to So I want to make sure that the next generation has the same opportunities that I had. And that's why I ran for council. Because I understand that we need to maintain this place, a nice place. A nice place to live is a nice place to visit, and that is where the volume of our wealth comes from. That is the basis of our economy. And I want to make sure that the next generation has this. And so I believe that the roadmap supports and will help us maintain the Noosa that we love so much today, and it will support the destination management plan, and we have listened to the community and we are acting accordingly. Karen Finzel 04:16:00.107
Thank you. all the staff, TN, our community and my fellow councillors around the table. You know, when this all started I was really excited. I thought great transformation Yeah, sure. Or change, a vision we can project for to be proud of, a legacy where we have embraced change, where we're projecting through our organisation and through our community a new generation that can cultivate. A new generation that can cultivate and coordinate principles that are not driven by a command and control model. Transformational change via the DMP is timely. Call to action remains necessary to address Noosa being overloved and we all agree on that. Presently there's some uncertainty within the community which remains unaddressed around transparency, funding and process. Our community looks to us for bold leadership to represent Their voice in our community and gendering trust is critical strong foundation is the anchor of every visionary transformation without clarity without clarity of purpose shared understanding and trusted relationships even the most ambitious ideas struggle to take root when we invest in solid organizational foundations clear processes open communication and a culture of learning we create the conditions where innovation can thrive rather than flicker out that's how I felt today that there was a wind coming that could flick up out the flame of change and vision that everyone aspired to fostering improved transparency minimising reputational financial and delivery around change facilitation each of us has a role in shaping the path ahead when we align our strengths share our insights and move with purpose we turn vision into reality so let's begin one informed step at a time toward a future where we design together confidence that our shared foundation will carry us there a strong foundation isn't just a nice to have in times of change it is the heart of governance when people know the structures guiding our decisions are transparent fair and well thought out trust grows naturally and trust is what allows real collaboration to take hold what we're building together isn't change for sake of change it's shared future shaped by clear principles open communication and accountability that everyone can see and feel when those foundations are sound our residents don't have to guess what is happening or why they can step forward with confidence collectively let's keep strengthening the way we work the way we listen and the way we decide when we do that visionary change stops being risky and starts becoming possible starts becoming possible the strong foundation of good governance is what makes visionary change feel not just possible but safe shared and genuinely exciting when people can see that the decisions are guided by clear principles transparent processes and considered accountability trust stops being something we hope for and becomes something we build together reinforcing the culture doesn't require grand gestures starts with everyday habits creating open channels for honest feedback making decision-making criteria visible and ensuring roles and responsibilities are clearly understood to help all people feel grounded rather than Grounded rather than uncertain. These small signals show that the foundation beneath the change is steady. Deepening collaborative trust grows from similar practices. We strengthen it when we share information early, when we invite diverse voices into planning and when we follow through on commitments. Trust thrives Trust thrives where people feel heard, respected and included. This is our moment to move forward together, informed, aligned and confident that the structures supporting us are sound. When heart sits at the centre of our work, trust stops being something we try to manufacture and becomes something we naturally create together. People feel it when decisions are made with care, when voices are genuinely welcomed and when the purpose behind change is grounded and shared in shared humanity. This is the kind of foundation that makes collaboration not just Collaboration, not just effective, but inspiring. A heart-led approach remind us why we're here. To shape a sustainable future that supports everyone, not just a few. When we bring empathy into our governance, when we listen deeply, and when we honour the experience of each person. And collaboration then becomes a spark. One that ignites passion, creativity and commitment. Moving forward we strengthen this foundation by inviting open dialogue, sharing knowledge generously and collaborating collective wins. These practices build trust that lasts. And fuels the momentum needed for meaningful, sustainable change. Thank you. Nicola Wilson 04:23:00.440
Do you want to go? Frank Wilkie 04:23:01.300
Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 04:23:03.620
I might need a little lean in. I'm disappointed to say the least that we're in this position again the same as we were a year ago. And in May of this year, backed into a corner and up against a deadline that we knew was coming seven months ago. What I'm really disappointed about is that Councillor left a long planned leave on a Tuesday morning thinking that the key business for the year was wrapped up as we were told this wouldn't come to the December round. She's literally just sent me a message that she's only just found out this was happening today. This report dropped at 5pm. Tuesday for decision this morning, this afternoon. We've had workshops on the progress of the roadmap and talked about some of the potential options but we've not seen this analysis of the options or the report till Tuesday night. We're missing one of our decision makers and we're missing good governance in this process having this come straight to the ordinary meeting in less than two days. The staff recommendation and council resolution of May 2025 in my opinion put us into a predicament. It predetermined there would It predetermined there would be an ongoing relationship and funding agreement with TN even though we were supposed to only be making a decision on funding for the 2025-26 financial year. The resolution directed Council and TN staff and board to agree future service levels, organisation efficiencies, revenue diversification plans via a roadmap. Essentially to come up with a variation on the status quo. No rethink of the model, a rebrand. Sprinkles. The CEO asked for my input on how this could work. Short answer: it wouldn't without an objective person that's not involved with either organisation or affected by the decision to take a step back and examine what TN can offer, how its current model is working and how that matches Council's needs. We threw around some ideas of suitably qualified people that Larry knew. I'm just going to pause at this point I'm just going to pause at this point and say at no point today in this four hours of discussion have we had any criticism of TN, what TN actually offers. No one said pull the plug, no one said stop funding. This whole debate today has been about the process, about the It's about the uncertainty in the funding agreement, it's about the uncertainty in the resolution or in the recommendation and the resolution that was made last May. So there's been absolutely zero discussion about about TN at all and it just seems like this whole seven months has been about, I don't know, why we're here. Anyway, the working group was formed between the council staff who made the recommendation and the TN CEO on board most affected by the outcome and I do completely appreciate that all the work that they have done in good faith. EarthCheck was brought in to research other models internationally operating in different legislative and economic environments we don't we didn't see the scope of work or why certain locations were chosen to benchmark but there does seem to be a bit of a focus on pushing the bed tucks. There's very little research on Australian LTOs Summary and LTOs and RTOs that the resolution required. We're briefly told that Noosa Council's contribution of $34 per capita is higher than comparative reasons, without stating what these are, and we move on with an inconvenient truth. So there's eight LTOs and eight So there was eight LTOs and eight RTOs researched. We were also told Tourism Noosa operates with the scale, staffing and economic impact closer to an RTO without saying why or whether it needs to given it's an LTO. Option two did not emerge as the preferred outcome because it was set out in the council resolution. It made a variation on the status quo. I'm not convinced the other options got as much consideration. The analysis we have now in terms of scoring is inconsistent across the options. So I can't rely on that to support a decision. The recommendation of option two sets a base of two million dollars which we've gone round in circles today of whether that's fixed. With events funded by council. So no real saving. No DMP initiatives are included in this amount and the plastic free Noosa program is not included. So this model can't actually support an involved DMP allied option. An additional 400,000 is required to deliver on the DMP and when we bring in CPI we're back where we started at 2.5 million. But there's more. The recommendation is to fund for three years so there's over seven million dollars for rate pay. There will be no community or industry consultation specifically on this matter. No survey questions in the DMP directly asked about TNs funding over the next three years. There was strong support for a review of the current model. Review of the current model. Respondents voluntarily made written submissions including comments on TN's funding overwhelmingly against funding or increasing funding TN. That's the only consultation we currently have and this recommendation is contrary to that. I'm not prepared to make a decision on a potential seven million dollars with poor analysis, a road map that doesn't meet fully the requirements of the May resolution and especially that has not seen consultation with industry stakeholders and residents. We still have no justification on this baseline of two million dollars per year, just the status quo. Nothing to support the future staffing structure, identifying efficiencies or revenue diversification plans, only that it's funded by business. But there could be so many other uses for the rates that businesses pay. To me this isn't a roadmap, it's a research paper. The roadmap should tell us how the preferred option will be implemented and what it will cost. We just have vague timelines that promise things like future revenue diversification. We've got subjective terms but no real evidence. Ratepayers money has been spent for the last seven years to arrive right back where we started and I know that TN board members have given hundreds of hours of time for free. What do we need to do to get frank and fearless advice to make this decision? This isn't about TN at all, it's just about councillors being constantly pushed into a corner and ethically compromised. I really don't want to delay, seven months should have been enough to produce a costed roadmap and carry out consultation in accordance with the main resolution. Amelia Lorentson 04:29:26.500
Today we've been asked to endorse a preferred model and commit more than two million dollars of community money without the necessary groundwork. As councillors we have a fiduciary responsibility under the Local Government Act to act in the best interest of the community. That requires us to test assumptions, understand financial exposure and make decisions based on clear evidence, not to commit funding first and work out the details later. Yet the recommendation in front of us largely preserves the existing model and funding level with proposed improvements only to be developed after funding is secured. That reverses good governance practice and exposes, in my opinion, to Council to... unnecessary risk. Community sentiment has also been consistent. Many residents do not support significant funding allocations without transparency, oversight or Oversight or strong accountability. Good governance requires that councillors are presented with the full range of options, clear costs and an independent assessment of risk before a model is endorsed. Anything less falls short of due diligence and the principles of transparency responsibility and community interest embedded in the Local Government Act. The report itself provides only a high-level overview of eight potential service delivery models without a substantive evaluation of the risk, trade-offs or long-term implications of each. It does not adequately assess operational capacity, cost-benefit considerations, governance structures or accountability mechanisms. Roles, responsibilities and oversight remain unclear and the proposed Destination Stewardship Council is insufficiently defined in terms of purpose, authority, membership and decision-making. While the report references community consultation undertaken through the Destination Management Plan, it does not set out how community voices will be embedded in ongoing governance. There is no clear mechanism to ensure residents' concerns or expectations will shape Tourism Noosa performance, priorities or oversight. The The recommendation also in front of us commits significant base funding to tourism Noosa before KPI thresholds and accountability measures are properly defined. There are no explicit triggers for intervention, for example if regenerative tourism outcomes or community expectations are not met, creating both financial and reputational risk for Council. Overall the report in front of us, again which is only received less than 48 hours ago, lacks the depth, analysis, transparency and meaningful independent and community representation required for such a significant financial and structural decision. Again we're talking about two million dollars of community funds. It leaves me as a councillor without the evidence needed to make a confident and informed choice about the future of tourism governance in Noosa. I support Tourism Noosa as the preferred body to deliver some of the actions in the destination management plan. That's not in question. What's in question today is the report. Until the gaps that I've just identified are addressed, I will not be supporting the recommendation. This is not about delaying progress. It's about ensuring that we get it right. When $2 million of community money is at stake, the community deserves better than a good enough report. They deserve a rigorous, transparent and accountable process, and so do I. Current analysis does not provide me with the information and confidence needed to make an informed decision, and therefore I won't be supporting the recommendation. Frank Wilkie 04:33:50.740
Councilors, it's easy enough to say you support tourism Noosa, you support Noosa having a future, and then the real test is whether you vote for the plan that addresses those things. Words are nothing unless they're backed up with action. When faced with an uncertain future, we are going to... into uncharted territory, that's why we have a roadmap to help get us there. There are uncertainties. Things are unclear. There are... There is extensive research and benchmarking that may not necessarily support your view, but it is sound benchmarking. It is an excellent standard of work. It's easy enough to pick... It's easy enough to pick holes if you don't want to support something. If you don't want to support something, don't support it. But to make out that this piece of work and the direction this council is going in is somehow in breach of the local government acts, requirements for transparency and governance is absurd. Courage is needed to make decisions when there is uncertainty. We have excellent pieces of work through the DMP, which is reflected, the values of which are reflected in the Tourism Noosa Roadmap, and we have expectation from people in this community, mainly in the tourism industry, who are community members, who have families at school, And that is that funding for a responsible and effective tourism marketing body continue. We've got a roadmap of how that can take place. For us to say that we support tourism Noosa, we support giving Noosa... We support giving Noosa a future. If you really mean it, you'll be voting for this motion before us. Otherwise, you'll be looked at as if your words are not worth the breath that they require to push out of your body. I'm supporting this. All in favour? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell, Wilkie. Those against? That's Lorentson, Wilson and Finzel. I use my casting vote. The Tourism Noosa Roadmap is being endorsed. We now move on to the next item on the agenda, which is 2020 item 12.3, Forward Event, Corrective Action and Status Update. We have Director of Corporate Services, Marg Gatt, here for this report. Could you please give us a summary? Margaret Gatt 04:36:41.940
Thank you, through the Chair. Good afternoon, Councillors and our community members online. This report provides an update to the 16th of November ordinary meeting on the significant forward event of December 2024 by way of high-level analysis, lessons learned and corrective actions implemented and being implemented. All relevant processes All relevant processes and operating procedures were immediately reviewed with additional internal controls implemented post the event to mitigate or minimise risk of any subsequent fraudulent events. The perpetrators, as mentioned in the previous report, used social engineering techniques that were sophisticated, strategic and targeted. While council systems and services were not affected by this fraud, the incident did highlight non-compliance with some of our standard processes. Through our subsequent investigations, we have identified that there were elements of human error that contributed to some failures in our internal controls. I'll just provide a high-level overview of some of the analysis around our control environment. So we do have standard operating procedures designed to prevent fraudulent activity and these procedures incorporate key internal controls intended to safeguard financial processes and ensure compliance. Some of the some of these include independent verification of supplier detail changes. Any changes to supplier details such as bank account or contact information must be independently verified against the original request. This step ensures This is the original request. This step ensures that updates are legitimate and authorised before being processed. changes to bank account details require formal oversight and approval from a designated approver. This provides segregation of duties and an additional layer of scrutiny to mitigate the risk of unauthorised fraudulent alterations. A review: an audit log is also generated for every payment run and provided to the approver for review. This log serves as a critical control mechanism enabling the approver Incident. So any of the following actions may have reduced the risk or prevented the fraud from occurring. Adherence to council practice whereby requests for changes to supplier contact details are verified with the supplier using the original contact details on file or through an independent search for contact details often referred to as the vendor master master file. follow Verification of the sender's email to the supplier's email address from an independent source such as the supplier's website may have indicated the different syntax used in the email address though this in itself may not have alerted Council to any anomalies without direct contact with the supplier. Also requirement for inquiries from our bank regarding payments or questioning of it to be escalated to a senior officer for action. In summary these lessons highlight the importance of us consistently applying existing controls regarding enhancing verification processes and fostering a culture of vigilance to protect council from similar incidents in the future following the fraud event controls and procedures were reviewed and improved in conjunction with the Queensland Audit Office recommendations the following additional controls have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented implementation of a third party software protection that validates banking details regularly regular mandatory cyber security training for all staff that cyber security just to clarify also includes social engineering and other identifying fraudsters development of an organised policy and procedure which articulates council's commitment to ensuring accuracy integrity and security of master file data and outlines council processes in regard to the indoor master file maintenance this includes the commitment from staff to compliance with that policy and procedure through the understanding of the impacts of non-compliance both financial and reputational accounts a council system control where changes to supplier contact details require approval the requirement for all changes to supplier accounts to be recorded in a register of creditor changes which is reviewed by a senior officer monthly to identify To identify any patterns or anomalies that may indicate fraudulent activity and council lastly council will establish an independent financial management assurance program as we refer to as an FMAP. This program will provide This program will provide a system of internal controls, reviews and audits designed to ensure the accuracy, completeness and proper use of financial information and resources. Additionally, this program will evaluate compliance with Council's financial policies and procedures and broader regulatory requirements. The implementation of this FMAP embeds a proactive risk-based approach to the organisation. and is consistent with previous recommendations from the Auditor-General in reports to Parliament for local government. As part of the incident analysis, corrective measures and considering lessons learned, the Audit Risk Committee and elected members have been fully briefed on the matter and ongoing corrective actions. Key internal and external stakeholders will continue to be briefed as promised. Improvements are implemented. In summary, Council is firmly committed to maintaining the high standards of integrity and ethical conduct, ensuring the prevention of fraud and corruption throughout all areas of our operations. Council maintains a strict zero tolerance stance on fraud and corruption. These behaviours undermine public trust, compromised service delivery and damage to reputation of local government. Fraud and corruption I will leave the report there, councillors, and I'm happy to answer any approaches. Frank Wilkie 04:43:11.075
We are in formal session and questions can be asked and answered after the motion is moved. Brian Stockwell 04:43:27.857
I thank Acting Director Gatt for her verbal and written report and for the effort she's put in in addressing this matter since she first started with this issue earlier in the year when she came on as the Acting Director. It's not a it's not a event that any organisation wishes to have to deal with and it has obviously had a lot of angst in our community as any We've been privy to a range of detailed, step-by-step sort of briefings that gives us an understanding of both what happened and what we've done to try and minimise this occurrence in the future. Just this week I received an email about the EFT Shire as a supplier to Council. I presume that's because I get paid when I put in a travel invoice or something. So we're making the steps as So we're making the steps as of course outlined in the initial report and I think this is open and honest about how we got into the situation and I think for the openness and honesty and also the steps taken to minimise our risk into the future. Nicola Wilson 04:45:06.952
I want to thank Acting Director Gatt for the report and also note that she's been in this role since joining Council in 2026 after the event and was required to investigate the events that led to the fraud. As I said in October, this was preventable and some risks were known but not acted upon. But I'm satisfied that this report gives the public further detail around how the fraud occurred and the mitigation strategies adopted. Some people have suggested this report should have been written by an independent investigator. I believe Acting Director Gatt is the appropriate person to write this report as she led the investigation in January, meaning she collected contemporary information at the time of the event with access to our financial systems and staff and with no prior involvement with Council. So I think it's best to have... independent investigator coming in now would not have access to all that information. The team's also been working with the external auditors KPMG and the QAO, who are obviously external, to establish the facts, ensure no other events have occurred and record the event appropriately in the financial statements. I'd like to thank Acting Director Gatt for all the improvements she has made this year in such challenging circumstances and the full finance And the full finance and IT teams who've been working together to review processes and work with the auditors on additional procedures. While I appreciate members of the public may have further questions about the event, I believe the focus should now be on the future. And in my role as Councillor and a member of the Audit and Risk Committee, I'll continue to ask for updates on processes and risk management. I do note that when we originally asked for this report, it was in the public interest to make sure Amelia Lorentson 04:47:27.000
Oh, sorry. That council request, excuse me, council request that... Council-led independent review of the December 2024 fraud incident commissioned by council. To assess all decisions, actions and oversight taken by the CEO during and after the event, including how the situation was managed and any consequences arising. The findings are to be reported back to council in a publicly accessible way. I'll second. Frank Wilkie 04:48:36.620
It's now a second of the, I mean, the lapses. Anyone else wish to speak to the original motion that had councillor Stockwell and councillor Wilson so far? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 04:49:05.140
I will. In October I moved an amendment at the ordinary meeting, recorded in the minutes of 16 October 2025, that council commit... to releasing a publicly accessible follow-up report by the December round of meetings. That report was to address key questions raised by the community and outline findings, actions taken, lessons learned, subject to legal and privacy obligations. The amendment was supported by the majority of councillors. do want to acknowledge and thank our acting director, Margaret Gatt, for her resilience, temperament and expertise, not expertise, just thank you. You started at a very difficult time for council and the way you've conducted yourself over the last ten months is nothing but really commendable. I just want to acknowledge that. The report presented today does not meet the questions that I posed in the minutes of the October round of ordinary meetings It glosses over some of the inconsistencies between the statements made in October by the CEO and the Mayor and those that are presented now. It doesn't answer the questions raised by community. Transparency Transparency, clear delegation and accountability are non-negotiable and they're non-transferable. They come with title and they come with paycheck. The ultimate responsibility for what happened December 2024 lies squarely, in my opinion, with the CEO, no one else. Ignoring No one else. Ignoring this principle underestimates the intelligence and expectations of our community. We're here today because 1.7 million of community money was lost and it wasn't lost because of clever criminals or a sophisticated AI scam. It was lost because internal processes, the safeguards that we rely upon were not followed in practice. Full stop. The report explains what happened but it doesn't answer the question our community is asking. Who takes responsibility and what are the consequences? Again, as I said first time round, this is not about blame, it's about leadership. And leadership means the buck stops at the top. Yes, fraud exists in business. Yes, social engineering and AI deception are real threats, but those threats are not why Noosa lost $1.7 million. The loss occurred because the controls on paper were ignored, poorly enforced or inadequately resourced. What makes What makes this unacceptable is that it involved public funds entrusted to us. What makes it worse is that councillors had to chase the Audit Commission for information. I am disappointed. Disappointed that no leader... stood up at the beginning and said this was my responsibility, the bus stops here. Mayor Wilkie, can I ask why you were laughing? Frank Wilkie 04:52:31.700
I was not laughing. Amelia Lorentson 04:52:33.980
You were just laughing at me. Frank Wilkie 04:52:48.100
So I'm just, I'm just... Please continue with your thing without drawing other cameras. Amelia Lorentson 04:52:58.120
I am disappointed that no leader, like the Mayor or CEO, stood up at the beginning and said this was my responsibility, that the bus stops here. The community expects more from its leaders and so do I. People of Noosa deserve leaders who put transparency and honesty above self-pres- And honesty above self-preservation. Protect staff as fiercely as they protect budgets. And treat community money with the care they would their own. Stop you there, Councillor Lorentson. This is Tony Ward. You're impugning improper motives to other people, in the name of the CEO and myself, and that's unacceptable in the name of the contractor. Please retract the statements and apologise. Happy to retract the statements and apologise if that's what was in it. Finished us with this. Public trust is earned, leadership is demonstrated, and I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 04:54:14.400
I'd like to apologise that this event today has been used as a platform for lecture, which is very disappointing. I remember, distinctly, back in October, the CEO saying, "Anyone who is responsible for this, if you're looking for someone to blame, blame me." And I said, "I only say that in an interview." At this table, I said, "I'm sorry this has happened." Regarding this report, it is a great report. Thank you, Margaret, Gatt. And at the time, we did raise the possibility that due to legal and promising obligations, it couldn't go as far as the expectation was being set at that meeting. But there is good information in there. People have a good understanding of what went wrong and what's been done subsequently to mitigate against that ever happening again. There are people in this organisation who, more than us, a million times more than us, have been personally impacted by this. I was very angry. It wasn't something that any of us wanted to have happen, but there are people in this organisation who have been personally impacted by this crime. And they are... They are probably hurting even more as a result of some things they may have heard around the stable today. So we're dealing with human error, and with human error we're also dealing with human frailty. People make mistakes, and it's also human nature I guess for some to seek to blame, and that's the other downside of this, but anyone who's interested can see steps taken subsequently to act and protect against this ever happening again, and there are lots of lessons learned for all of us. I would like to acknowledge the CEO. He did say he was sorry for this to happen. If anyone is to blame, he did say that. He did take responsibility. And if you've seen his press statements recently, he's done the same again. It takes a large person to do that. And I'm personally sorry that this has happened as well. I can't help it. I'd like to say this has been a very challenging year and Noosa Council has faced situations that it's never faced before. So it's placed all of us under pressure. We've all responded according to our natures and we've all done the best we can with what we know. Literally everyone around this table has the interest of the community at heart. I'm wishing the staff, I pass on my thanks through you Mr. CEO, thanks to the staff, for their great support and work, enormous workload throughout the year, what they do every day to make the Shire look great and keep it running well. And I wish all the dancers around the table a very good Christmas, a good Christmas break, and a bright and cheerful 2026. And to the people in the gallery who've... Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
