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 Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Acting 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 00:01.044
Well welcome everybody to the Ordinary Meeting of Thursday 18th of December 2025. Declare the meeting open at 10:02am. Acknowledge we're 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 to join them as joint custodians respecting and caring for this beautiful place we all love and respecting and caring for each other. Also note that the Noosa community like many around Australia are deeply affected by the bondi tragedy and in our community including people in this organisation are feeling that strongly and deeply so if we can be respectful and kind in our deliberations today that would help. We have an apology from Councillor Phillips who's on leave and that are in attendance. All other Councillors. 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 November 2025 please. Happy to move. Councillor Lorentson, seconded. Karen Finzel 01:03.672
Happy to second. Frank Wilkie 01:04.634
Councillor Finzel, any discussion? No. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Can I have a move and a seconder for the of minutes the of Special Meeting held on the 11th December of 2025? Happy to move. Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener, any discussion? All in favour? That's unanimous. We have no petitions. There are no presentations. We have deputy. 15 minutes per 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've arrived. Yeah, they're not in attendance. Do you want me to see if they're downstairs? They're outside. Or downstairs. Yeah. Have a metre box. They it 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 Infrastructure Services. Mr. Sengstock. Larry Sengstock 02:18.184
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. You. Frank Wilkie 02:37.366
Director Walsh. Shaun Walsh 02:39.590
Thank you, Mr Mouland, for the question. The most directly comparable example is the Whitfield Street Safe Active Street in Bassendean, western Australia. 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 outer zone, traffic calming, coloured surface treatments, and strong links to schools, parks and the river. Independent evaluations showed increasing 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, 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. Studies Council has profiled many of these case studies 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 03:54.446
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 Infrastructure Services. Larry Sengstock 04:10.737
Okay, questions? One from Mary Perry. Can Council please explain the rationale for unexpectedly prioritising the Peregian beach active street projects, which we've identified as named initiatives in the council's five- or ten-year walking or cycling plans, over other initiatives throughout avenues. Noosa that were previously assessed as higher as priority. Priorities. That's question one. Sean? Shaun Walsh 04:33.278
Thank you, Ms Perry, for the question. The route along Lorikeet Drive is identified as a Principal Recreational Route under Noosa Council Cycling and Walking Strategy. Whilst it's acknowledged that the improvements to the identified route were not noted in the five to 10 year implementation plan, it directly delivers the core priorities in these 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 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. Larry Sengstock 05:48.491
Peregian Beach Village, PID 358, and what impact will it have on the foreshore reserve amenities and parking? Shaun Walsh 06:00.700
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 two, avoid 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 amenity. 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. You, Mr Frank Wilkie 07:07.671
Thank you Walsh. And then, it's a two questions. Is from Mr Denise Phipps and the same process will apply. Larry Sengstock 07:16.478
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 07:45.443
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, 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 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 reduced reliance on cars. The active street directly meets this need. By encouraging more people to walk or ride for the short local journeys, the project also contributes to reduce local traffic. Congestion emissions, exactly the outcomes that we may be asked for. Thank you. Larry Sengstock 09:17.767
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, 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 ratepayers. Shaun Walsh 09:48.825
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, 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 10:33.701
Thank you Director Walsh. The last application, two questions, is from Mrs Pat Spicer, who is here. Mrs Spicer, can I collect and read your two questions please, which will be answered by Kim Rawlings, Director Environment and Strategy. Pat Spicer 10:47.708
Through the Chair, the 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 purchased the land for cemetery shire's expansion because the Shire cemeteries were showing a need for Council to consider acquiring more land for 70 years. 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 but a DA for cemetery use was submitted in 2008 with the intention of activation of that DA in the next 15 years. Cemetery space 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 at land 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. One of the reasons the Council considers the land unused. Frank Wilkie 12:48.994
Director Rawlings, welcome. Kim Rawlings 12:53.034
Thank you, Mayor Wilkie. Thanks for the question, Pat. So 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 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 area and its uses for that never encouraged. It has been Fallow since Council applied 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 a significant long-term housing crisis and once remediated, social housing is on a portion of the site. This will contribute to much-needed affordable housing. Community consultation for the use of the proposed lots 2 and 3 will take place in the future. Pat Spicer 14:03.907
Thank you. Question 2, background information. First of all, I referred 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 soil development. U.S. Government. The update 9, much updated 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 gentle density under shaping southeast to Queensland. 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 what's going on Council is mark lanning, my question. Council planning, Garnet street with a red boundary on the zone map labelled further consultation zone change in the ledger. 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 zoned sown environmentally and conservationally. Environmental and conservation and includes privately owned, low density residential? Kim Rawlings 15:33.359
So just also so just also acknowledging that I understand one of our staff had a contact that you had just to confirm the plot slot in question? In that context it's been confirmed we've had which lot the question refers to. The split zoned property, privately owned lot in Garnet St, 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 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. Under the first Noosa Plan 2020 the lot was split zoned to protect the native vegetation and continued as this zoned since. Council currently has no specific plans for this lot. Frank Wilkie 16:37.829
Yeah, thank you. Very much. You, Director Rawlings. Thank you, Pat Spicer. We normally have an adjournment when there are questions and give or tease here, but given that there is only Pat. On the path as to know what happened. Larry Sengstock 16:54.048
Can I provide some feedback on the deputations? Yes please. 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 they kept me from coming at Unfortunately, we've only just found out, but that's the reason why they're not here, so we'll go back and apologise. To the man down by the phone I'll tell him to come and speak to you. Thank you. Shaun Walsh 17:34.205
Mr. CEO, Mr Chair, I just wanted to note in the next, thank you Chair, in the next period, we'll be going through all the submissions of the Noosa Botanic Gardens master plan, and we'll be meeting with the friends well, so we'll be certain to raise the aspects of their deputation as well, but noting that they should still present that to the board Council. Frank Wilkie 17:55.067
Thank you, Director. Okay, there are no Mayoral minutes. We have one notified motion. Advocacy for affordable housing. Councillor Lorentson, would you like I would like to talk about the motion? Amelia Lorentson 18:08.521
I'll move 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 and surf clubs and include in the correspondence that if this approach is not currently 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. You have a second for that please? Noosa Shire is experiencing a severe housing shortage particularly for essential workers including teachers, Noosa's, police, emergency services, and 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 essential worker housing crisis that threatens the delivery of critical services. 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 that 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 been completed um and this is basically in response to the excellent efforts that our um state member of parliament Sandy Bolton has been making in this space. Um just some data in Noosa um households in housing stress uh one thousand one hundred and four five point one of all households. Median house price in Noosa is one point four million versus seven hundred and thirty-five thousand in regional Queensland. Our median rent weekly rent um is nine hundred and fifty dollars for houses and seven hundred dollars for units. Vacancy rate here in Noosa Shire one percent um a healthy rate for example is three point six to four percent um and a lot of our essential workers at the moment are community commuting long distances um and live outside the Shire due to the lack of rentals and again this undermined undermines emergency response and service delivery. Frank Wilkie 21:45.714
I have an amendment. Okay the amendments are additional of an additional clause A and the addition of clause C and the change is requested the Mayor support efforts by the Noosa MP and right to the Queensland state government seeking clarification whether the State is considering the development of affordable housing for essential workers. And part C is to request the State government also advise on when they will release the audit on state owned land as requested by the Noosa MP. I second that. Councillor Stockwell. This example, as castle as Councillor Lorentson said, this strengthens the work already done by our Noosa MP. It also acknowledges the efforts by our Noosa MP in this space and also recognises that we don't do these things in silos or alone. We are aware of the broader context and our Noosa MP 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 understanding how the State intends to use this with state-owned lands for housing or otherwise. So, it's basically about supporting MP and recognising that we're working in terms tandem with our local member on this very important state issue. Yeah, anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Karen Finzel 23:55.403
I just have a question, please, Mr Chair. Yes. 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 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 situation. Our housing in terms of Noosa, 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. There is that a question? 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 feedback? Frank Wilkie 25:02.729
In answer to your first question, state owned car parks are in schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, SES facilities and service clubs, that's what's proposed. An investigation into building above those car parks in those state owned facilities to help provide housing for essential workers. But as to your question about broader progress of Noosa Council's work in the housing action, probably related to a housing action plan, I think we have a housing monitoring report due back early next year. Perhaps Director Director Rawlings can inform Councillors on how, about the progress of the housing action plan. But we'll just deal with the amendment first, if that's alright. Amelia Lorentson 25:59.932
Sorry, given morning. It's my motion, I'm happy to respond also, Councillor Finzel. There was a discussion about this when we were proposing LGAQ motions. I actually circulated this and there was quite some discussion about it. 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 had spoken with our local MP. Sandy Bolton, who is supportive of any efforts that we make in this space. Again, clarity hasn't 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 stations, and this is, again, an opportunity to endeavour any potential opportunities and optimise underutilised car parks the same way. That we're a Council in terms of looking at volumetric leasing as above car parks and on Council owned land. Thank you. You, Karen Finzel 27:11.518
Councillor Lorentson. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. 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 no committee meetings called for the housing group on which we sit? Amelia Lorentson 27:31.546
Point of order. It has nothing to do with the notified motion in front of us. Frank Wilkie 27:37.225
Point of order is sustained, but 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, actions from the Housing Strategy. Thank you Mr Chair wish anyone wish to speak to the amendment? 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 should have a. Question of staff about the actions of the Housing Strategy. Karen Finzel 28:19.985
Yes, I would just like to know, this is a high priority matter. At the start of the year, councils are invited to participate on the committees and that is formally. All motions 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 of what Councillor Lorentson juror which I'm Lorentson has brought through the motion today? I'm grateful for, because we need to address this. I'm just wondering, when we talk about transparency and identifying gaps. Frank Wilkie 28:54.656
I think we've got your question, thank you. Your question is, what work is being done in that space? Thank you, Director. Kim Rawlings 29:01.777
The Chair. Church, through the church. Through the Chair, I understand the question about the Housing Stakeholder Reference Group. As Council will 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. Was 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's 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 30:16.151
Thank you Director Rawlings. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 30:25.584
Just to add that I personally know lifeguards, I know teachers, I know police officers and fireys who are they leave commuting only 30 to 40 minutes away from the news from Noosa Shire. When an emergency happens and they're commuting at the middle of the night, 30 to 40 minutes to get here is something just not quite right. Central workers, by definition, they're the people that keep our town functioning. 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 for the greater benefit for our community. Thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Frank Wilkie 31:23.527
That's unanimous. And that brings us to consideration of committee reports. 11.1. Single-use coffee cups program. 11.1.2, organisation emissions reductions progress report. 11.1.3, it's a Planning & Environment Court appeal. D114 of 2.025 minor from minor change to a development plan. 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 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 2025.11.1.6 was referred to the General Committee as a confidential item about proposed Environment Levy purchase. 11.1.7.6 Planning & Environment Committee recommendations en bloc can either move or be seconded for these planning P &C /P&E committee recommendations to be adopted. To be adopted. Councillor Wegener, seconder. Happy to second, thank you. Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. 11.2 is the Services & 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 S&O committee there was an error in the attachment provided in the report. Staff has now provided an updated copy of the attachment for approval. And if we can have Director Community Services Kerri Contini point out the correction. Kerri Contini 33:28.967
Thank you, Through the Chair, we do have an excel cell error in presentation. 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 corrections. Frank Wilkie 33:52.638
Okay, so we have the amended motion please. So i'll move that the report by the arts and culture to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 9th of December 2025 regarding the RADF 2025-26 annual funding round assessment and b approve the RADF committee funding recommendations for the 2025-26 in attachment 1 to the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting dated 18-12-2025 updated moderator panel summary RADF 2025-26. May I have a seconder please? Seconder. Councillor Wilson. To Councillor as explained this is a minor technical error and no need for me to wax on about that. Anybody else wish to speak? I'll just wax off. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you, Director Contini. 11.2. Was referred to the General Committee, which was Noosa Holiday Parks Fees and Charges. 11.2.3 was a confidential item, not for public use, proposed dedication of TMR freehold landers road Doonella Lake. 11.2.4 is the Services & Organisation Committee Recommendations en bloc. Can I have a move and a seconder for this, please? Karen Finzel 35:17.328
Happy to move, Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 35:18.530
Thank you. Moved by the Chair of the S&O committee, Councillor Finzel. Now the seconder, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's unanimous. We're up to after General Committee recommendations: Noosa Holiday Parks, Fees and Charges, 11.3.2 Financial Performance Report, November 2025, 11.3. Adoption of the Destination Management Plan. Amelia Lorentson 35:43.841
I would like to pull that out and test an amendment, please, me. You're wanting to move it, or do you have if someone else can move it, um, if someone else can move it, and I just want to test an amendment, please. Have someone to, um, move Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 35:57.560
We have a seconder, please. Frank Wilkie 36:04.949
This is the General Committee recommendation. Do you have any- Yep. It's the general, the recommendation from the General Committee that is being moved. Tom Wegener 36:14.175
Which is the. Frank Wilkie 36:16.675
Which is what's on the. Which is, we're moving the, uh, the recommendations as, um, passed pass on Monday. Okay. Yeah, so, Councillor Wilson 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. Thank you. Stockwell Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to speak? No, I'll hold it to the end if I may. Yes. Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 36:44.881
Um, amendment 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. Frank Wilkie 37:06.477
Um, okay. Can we have a seconder for the motion? I'll second. Can motion, the amendment, seconded by Councillor Wilson? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 37:18.837
These amendments just kind of amendment's just come about, um, I have been speaking to some of the, um, some of the residents and community groups that have been involved now for some time, some up to four years, um, and been part of the destination management process. Um, they were concerned that there wasn't enough clarity in terms of their involvement in particular around the Destination Stewardship Council. Um, so the amendment, um, explicit. The amendments. I put this amendment together to explicitly, um, ensure that community voices are formally included, um. Alignment in terms of the 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 document. Frank Wilkie 38:29.760
We'll see you in a minute. Was the intention of the DMP to include groups and agencies that have capacity to physically implement the was actions DMP of the dam. Kim Rawlings 38:50.602
Through the Chair thank you for that question do you mean the intention of the Destination Stewardship Council 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 overseen 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 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 group. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 40:00.361
Questions or comments? Professor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 40:03.925
Speak to it. The motion talks about, the original motion talks about developing a terms of reference. In my mind the destination stewards Council to be successful will have to have a highly collaborative interface with both community business and importantly expertise to drive and to undertake the monitoring and evaluation. And evaluation wording in 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 not 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 we asking for people we for expertise and also connection to community groups. So to me it's a bit of a cart before the horse amendment that we should be really I've no problem in saying quite gladly 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 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 that we had in 2001. The body that we had in 2016 2007. 20 Council that had lots and of community groups and couldn't get to a resolution. So to me it's important to attempt to reference first. Anybody else want to speak to the amendment? Nicola Wilson 42:13.378
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 42:40.474
Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 42:41.135
Yep. 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 that 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 would 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 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 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. But however, I've got confidence in staff and Council that we will be able to engage community in a meaningful way. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 44:18.664
I think we will be able to engage the community in a meaningful way, but in order to do that, need to first draft the terms of reference be very 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 Stockwell said, there was a come one, come all approach to a previous Stakeholder Reference Group that couldn't reach consensus. I understand that the Destination Stewardship Council have a very different role in holding various agencies to account and will 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, could 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 ensure that there's some sort of community oversight. So I can't support this amendment in its current form. Questions in the Chair. Councillor Councillor Finzel. Finzel. Karen Finzel 45:51.247
Question Through the Chair to the CEO. 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 through that process, is there potential then for the group to draft their own terms people are at the table through the ERI process or meaningful representation. Independently once that the people then there's opportunity for the terms of reference to be set at that point. Larry Sengstock 46:32.240
Um thank you Through the Chair Councillor Finzel a difficult question to answer in terms of carpet for the horse um generally in my experience terms of reference, what groups or what expertise you might want on that group and then you you'll try to look into the community and whether that's groups or whether that's individuals or whether that's associations or whatever it might be to form to provide that information or provide that expertise back into it that's my that's in this type of thing so that's why 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 terms of reference from that group is just a little bit. Round the other way in my opinion. Karen Finzel 47:41.897
Do you have a question? Yes. The Chair, just from memory, I just probably need staff for clarification. I thought when we did the Noosa River Plan group that they came on board and they set their own terms of reference. Is that, am I right about that? Frank Wilkie 47:57.483
Well, I wasn't, so I wasn't here at the time, so. Kim Rawlings 47:59.423
Yeah. Thank you. So, Through the Chair, just to build on what the CEO said, with a group like this, with very important to be really clear about the purpose of the group and then the capacity and capability of who be needed, what organisations might be needed to enable that purpose and deliver on that purpose. I think it is standard process that once you have established a group, that the group review the terms of reference that is 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 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 might, you know, 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 49:18.250
Anyone wish to speak before Councillor Lorentson closes? Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. Amelia Lorentson 49:26.880
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 they ever heard of a Destination Stewardship Council is when the report was released. This amendment this doesn't tie Council into anything. Sometimes we read too much in the email. Read too 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 four years 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 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 hard heart and soul into this Destination Management Plan. Frank Wilkie 51:04.106
We'll put the amendment those in favour. Lawrence Councillors Lorentson, Wilson and Finzel, those against. Councillors Wegener, Stockwell, Wilkie. I use my casting vote, amendment the is lost. It takes us back to the original motion. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? If you wish to close, Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 51:26.504
Yeah, I will. 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 Councillor, 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 different groups across about ten different functions. And the decision about who goes on the stewardship Council should respect the work that those who came before 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 in over a couple of decades of this sort of thing. You have to think about what is that group there to do? Are they there to drive the implementation, to provide Council with some really good insight what's working, what's not working well, what could change, what's, 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. 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. 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. 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 implantation 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 53:49.617
Thank you, put the motion those in favour? It's Wegener, we're going to ask Stockwell, so we're voting for the substantial motion which was ratified on Monday. Yeah. We're going to stop. Wegener, Stockwell, Finzel and Wilkie against, Councillors Lorentson and Wilson, the motion's carried. 11.3.4 confidential, not for confidential, public not for public police and Barnard-Leddy with the plan. Release, Environment Levy, proposed land purchase. 11.3.7 General Committee recommendations en bloc. Canada moved and seconded for the General Committee recommendations. Except we dealt with it separately. Councillor Wegener seconded. Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? It's carried unanimously. Next item, three reports direct to the Ordinary Meeting. The first is. Amelia Lorentson 54:43.246
Through the Chair, I would like to move a point of order. The reports were not delivered. By close of business day Tuesday, as required under our Standing Orders, and I would like the breach to be formally noted in the Minutes. Brian Stockwell 55:01.942
So, I dispute the point of order because my reckoning is I got an email at 4:49, so I can access you before 5 o'clock. Frank Wilkie 55:13.763
Okay, so that's in dispute, so some Councillors say that they have received. Reports. Councillor Lorentson says you haven't. Brian Stockwell 55:24.430
By way of explanation, there was a topographical error and there was a later change, so if you're looking about the time it went up onto a site, it's probably the time your members made. Amelia Lorentson 55:36.702
To say, excuse me, through the chief, and I ask 48 hours, given that our meeting times have now changed to 10am, is close of business 48 hours we should have had the report released at 10am, not 5pm on Tuesday, is that correct or have I misunderstood? Frank Wilkie 56:01.612
Press: thank you. The question is when is the time for the release of the reports for the Ordinary Meeting? It's yes, standing. Yeah. Thank you. What's the standard time for the release? Larry Sengstock 56:13.440
Yeah, my understanding is that it's the close of business on the two days before. Frank Wilkie 56:18.892
Yeah. Not 10am? No, not 10am, we said the close of business is what we're working toward. To. Nicola Wilson 56:23.240
Okay, thank you. Let's ask that's a good question then. The Standing Orders say that councils be given sufficient time to go through agenda items. Is less than 48 hours considered sufficient time? Frank Wilkie 56:41.078
I'll say that it was close of business Tuesday was the time frame. I believe that's sufficient. That question was actually to the CEO, given that he had extra decision on when the reports get released. I think it's a subjective call and it's not the CEO's position to answer whether it's sufficient time or so not. It's a subjective call. Depending on each councillor's disposition. Nicola Wilson 57:08.236
I'll answer the 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 senior and releases the agenda. Larry Sengstock 57:21.157
Yes, ultimately it's my decision and that was a 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 and my understanding before they closed the of business on Tuesday was acceptable in terms of our terms of reference, so our Standing Orders. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 57:43.918
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 and changed our Ordinary Meeting from 5:00pm. To 10:00am. Did, was that updated? Larry Sengstock 58:07.852
That's what's in the Standing Orders, so that's maybe something we need to. Look at when we review the Standing Orders, but that's currently how it fits in the Standing Orders is that it's closing business on the Tuesday before. Amelia Lorentson 58:22.158
Through the 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 5pm. Again, I ask the question, was that updated when we changed our Standing Orders to 10am? Frank Wilkie 58:43.697
The question is, can it be updated, Mr. Senator? Larry Sengstock 58:46.201
Well, no, that's not the question. 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 been made a position, we can certainly look at that from a looking at our Standing Orders, but moving into a 10am start and then a close of business on a 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 59:21.688
Thank you for the another question please. That less than 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 59:38.998
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 about disparity. We can make that, we'll have a discussion didn't like about adjusting the Standing Orders. Absolutely. Thank you for raising that. Now I'll come to the appointment of the Chairperson to council's Audit and Risk Committee. We have executive officer Jonci Wolff here to Larry Sengstock 01:00:00.022
Give us a summary. Deliver the report? Thank you. Just a quick summary of where we're at. 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. The committee has recommended the appointment committee of Ian Rushworth as Chairperson for an initial three-year term. Ian has significant experience in internal audit and risk management and is currently the chief auditor at the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. 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 that Council A. Note this report and B. Thank Tim Cronin 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. Mr Chair. Frank Wilkie 01:01:04.849
Councillor Wilson moves the motion. Can I have a seconder? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wilson will speak to the motion. Nicola Wilson 01:01:12.089
Just briefly, I've worked with both Tim and Ian since my appointment to the Audit and Risk Committee last April, I've grateful 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 01:01:30.932
Thank you Councillor Wilson, anybody else wish to speak to that motion? Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 01:01:35.154
Yes, I'd like to thank Tim Cronin for his work and contribution. He takes our some, well speaking for myself, uninformal questions very seriously and treats us very very well and is very clear. I'm sure that Ian, is also very competent and we look forward to him as the Chair of the auditor's committee. Frank Wilkie 01:01:57.320
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Anybody else wish to speak about this appointment? I wish to close, Councillor Wilson. We'll put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. We're now going to item 12.2 which is adoption of the children and youth Roadmap. We direct. Have of strategy and environment Kim Rawlings Larry Sengstock 01:02:14.858
Here for the report. She was here? It's my report. Frank Wilkie 01:02:20.363
Okay. 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. So we'll have a five-minute recessed comfort break. Frank Wilkie 01:10:30.667
Yes welcome back, everybody. We're up to item 12.2, which a truce in this is the adoption of the Tourism Noosa Roadmap, and Director Rawlings, or CEO Larry. Larry Sengstock 01:10:53.537
Okay, 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. I'm going to take the report as read, but I am going draw your attention to the executive summary. Line with counsel's. 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, and industry business and associations, community-based organisations in our community to enable delivery and success of the DMP. In officers opinion, strong aligned local tourism organisation is considered essential to the success of noosa's shift toward regenerative tourism. This transition cannot be achieved by Council alone. Noosa's 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 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's 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's role, structure, focus and actions and any further funding arrangements aligned with 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 experiences, sustainability programs and visitor engagement with what Noosa can sustainably support, reinforcing respectful behaviours and actively supporting business. 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. 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's brand as an iconic destination. Continues in a manner aligned to Council and community expectations and the DMP. This context, I would like 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 provides Council with a comprehensive, evidence-based framework for the future of tourism delivery in Noosa. Developed collaboratively by county Council and Tourism Noosa and informed by independent benchmarking, global best practice, the Roadmap is intended to respond to community expectations for change, evolve. The necessity to we manage and market our destination, while ensuring tourism supports economic value, while protecting and prioritising noosa's unique environment and lifestyle. So the Roadmap assessed a range of eight options. Considering role, structure and service delivery model for in alignment and with the Destination Management Plan. The Roadmap process was rigorous a review of tourism noosa's current operating models, strengths and challenges. Benchmarking against destinations globally, highlighting success factors such as cultural change, partnership based governance and planning. Funding mechanisms. An assessment of eight service delivery options against governance, financial sustainability, strategic alignment and risk and 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 as one, status quo, two, evolve the LTO, Tourism Noosa, to deliver the DMP, three, scale back LTO model, 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. 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 two, evolve Tourism Noosa to align with the DMP, emerged as the preferred immediate approach, scoring highest for strategic alignment to the requirements of the DMP and lowest 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 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 option also recommends changes to aspects of current service delivery that reflects an estimated 40% absorption of identified DMP actions within TNs to noosa's 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 2626. Year 2627 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. The change such as this signifies a new era alongside council's new strategic direction for the destination as articulated in the DMP, a shift to ship the stewardship. The report recommends Council endorse option 2 as a preferred model. Option 2 is based on core annual funding of $2 million 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 Tourism Noosa is a preferred organisation to deliver these as a partner with Council with the Destination Management Plan. In line the recommendation as it stands is note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the ordinary committee dated 18 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 D: request the Chief Executive Officer to bring back a report for endorsement of final terms with Tourism Noosa 2. February 2026 round of Council meetings. I put this report to you Councillors. Frank Wilkie 01:19:49.984
Given we are in a formal meeting, I'll move the motion. Do will we have a seconder. Councillor Stockwell. As we've heard, this Roadmap outlines the way in which this Tourism Noosa will evolve after serving we have 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 prosperity. And as captured the community sentiment in the Destination Management Plan the Roadmap sets out how we will evolve Tourism Noosa from a business as usual model regenerative shifts to a to regenerative tourism. We're all marketing and industry development shifts to a regenerative focus where visitors are encouraged to join residents, businesses and as Noosa custodians, helping to care for our 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 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 eight other 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 the report notes it is difficult to compare like-for organisations due to differing visitor numbers and types, population, funding strategic arrangements, structure strategic focus, and helping determine TN's next form, INTERPOL. Independent experts from EarthCheck 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's unique context. Found it most were not-for the problem. Profit entities, a bed tax, big. Funded by abedtax, 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 with access to bid 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 others and rates. Lessons learned from these global success stories and insight into global best practices were that adaptive change over time was critical. They had KPIs to measure 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 at the with 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 preferred option, two, is the evolved third tn model it rated the highest against the criteria of governance, financial sustainability, transition complexity and strategic alignment with DMP's regenerative tourism goals. And the Roadmap proposes how Tourism Noosa over three to four years. Have evolve to integrate these DMP priorities. 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 two million funded by the differential rate on commercial properties. No residential rates will be used. One and the year new one will be to align and involve Noosa the tourism Noosa's services and KPIs to the DMP and injecting a regenerative focus into destination marketing, visitor servicing, industry development and sustainability programs. They are assuring all marketing alliance with a lucid brand and sustainability position. And positioning. 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 the campaigns and the 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 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 of partnerships and where all of us has a role to play as custodians and keeping Noosa Different by Nature and I commend the staff and the Councillors and TN on the work done TN in coming to this road map. Questions please. Questions. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:26:23.812
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 B2, the second graduated payment of $800,000 to be made at six months subject to completion of the road map and KPI achievements. Have those KPI achievements been met? Larry Sengstock 01:26:47.795
Those KPIs were due by the 31st of December so we've received those. We're still, we're now currently redoing those KPIs, but we won't be making a decision on that until those, until we've reviewed those, KPIs. Nicola Wilson 01:27:02.254
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? Frank Wilkie 01:27:19.358
Sorry, I want to ask, do you want to read? Kim Rawlings 01:27:26.578
Through the Chair that report has been received it was received after the 30th of November and it's currently under assessment. Nicola Wilson 01:27:36.608
Part E of the resolution was that the Roadmap consider agreed service levels, organisational efficiency efficiencies, revenue diversification plans. I can't really see organisational efficiencies or revenue diversification plans. It's another question. You're making points. 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 or the Roadmap. Kim Rawlings 01:28:16.681
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. Process. So that sits within Nicola Wilson 01:28:46.584
And part G of the resolution was ensure any future proposed decisions for Tourism Noosa include consultation with industry stakeholders and residents, ensuring transparency and input into strategic investment in noosa's tourism future. Has that consultation occurred? Kim Rawlings 01:29:07.491
There's been significant consultation on the issues relating to our local tourism organisation, Tourism Noosa, funding of tourism activities and how and we manage destination 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 01:29:46.753
Since this May resolution, so the DMP phase 2 process, 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 01:30:06.816
Yes, there was quite a bit of feedback through the process, the phase 2 process of the DMP, both in survey qualitative data and in written submissions relating to tourism news Noosa. Nicola Wilson 01:30:23.290
Could you be more specific please and what that feedback was in terms of TN funding, whether we specifically asked about TN funding in the survey questions and what the sentiment was towards funding in the written submissions? Kim Rawlings 01:30:39.673
The question specifically in the survey, I don't have word for but the questions in the survey were directly related to the actions listed in the DMP, the draft DMP. 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 I'd have to refer to a document to people offered up. Comments on Tourism Noosa, on funding, on amounts of funding, on marketing the destination, and linking those things to the challenge and the feeling in some parts of our community that we are experiencing periods of congestion using language that was used in submissions and feedback over tourism and linking in you know investment in marketing and Tourism Noosa to that if 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 Nicola Wilson 01:32:18.147
I have been in front of me I can see them to you just from my recollection if you could please confirm this was the general gist of it was that sentiment was for a review of the tourism model so about 90% or more and the general sentiment of its funding was negative so is that your recollection too? Kim Rawlings 01:32:38.683
Yes so I think of the and Councillor Lorentson and you've please got you've got the stats so please correct me. But I think of the responses so we had you know over I think we had 1100 responses to this phase two since May um I think we had a of those 150 um I'm looking at Councillor Lorentson to correct me um responses either through survey and submissions made comments specifically on Tourism Noosa and of those 150 um I think it was about 80 of those that had that were that called for a review of Tourism Noosa um and a reduction of funding um and I think the remaining 20 oh I'm going to get this wrong Councillor Lorentson did you want to Amelia Lorentson 01:33:28.816
Put I just have some percentages in front of me participant sentiment regarding Tourism Noosa 62 negative 17 positive 21 neutral um I also have proposed actions per thing for destination management um in terms of stop public funding of tourism percent 31 stop promoting Noosa Shire to all visitors 35 percent reduce public funding of tourism two percent reduce destination marketing four percent read direct public funding of tourism two percent thank you Nicola Wilson 01:34:02.682
So just final one then I'll come back with more later but does this Roadmap and preferred option reflect that community sentiment Larry Sengstock 01:34:18.002
I can I think just need to draw back the attention 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 DMP what that this then spells out as these the items these the elements that need to be delivered we need support with the cost to do that is a figure that we have is around two million dollars that's to be still I think now 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 continue to deliver for our community in terms of tourism and promotion and marketing. We still Nicola Wilson 01:35:13.372
That's it by part G. Ensure any future proposed funding decisions for tourism and Noosa include consultation when you're asking us today to make a decision on three years worth of funding. But actually I wasn't even it. Never mind the committee. Frank Wilkie 01:35:29.457
I think that's a highly critical question. It's up to us to decide how we manage that, the Council has to do it. Nicola Wilson 01:35:36.646
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 decision for tourism these would include consultation. We haven't had that consultation, so how can we satisfy part G, is the question. Frank Wilkie 01:35:54.212
I think you've heard from the staff that there was consultation which garnered feedback about funding, and that's the answer. And it was against the funding. Larry Sengstock 01:36:04.310
Sorry. Let's- It's a good one. Just ignore it then. I'm happy to. And the recommendation, you'll see that 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 councils. Amelia Lorentson 01:36:43.419
Just some clarity. Firstly, CEO, sleep, go. You confirm whether adopting the Roadmap today commits to Council to $2 million of funding for 2026 and 2027? 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 as well. Larry Sengstock 01:37:22.885
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 important. Is really 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 01:37:51.782
So back to the Roadmap, it identifies additional funding for Tourism Noosa that should deliver DMP actions and there's about 1.3 million dollars over three years and when you go to the funding source it says TBC. Is Council expected to fund this? So, where is the funding source is my question. Larry Sengstock 01:38:19.884
I agree, there's no commitment for that, just what they're, remembering this Roadmap they what they're this Roadmap was done in collaboration with Tourism Noosa. So that's what this document has. It has both our input and tourism noosa's input. This is what Tourism Noosa believes, looking at the DMP and 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. So, or not fund, based on what we want. In terms of to deliver what delivery outcomes we want from terrorism risk. Frank Wilkie 01:38:58.467
I wish to speak to the motion? Nicola Wilson 01:39:01.959
Castle 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? What they're were there multiple people involved in arriving at these scores? Kim Rawlings 01:39:23.856
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 Nicola Wilson 01:39:38.691
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 26, 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 7 says the existing Tourism Noosa strategy overall aligns strongly at the principle 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 2, which is poor, based on that finding? Kim Rawlings 01:40:43.396
Yes, there is alignment at the moment at the strategic level with Tourism Noosa and their strategy that councils signed off on it does enshrine in some at the themes a shift towards regenerative tourism but as mentioned in the report there's definitely room for evolution of their service delivery and you know that's was really that difference option one and two was more focus on alignment and evolution of their current services and that be reflected in future funding agreement and KPIs Nicola Wilson 01:41:30.593
Thanks a lot for 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 plans annual operational plan, 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 the agreement to ensure tourism Noosa's activities aligned with the DMP's principles outcomes and relevant actions 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 TN 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 01:42:20.998
It's a good question our current funding agreement only runs till June so it's limited you know requiring Tourism Noosa to evolve and change and adapt DMP for a period of six months. Option two is looking beyond June. Into the future so you know that's probably you're right they do similar things and if the current agreement was beyond June then we probably could have the relied on the current clause agreement, but it's not. It ends in June so this process is about what happens after June and yeah option two does pick up on the fact that to make no mistake and if we make a mistake, we want our tourism organisation to be aligned with our Destination Management Plan Nicola Wilson 01:43:13.404
But 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 revenue some minor new revenue streams high dependency on Council persists so that's a three moderate two which is the preferred option based on in base funding stable so same but needs further diversification like a visitor levy which doesn't exist and support for DMP project delivery we're currently not funded but this has been ranked a four 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 sounds pretty stable, still only gets a three potential cost efficiencies 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 why there Frank Wilkie 01:44:38.042
A question in there? Yes, you've lost me. Is this boring could you summarise it in a clear question, please, Councillor Wilson? Nicola Wilson 01:44:45.717
Okay. For. Option one financial sustainability scored three which is moderate option two which has a base funding stable but needs further diversification are you there's no further funding to deliver the DMP promises scored four which is good. Seems to me that one's more risky than option one. Frank Wilkie 01:45:03.489
So are you making a comment or are you asking a question? Kim Rawlings 01:45:06.212
Yeah I'm asking a question how it was scored four. So the assumption with option two is that there are new. Products, services, experiences potentially aligned to regenerative experiences that Tourism Noosa could be involved in so there is some assumptions about potential revenue generation. For Tourism Noosa in an evolved model Nicola Wilson 01:45:35.394
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 streams or any 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 but we need a question. No I'm asking what the process was of scoring these that this why option this was deemed less risky than the stable state. Why was option X less risky? Yeah and that was my answer. Yeah okay thank you. Got a couple more. Governance. Option one was ranked three. Governments remain strong however it lacks enhanced transparency in Council oversight proposed in the DMP. I'm not sure why when we have a seat on the board. Option two was ranked four so it higher because governance with potential for Council to sit on the board but we already have that. And then number three which is a pared back model. Governance remains compliant under corporations act but reduced remit work 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 school the same as number one? Kim Rawlings 01:47:08.805
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 starts to question the viability of the organisation so the board, yeah, it starts to reflect that potentially Nicola Wilson 01:47:50.518
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 the change are for unmet. Two industry supportive community sentiment mixed with concerns regarding public funding three high risk giving the street backlash community may perceive as a positive related to assumption of reduced tourism and then blah, blah, blah. How would these arrived at in terms of assessing industry whether the industry and community are supportive to be able to give those so that was Kim Rawlings 01:48:33.498
You know based on those who took part in the assessment um which was the uh the working group um and an understanding and you know being um having uh a as a good sense um by Tourism Noosa of their how they're in how their members and industry reps um uh might perceive these changes um and also it was to reflect the fee some of the feedback we received through the process around community sentiment we know that there are some parts of the community um who are looking for Amelia Lorentson 01:49:13.394
Change sorry Nicola um just follow up on that Kim in terms of the working group can you just remind us who was formerly included and were there any independent or community members included as part of that working group Kim Rawlings 01:49:34.418
As our 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 Environment and Strategy, Noosa Council, and the CEO of Tourism Noosa. Of tourism and a senior project coordinator Nicola Wilson 01:50:02.319
I've got one more apologies I would normally email these but given the time in have option three we financial funding implications Council contribution could reduce significant example from two million dollars to one million or less I assume this part of the assessment this would actually be funded but was there any work done to see what this back model would actually look like in terms of cost efficiencies workforce any of those things before evaluating it Kim Rawlings 01:50:38.512
Yes, there was various scenarios looked at from scaling back what scaling majority of the services and it just being about maybe destination and marketing to a scaled back of each service with some service delivery around each of them and then um and then um that scaling back meant to the service and the organisation's viability all the things that go with considering an organisation's viability. Frank Wilkie 01:51:22.376
Thank you. Thank you Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:51:25.086
I think I'm done unless anything comes up in the debate. Frank Wilkie 01:51:27.294
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:51:29.241
Different question. 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 Noosa's funded out of a component of commercial and accommodation rate, variable properties. It's no longer tourism levy but we carried month the is which is 3.9 million dollars. The question is since they are dominant ratepayers who are paying for this, did we receive any submissions either for or against the amount going to Tourism Noosa from any business groups other than Tourism Noosa was there any business groups suggesting to reduce it or opposing it? Kim Rawlings 01:52:30.874
I would have to confirm that but my recollection looking at Lyn to feel free to jump in here is that we received submissions from business submissions organisations representative business organisations seeking support for ongoing and stable funding for Tourism Noosa. Unidentified Speaker 01:52:56.239
In the submissions we had 131 submissions and we had an independent and assembly. Assessment of those submissions and it almost was half and What we observed is that residents were anti-funding but the business community were pro-funding. They didn't say amounts, it was sentiment. Frank Wilkie 01:53:20.906
Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:53:20.906
I'd like to move an amendment please. Amendment? Yep. A lot of questions what you I've got here have been answered. So I'm going to propose the amendment that Council requests the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a report for Council consideration on the reintroduction of a tourism and 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 no, I'll just talk to, I'll talk to that, but can we remove that from the amendment? All of that, and it's just approximately eight million per annum. Delete that. Yep. So, Chris, the Chief Executive Officer, prepare a report for Council consideration on the reintroduction of a Tourism and Economic Levy, specifically to reconsider whether high rates, 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 01:54:52.910
Can we have a seconder for that? A second for debate. Seconder, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:55:02.121
At present, commercial properties in Noosa pay a higher differential rate, which is estimated according report to the report. To raise approximately $8 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 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 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 so Council can make an informed choice about whether reinstating a levy would better reflect fairness, transparency and responsibility while addressing long-standing community confusion. Question? Brian Stockwell 01:57:02.555
This is about revenue raising so I'm wondering whether 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 the source of revenue in the Roadmap in May. If there's no discussion on the source it revenue may not be an appropriate amendment because it goes broader. So that's the question to the CEO or to, it simply is. Revenue sources part of the Roadmap? Kim Rawlings 01:57:49.462
Well, the Roadmap does 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 01:58:23.379
I think there's an easy way to address it, that this becomes part of the report identified in recommendation D, which would make it more consistent with the motion. Nicola Wilson 01:58:35.796
I'll support it. As Director walling said, there is reference to commercial rates 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. In case would be considered. Frank Wilkie 01:59:01.477
Can I ask the question? Karen Finzel 01:59:03.295
Question to the Chair. I support the intent of this, it has been challenging for our community since that change came into being. From my understanding, levy was originally set up to promote an embryonic tourism organisation. From my understanding, the time of the change came, it was about that organisation had matured, and that we had reached a point in time when that constrained hash, for that purpose, was. Cool business. Yeah, cool business. So, I welcome the idea that we bring this discussion to the table to clarify that process. I'm date. The day is the right place to actually do that. Because in my mind, a round discussion could be that it's perhaps not even called 2 or 3 on 11. And it could be, you know, like a, I don't know, a destination Future Noosa levy or, you know, there's so many options. I'm not sure if Councillor Lorentson would be prepared to run, say, a reintroduction of Tourism and Economic Levy that would let this fall. We could look at, like- I love the idea of going, 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 informing. In following the 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 I'm going to work. Right forum for that, but let's get out of the way and continue Amelia Lorentson 02:01:06.813
To speak. If I could provide some clarity, Councillor Finzel. Frank Wilkie 02:01:14.333
We will close I ask a question Tom Wegener 02:01:20.682
My understanding is that with the Destination Management Plan and the Roadmap, 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 anymore. The tourism levy is not really in line with where we're going with the Destination Management Plan. Frank Wilkie 02:01:48.020
Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 02:01:51.419
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 as yet with the act, but I like what hansel Finzel is suggesting is, I would suggest 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 levee in because levy, 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 name. Truth, 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 reviewed as well. As I've said, we do look at it. 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 enterprises and the accommodation enterprises, and that's what's going to be used for economic development, of which part of that is what funds, if you just go through, what funds the Roadmap, what funds other elements of destination management. Amelia Lorentson 02:03:25.613
And threw can I, Through the Chair, ask if I can make a technical change to the wording? And make it consistent? With the wording at the end. Request 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. Brian Stockwell 02:03:56.773
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:04:23.059
Consider whether the higher, whether we agree to consider? Amelia Lorentson 02:04:29.635
Specifically, yes, specifically to consider. Frank Wilkie 02:04:32.517
Consider, instead of reading? 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. Are you guys everyone's happy with that? Yeah. Councillor, do you want to answer this, please? Amelia Lorentson 02:04:55.081
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 in what I'm envisaging is this discussion that we're having around the table. Options for levy design, collection mechanism, what are the eligible and ineligible uses of the levy funds, governance, accountability, reporting frameworks, interactions with. Existing funding arrangements, for example, like the Tourism Noosa. Looking at regulatory and legislative considerations. More importantly, and I think this is the part where I really, I think I 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. So. Just I 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 unfenced whether are like destination management infrastructure protection, environmental 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 really sort out this confusion between who pays, and this is generally the only way we're going to be able to do that. Frank Wilkie 02:07:02.603
Lorentson, Wilson, Finzel, Wilkie against. Councillor Wegener, the amendment is carried and becomes part of the suspended motion. Any other amendments? Nicola Wilson 02:07:15.674
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, is that correct? Larry Sengstock 02:07:45.860
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 to change that or hand that to terms that are to be more specific but final terms of course yeah like the timing KPIs in funding attached to that or associated with that. So it was really a liberal term for that reason. Nicola Wilson 02:08:18.072
I think it's pretty impossible to decide on a preferred option without knowing what it costs and the next step says confirm future base funding the 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 this there's references to the funding agreement and the three-year figure in the report and the Roadmap how will we not decide on that today. Larry Sengstock 02:08:51.913
Thank you so much. What we're proposing is that if you agree that option two is this the model to go forward with and then we come back in February with what that costs what the actions are based on the DMP now that we know what is the DMP that has been decided. Trying, so we need to go back and understand that. Our assumption currently as you see in the Roadmap DMP or sorry in the Roadmap is they are asking more that they're requesting two million dollars 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 this. Frank Wilkie 02:09:40.807
Can I just stop for a moment? Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 02:09:42.179
I think there is a problem there's been because in the road. There is a number and of recommendations including alternative options. I'm going to show you how to do that. 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 in the road now um because so yes and then leave B to February because that's just my thinking is V B actually is too omnibus long the investment to be useful to interpret the Frank Wilkie 02:10:42.996
Question when you say too many options you're referring to the Roadmap referring to option two and option four so on because here's c says endorse option two Brian Stockwell 02:10:56.906
Yeah but that's um in how page 19 services you have service delivery recommendations and that's a option two in C but then you have three is funding recommendations that's um in is governance and oversight so three does say allocate base core funding of 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. That's just my thinking. Nicola Wilson 02:11:44.940
Can I add another element? Want. If you are relying on the scores from this process they refer to the amounts as well. Frank Wilkie 02:11:55.530
So what are you proposing Councillor Stockwell? What would be the change that you're proposing? Brian Stockwell 02:12:01.486
I'm not proposing any change but I'm saying if we want to separate out funding, the amount, then we would need to specify what recommendations in the Roadmap in the Roadmap that we agreeing to and what will be determined as part of Frank Wilkie 02:12:26.792
The 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 02:12:39.622
Yeah part of that is refining B but I think it will take a little while to get to the point where that makes sense so I don't think we should do it. Amelia Lorentson 02:12:47.405
Can I, maybe make it a little bit simpler again I reference page 20 by 31st of December finalise a three-year funding agreement funding aligned to DMP that's where my confusion started where I the question I asked the CEO where we confirming today a one-year two million dollar base agreement funding agreement with Dean 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 so it make in making my like my suggestion is maybe it just needs some work wording finalise three-year funding agreement base core funding maybe that just needs to be removed Kim Rawlings 02:13:44.281
I think Councillor Stockwell suggestions the best ones in terms of having a little break getting the wording right around this just to make sure it's completely accurate Frank Wilkie 02:13:58.870
Thank you. A 10 minute adjournment. Are we okay with the public in the gallery? Can we have the public in the gallery? Yes, thank you. Your Chair, please. Thank you. 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 too much. Myself to the motion. Is there anything else like to speak to Amelia Lorentson 02:41:44.680
The motion? I still have quite a few questions I'd like to ask. Frank Wilkie 02:41:48.347
Questions? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:41:49.889
So I'm going to go back to appendix B, sort of, again, I just need some clarity, in terms of the scoring in appendix B. Thank you. 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 there are scores for each criteria. Kim Rawlings 02:42:37.007
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 an interpretation for that scoring. Amelia Lorentson 02:43:01.670
So there's no other analysis other that's what's presented on the page 12 of the report? Kim Rawlings 02:43:08.477
The analysis is presented as the attachments in the eight tables appendix B. The explanation of the scorings and the criterion ratings is on page 12. Amelia Lorentson 02:43:23.770
So okay where I'm going with this. I'm just trying to understand. Would a $2 million fund in. 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 should we be applying them to this report? Larry Sengstock 02:44:00.581
Yes it is superior man. 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 that we come to a future meeting for endorsement because we need to do okay. That work. Amelia Lorentson 02:44:18.254
There were other options that we discussed in the many workshops that we did and 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 across the country. 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 02:45:03.432
So the ones you just described are part of the eight presented so our um presented option five is bringing it in-house option eight is a new entity like a economic development tourism organisation and as you can see option the hybrid option combines in a number of those so yes your what was you just articulated was assessed and considered through Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:45:36.103
The Chair just a question around when you want to go she is option anyone negotiating with jura de mesa is a procurement a option one of the considerations that different can be brought to that conversation how would that work is that a possibility Unidentified Speaker 02:45:54.744
Option six is that Larry Sengstock 02:45:56.659
Sorry Councillor when you say a procurement option what can you elaborate on that for me as a service option that goes like any other procurement process? Sorry, yes option six yes sorry option six can see six consider that so in terms of each of the actions you were looking at procuring that's right sorry um yes that was option six that we considered in this poem. Unidentified Speaker 02:46:24.588
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:46:31.213
So, the can-- questions Councillor Finzel? Unidentified Speaker 02:46:33.614
Oh no thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:36.764
I want to try another amendment that Council requests the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and present to Council a draft Tourism Noosa Roadmap for further consideration, including full costings. 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 for decision-making. Just council's been asked to make significant in and 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 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 will provide Council with the evidence needed to make a sound and defensible decision. 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 acts responsibly in the best interests of Noosa by basing its decisions on complete, accurate and publicly defensible information. Karen Finzel 02:49:20.350
Thank you Councillor Lorentson for your intent behind this. I have a question through is this possible given the time frames around the funding deed and what the requirements are around that? Is this actually feasible? Can this actually be done? Larry Sengstock 02:49:42.807
Look I think you can see that the number of options that we've provided is great and what you've said Councillor is that there are other options potentially and other hybrid options and other for us to go back and 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 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 make a decision. Also recognising that the road map is designed as a phased exercise so there's opportunities in there to review and to change and to meet the needs or the needs of the community or the needs of the environment at the time. So it's really trying know to get us to a point and there's no question that 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 for our perspective the most appropriate going forward is to continue to use Tourism Noosa as our body how we use that is still to be sort of absolutely finalised. Karen Finzel 02:51:23.170
I'm free to change. Through the Chair to the CEO then so given on the answer just gave would you say the appropriate time because we do understand it's important to keep our community as displayed here on the journey is the time for this to is post review change and then consult after you've had the meeting with the Tourism Noosa is that the time we'd go back to take out to community for the further consultation with you in terms of like the funding agreement or dollars you know allocated and will that potentially come back to councils for a decision and where's the time we take it back to community? Larry Sengstock 02:52:16.577
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 I would have to have that them. With tourism and investment if that's the decision or the direction. Does that answer your question, Councillor? To some degree. 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. We're December, a Christmas. You everything's know, everything's great, squeezed. So, you know, I'd much prefer to have a bit more time but I'm not sure we can given the limitations of the organisation of Tourism Noosa. They're at a point where they want to make decisions going forward as well. Frank Wilkie 02:53:13.368
Councillors, we've had consultation, medical consultation with industry stakeholders over at least three years and two phases of consultation, the Roadmap. We already have a Roadmap, Councillors. It's already well researched. It's a very good and viable way forward. It does. It has explored eight different models, different options. It's benchmarks global best practice. It's benchmarked Local Tourism Organisations in Australia, 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. Councillors, 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. I'll I won't be supporting it. Nicola Wilson 02:54:26.163
I'll support it. I think it's absurd we're that we've taken seven months to get to this point and still not 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. 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 it's hard. It's not hard when you've got evidence based decisions. It's actually pretty easy. So yeah, I'm appalled that we're in this situation today. And don't need to be making a decision on an unfinished document and items that haven't been posted. And we adopt this Roadmap today, there's a $2 million 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 $2 million? Obviously, the working group has decided on this $2 million and where does Council we'll you actually get to decide on this? Frank Wilkie 02:55:44.017
And the Councillors will speak to Karen Finzel 02:55:53.540
Is the opportunity 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 it 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 TN around the dollar value? I think we're all seeking confidence today given the pressure that we heard and we listened way back as far as our campaign to run and represent our community today and be transparent with our. Is this a question? Yes it's a question. Do you see though at what point does the two million dollars. I don't is know. The question is. The two million dollars a figure that can be changed? Larry Sengstock 02:57:12.702
Thank you, Councillor. The report makes a recommendation for 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. Was only decided on Monday in terms of the actions. So yes, 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, and 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 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 02:58:24.528
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 Roadmap as road map has its it stands, option 2 option two, which basically is that TN deliver this range of proposed services. The indicative cost is two million dollars a year. Perhaps more if extra services are going to be offered. And there's a three. Year implementation plan. We endorse the Roadmap today. 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 Larry Sengstock 02:59:12.744
I think the only piece for that is that the recommendation says $2 million. So if you it like a part of that you don't want to make a part of your amendment or resolution 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. Cancel. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:59:41.470
So then question, through that negotiation you're saying there's possibly opportunity to actually reduce the amount of $2 million based on your negotiation of $2 million? Amelia Lorentson 02:59:53.103
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 Frank Wilkie 03:00:00.708
It talks to funding, which is instrumental to central to what is being proposed by this amendment. Larry Sengstock 03:00:14.128
Mr. Councillor, I can't say whether it will be more or less, but what it will be is more. 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 03:00:35.233
So far only Councillor Lorentson, Wilkie and Wilson have spoken to the amendment. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Councillors Councillor Lorentson, do and you wish to close I do Amelia Lorentson 03:00:52.425
Going to start off with the formation of the working group it's made up of the Tourism Noosa board member Tourism Noosa bowdoin in that, who is in lisa's CEI. Brian Stockwell 03:01:02.530
Order yes um there was no mention of the working group in the debate close should only respond to what was raised in debate or close what's in there it's bringing in new businesses. Into a close which is not permitted by the Standing Orders Frank Wilkie 03:01:22.302
That is true Councillor Stockwell please sit down Councillor Lorentson there is no mention of the working group the amendment so we'll amend mentioning rules. The comments not mention the working group thank you Councillor Lorentson Amelia Lorentson 03:01:40.319
So 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 of bias due to the composition of the working group 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 skewed 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 for quite a few times that Mayor Wilkie makes mention to delay an 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 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 councils are asking for is complete information. Robust information, thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:03:35.960
I put the amendment those in favour, Lorentson, Wilson and Finzel those against. Councillor Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie used by casting vote. The amendment is lost. Anyone else speaking? Wish to try and speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 03:03:52.965
I'd like to move an amendment please. Frank Wilkie 03:04:12.662
Is that what you want to do? You don't really want to go there? Yes please Councillor, if you'd like to. Karen Finzel 03:04:25.640
Not. Um, right. That item B. Be amended to read B, agreed to the Tourism Noosa Roadmap attachment 1, as the guiding 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 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 DMP, the specific actions, programs and services to be delivered, final funding amount and terms are subject to further consideration, and that item D be amended to read, D request the Chief Executive Officer to bring back a report outlining clear DMP deliverables, funding and terms with Tourism Noosa to February 2026 round of Council meetings. Amelia Lorentson 03:05:54.050
Care to second that I'm sorry question to the Chair first is the amendment what do you mean by in front of us ultra vires what do you mean by that? Well, it doesn't negate the intent of the original. Motion Larry Sengstock 03:06:25.794
Original motion sorry if I can speak um the original motion refers to bringing the report back in February in terms of the agreement. Frank Wilkie 03:06:36.973
So this is really just refining that a little further, in my mind would someone like to second this for the purpose of debate? Thank you Councillor Wegener. Councillor Finzel you have the floor. Karen Finzel 03:07:05.002
Well firstly this whole process it's 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 that 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 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 however provide leadership or anyway we're just going to try and I'd anyway get we're some just going leadership get around some around leadership around table and I and bring this forward for debate to see if we see can progress it any it further any that's all I want to say. Frank Wilkie 03:08:31.238
Thank you Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 03:08:35.324
Councillor Finzel could you actually explain just explain to me how the changes what you're changing about the original recommendation Karen Finzel 03:08:49.006
You intent think it's a change? Yeah. Well I think it's trying to just bring debate around the table to try and bring to the light that the two million dollar amount of funding through the deed like is not what we're deciding today it we're agreeing to the Roadmap in my opinion so that then that allows the agreement with Tourism Noosa news up to continue that has to come to a conversation from my understanding correctly from wrong to the CEO we can't move forward apparently based on legal advice that we can't you know that's where we're at 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 decision around funding and the agreements in alignment with the DMP to deliver some actions to our community to say we are 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 we arrive Frank Wilkie 03:10:45.280
How are you? I'm going 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 of the community want Tourism Noosa to receive no funding or less funding. Want the to sign funding, some want to increase in funding. What this does, this motion, is it takes us away from saying, making a call and saying yes, we're endorsing option 2. And for option 2, the indicative cost, costs costs are $2 two million dollars. So, make a decision, you support that or not. This says endorse option 2, 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. I won't be supporting because I don't know how other Councillors feel. If you support the two million as proposed in the 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, and it helps us just get on with it. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 03:12:44.070
Yeah, Chair, there's 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, is that right? Endorse the Roadmap to give the certainty to TN. So they need that certainty to progress forward. I don't believe this amendment supports. Is this a question or are you debating? This support a locked-in figure of $2 million or does it support a negotiation at the table for TN and you guys to come together, look at what they want to deliver within an amount of money that's unbeknown to us yet? That's agreed upon, it comes back before us to make a decision around funding and services. Frank Wilkie 03:13:45.828
Thank you Councillor, Larry Sengstock 03:13:47.206
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 be the second tranche of funding for Noosa project. This current deed. Tourism 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 that we endorse the option 2 as a guiding framework and then we negotiate, we come back with what does that mean in terms of the actions, the KPIs and the potential cost for that, again, for debate and discussion and decision in February. That's the, if that makes it clear. Nicola Wilson 03:14:47.172
I'll speak to it. I think, back to Council 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 of further consideration. So I think that's a strong addition here. That means we're not locked into that figure of $2 million because they were still costing 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 the original amendment. It means that we're not actually endorsing any 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 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 support this. Thank you. Tom Wegener 03:16:20.347
Um, I'll speak to it. With the funding, I totally get where you're coming from, but we are given that the, 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, them to be, to feel confident to be funded right off the bat so we can start, this now. Frank Wilkie 03:17:09.021
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:17:12.805
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. Thank you. Got a question? Tom Wegener 03:17:44.650
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. Is it does. Enough to agree to the Roadmap but not agree to any funding? Larry Sengstock 03:18:09.366
From my discussions with Noosa and I believe it is. 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 guide a guiding framework, we accept that they are the relationship that 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 what's to be delivered and what the terms would be. So I believe that this will be acceptable. That's my understanding. I can't speak for them. Tom Wegener 03:18:53.660
So there's not much of a change at all as far as the funding goes with this? Is that right? It's assumed that there's a two million dollar funding straight off the bat with the previous. So how does this change the funding model going forward between here and February? Larry Sengstock 03:19:14.944
Says to deliver DMPs beforehand that the costing was around two million dollars is what was provided back from Tourism Noosa. What we're saying now is let's now we know what the DMP is, let's actually assess that in more detail so we actually understand exactly what each of the elements is and bring it back and then you've got the ability to agree or not agree to each of those elements. So to Councillor Finzel's point as well, it is back to almost a procurement exercise as well. Here's the pieces that we want. How much does each piece cost? We decide. And work it through. And that way you'll be able to assess how much money you want to spend or have to spend in order to deliver what you want or not. Frank Wilkie 03:19:59.990
Question, if we go through. If we go with the original motion, which has the recommendation for the $2 million 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 $2 million? Too mad or could there be Larry Sengstock 03:20:18.085
Other? Could there be another fee? No, that's what I'm saying is, but this amendment is saying we're not locked in, we need to work that through, and we have to make a decision, and they need to make a case for each of these, pieces. So, um, honest, I'm comfortable with this as an amendment. I think this is, this meets the needs and gives us the ability, which we always wanted to do, but timeframes and getting this through, um, hadn't allowed us to do, but this gives us a bit more time to actually. Work it through and come back to some more, detail. It's really just, um, uh, giving us the ability 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, in this, at this point, the ability to help us with the DMP. What that means is need to be, we just need to now really knock down and come back to you in February with a, further plan. Frank Wilkie 03:21:21.793
So if this is, um, yours, the figure that you may come back with may be $2 million, maybe more, maybe less. Larry Sengstock 03:21:31.254
And I can, I can't, you've, seen, sorry. Yeah, it could vary. Yeah, you've seen, the breakdown of costings in our, workshops of what Tourism Noosa spend on various parts currently. So all I can say is that needs to further scrutinised or further, itemised and based on the DMP. So, 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, will you be doing that if the other motion gets up? Look. Other motion? Option, the original. Motion. No. That would commit us to, well, we still bring it back in February, but we commit it to an actual number. 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 that you can then decide upon. Frank Wilkie 03:22:23.816
So we're not locking ourselves in. So it convinces it commits us to following through and delivering option two, which is the evolve TN model, and whatever that may cost. Thank you. And that's what you'll come back with in the next class. What you'll come back with in February, as opposed to with the other month, it's locked into two months. Mr. Yes. I like that then, thank you. The press Brian Stockwell 03:22:51.433
Think we need a bit of clarity, because I know councils are feeling under pressure, and I know emails flying from community are suggesting that staff are driving this. Councillors, staff recommended to us that the existing funding deed 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. 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 you can see how they've allocated what they think is the core funding is the core funding and 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 option what option two is. 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 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 when we're not agreeing of course 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 for of December to go down this track. If that written agreement doesn't come we're technically in breach. That's the risk. The CEOs what, 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 community saying we've achieved that. We've already done those negotiations and we already know what the answer is that the 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 Councillors 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 first option is in accordance with the funding agreement Tom Wegener 03:26:37.798
CEO the semantics between approve and agree to they seem to be quite a difference between the I don't agree Larry Sengstock 03:26:48.048
Greedo it as a guiding framework but in the, sorry, Through the Chair, in 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 as the Roadmap as well as the KPIs before we can provide the second tranche. Amelia Lorentson 03:27:13.007
Question to this CEO, just a follow-up from what Councillor Stockwell said, just referred to. Agreeing to this amendment as I've understood from Councillor Stockwell is there is a very slim likelihood that two million work that's been done in terms of what is core service delivery given the work that's been done for Tourism Noosa that two million dollars isn't really going to change much. Am I correct? Larry Sengstock 03:27:44.180
I just based on the information and you've all seen the spreadsheets, based on that, 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, you know, and again it comes back to what do we want. There's pieces in 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 model as well. Amelia Lorentson 03:28:12.167
So accepting the amendment in front of us, 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 we're agreeing to something that we don't know. Larry Sengstock 03:28:34.149
I figure we don't know. 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 03:28:50.124
Sorry, just a quick question. So I've understood that those actions are additional costs, not called business. So there was $1.3 million identified in the agreement as actions to be confirmed in terms of funding sources. Larry Sengstock 03:29:08.224
None of identified. Those have been agreed by us. Can I have some water? Nicola Wilson 03:29:12.620
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 $2 million. But now it's sounding like we are. But 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 $2 million, but that wasn't logged in, or it is? Larry Sengstock 03:29:42.137
Well, in my opinion, it wasn't. This clarifies it. Frank Wilkie 03:29:52.364
What can I do? Karen Finzel 03:29:53.041
Okay, um. Oh, just a question? Yes, Councillor Finzel. 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. A position where we're breaching the current agreement. So, I'm not comfortable now unless we get clarity on that because I'll withdraw that. Larry Sengstock 03:30:20.677
So, what we need is for, um. Written agreement between the two parties that. Um. That we can push it out to February. I have. Confidence that. Will happen in my discussions. Um, and I. That's all I can say, but I have confidence that they understand that and that they're willing to accept that. Karen Finzel 03:30:49.032
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 03:31:01.383
No, we're carrying the 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. What? Frank Wilkie 03:31:15.809
Yeah, can you. Brian Stockwell 03:31:17.295
Just the clause that I read said we have to agree to the terms and the funding for those terms for that period, which would be three years according to this report, unless otherwise agreed the in writing. And what CEO is saying. He feels that agreement in writing is a likelihood. Frank Wilkie 03:31:37.945
From the advice of. By December 31st. Larry Sengstock 03:31:43.023
You're right about 31st. 13th of December, but to push it out before we reclaim the actual funding. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 03:31:50.169
So it sounds like there's a risk if this goes out in the current wording and the risk is that it will still months. Proceed to over two million dollars. 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 03:32:17.179
I don't personally I don't believe that I think it's a very very very small risk because of my discussions. With the jurors of 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 dispute 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 a reasonable path forward. Nicola Wilson 03:32:49.287
I think I asked this back in May. Clause 2.10 says and this is potentially essentially 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, well, we've got endorsed still. By 31st of December, 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 agreement because I've it's we've just said now it has to be in writing, but that's not clear from this, so how do we mutually agree and who are the parties that make that agreement? Frank Wilkie 03:33:38.591
Thank you very much. Thank you. Kim Rawlings 03:33:42.914
The wording of the agreement is very specific to anticipate this scenario that so it says two things. It says that the Roadmap needs to be mutually agreed. The Roadmap has been mutually agreed. It's been reported to Council as mutually agreed by the CEO of Noosa Council, the Chair of Tourism Noosa. So that component's been met. Your component 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. There was a second part to that question. Frank Wilkie 03:34:27.721
Sorry, Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 03:34:29.903
I think you may have covered it, but I is it mutually agreed? So you've just said by bringing it to Council. And who are the parties? Kim Rawlings 03:34:38.673
The parties are the signatories of the funding agreement and they're signed by the CEO and the CEO of both organisations. The endorsing of the Roadmap is council's decision. Frank Wilkie 03:34:51.666
Councillor Stockwell Brian Stockwell 03:34:53.255
I think cause. That's one clause. The I was referring to is separate. Can you just clarify? Kim Rawlings 03:34:58.004
Yes, the clause, the second clause is that discussions about any, the current agreement uh the is a expires 12 month agreement. It expires on the 30th of June 2026. There's a clause in there that says discussions must be undertaken starting in November on potential for a further funding agreement. And provide, should I have the microphone in front of me? Yeah, thanks, Nicola, thank you, that would be helpful. Term of that agreement. 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. We have to have had discussions around any potential further term or funding agreement funding by and advised by the 31st of December unless that is, isn't there is me. 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 Councillor Wilson thanks Unidentified Speaker 03:36:33.087
I'm sorry I was just going to stop. Frank Wilkie 03:36:34.000
Councillor Stockwell, do you have a question? Brian Stockwell 03:36:37.785
No, that's clarified where we're at. Yeah. Karen Finzel 03:36:45.925
I think I'm gonna withdraw this because I'm not comfortable it a surety you know I'm not certain where to as a nurse who 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. Be. Where they're going to meet on that negotiation with the CEO is not in front of me. The risk is that if we, you know, rely on them to have an agreement in writing that we might not reach. Yeah, I think for me that's risky. I am not in that negotiation. 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 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. I don't think that this is going to deliver what my intent was. Frank Wilkie 03:38:23.789
Councillor we're Wegener, going to need do a you have a seconder? Do you consent to the motion of amendment being, the amendment being withdrawn? Brian Stockwell 03:38:27.888
Okay. That's the agreement cancelled. Okay and all in favour? Frank Wilkie 03:38:36.798
That's Councillors Wegener, Stockwell, Lorentson, Finzel and Wilkie against. Councillor Wilson that is withdrawn. We go back to. No. It has to be consented by the whole Council to be withdrawn. Yes. Oh. No. There's the Standing Orders. Yes. With the consent of the seconder and. The Councillor shall not speak. I Brian Stockwell 03:39:05.019
Don't per cent. Think it has to be 100% of it. Seconder and Councillor. That's a majority, isn't it? A majority. Frank Wilkie 03:39:10.140
Oh, a majority. Yeah. Council. Yeah, that's a majority. Okay. Good double check. Nicola Wilson 03:39:17.206
Just going back to the clause before 3.1. 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 will 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. Is that correct? Larry Sengstock 03:39:50.701
Unless we've got a written agreement to take it over. Do we have that? No. No, we don't. No. That's the reason for the withdrawal is my understanding of that. But my, I feel. Confident that we should get that. Frank Wilkie 03:40:08.573
Okay, so, so far only himself has spoken to the original motion, which is as the amendment added about the levy. Okay, can we go back to the. I'm just trying to. Thank you. 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 this time. Frank Wilkie 03:56:49.380
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 03:57:09.477
Let item F be added to read. Request that in relation item D, council's procurement department leave lead the declaration. Development of any future funding agreements. I'll be the second for debate, thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. We've had a lot of going around in circles trying to establish what exactly we're voting on today. Whether it's just a road map of future relationship funding, how many years, what amount. I said earlier, and I'll say more about this later, but I think the motion that resolution from May 2025 put us into a position of 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. 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 it'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 and under this resolution under this today and where the decision about funding will be made. Usually if we're spending amounts of two million dollars or more over a multi-year agreement we use our procurement team as Councillor Lorentson said earlier to do the assessment 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 be involved 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 well it's not completely clear if we're talking about a future funding agreement today yeah rather than just roll this agreement over I'd really prefer that we start with a I new agreement that's kind of based on our standard supplier agreements and then tweaked for whatever we need to do in terms of the Roadmap and the DMP Frank Wilkie 03:59:42.368
Council's president isn't councils procurement department involved in all funding agreements with Council along with governments and finance and procurement already involved? Q a minute, we're reading them all. Larry Sengstock 03:59:58.420
There's some. 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. I've been pushing is that it is more of a service agreement 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. That's it where it's sort of gone to. I know when Scott Waters was here he moved the dial a little bit more towards KPIs whereas in the past it wasn't even that strict but we've got KPIs and then it's gradually been improved. 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 we, they're a service provider, so they're part of it they provide and they that provide that service to us, but it's led by the experts or the people who are absolutely involved, so. 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 or. Nicola Wilson 04:01:16.417
Sorry, just to answer Mayor wilkie's question, they're not currently involved, is that correct, in this agreement? Larry Sengstock 04:01:22.769
Been to 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. Extracurricular department. All right. Nicola Wilson 04:01:39.654
SPEAKER 1: I'm happy to amend that to support, if that doesn't change it too much. Frank Wilkie 04:01:44.115
I'm happy to agree to that. I think that's a good change. Can we change up these cabinets? Oops, sorry. Okay, anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Amelia Lorentson 04:02:00.804
SPEAKER 2: 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. In too many again, $2 million, it's not our money. It's community funds. I think this is a really good addition. Happy to support. The Council fixed up? Karen Finzel 04:02:28.012
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 that. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 04:02:49.195
Yeah of course we support it. I think the change from LEED, the development of the future summit, coming around to support is a really wise one. Obviously, the departments involved need to be. In to lead the discussions and to have that procurement there and support is extremely wise. Brian Stockwell 04:03:12.735
I'm happy to support it and just building on what the CEO was saying, I think they 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'll depend on where we eventually wind up, end up with sleep the potential additional actions. So if they are not built into the current funding agreements then procurement may have the idea about how you would set the agreement up so that is a, at least an efficient process and allows them to do those extra tasks. So I will support it. Frank Wilkie 04:03:53.637
Council, would you wish to close? Brian Stockwell 04:04:25.634
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 full-time 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 that defunding Tourism Noosa nursery 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 fixing pot-offs and we know that a previous amendment will try and look at an outcome so that people 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 and while so what I think on a big picture it's important to follow the Roadmap is we've got a very significant analogy, an aircraft carrier 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 pin would do be setting be that address. Adrift so that 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 of direction and I think we should be investing 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 so I suppose to me it also brings in this concept of not having consultation. I don't need more specific questions going out to the public and say 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 course 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 2 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 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 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 management and have a small brand group of tasks, and that's what the appendix and 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 it bit in 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 over revolution and that was another one that came back all the successful ones were tourism destinations and have evolved to a point where they know world's best practice state and we gave one example where they've tried to make a significant change in the way they delivered it and they were successful in that transformation. Effective collaboration between councils, tourism organisations, communities and other stakeholders. And that's another area where I think we've had that discussion this morning is the partnership model is basically 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 is basically okay funding is a key enabler sustained investment and that's what we're talking about 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 within what's I enough have with in this Roadmap and with what we've heard in our newest workshops to say that it option two is 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 04:11:17.279
Is there anyone else who wants to speak before I close? Go ahead, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Finzel, Unidentified Speaker 04:11:27.186
Oh, I can do it, go on. All right. Tom Wegener 04:11:28.560
Is a typical Tom speech. A great Mayor said that a nice place to live is a nice place live. 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 and the presidents 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 two threat of over-tourism, of over-population around us and we've taken action and that is the Destination Management Plan. We have actually done what a good Council does. You learn about the threat. 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 Roadmap the Tourism Noosa Roadmap 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 that are still in a little bit been a long morning but the groups that are for this of course the Tourism Noosa the 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 approve 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 I started making surfboards 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 kitchen table they would stay and surf for a couple of days and then enjoy Noosa and that's the visitor economy in my lifetime and that really helped me 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 they and they run the markets in Pomona. 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 their what they need visitation on Saturday morning and 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 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 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 to live is a nice place to visit and that is where of the our wealth comes from. 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. Councillor Wegener. Frank Wilkie 04:15:59.380
Can I ask you a question? Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 04:16:00.862
Yeah, sure, Thank you. To 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, transformative. Transformational change, a vision we can project forward and 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 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 community. And gendering trust is critical. A strong foundation is the anchor of every visionary transformation. Without clarity of purpose, shared understanding and trusted relationships, even the most ambitious ideas struggle to take root. When we invest in solid organisational 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 flicker out the flame of change and vision that everyone aspired to. Fostering, improving 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, reality. Share we 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, confident that our shared will carry us there. A strong foundation isn't just a nice-to-have in times of change. It is the governance. When people know the structures guiding our decisions are transparent, fair and well thought out, trust grows naturally. 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 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. A 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 guided by clear are principles, transparent processes, and considered accountability, trust stops being something we hope for, and becomes something we build together. Reinforcing that the governance culture doesn't require grand gestures. It 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 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 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. It's shared in humanity. This is the kind of foundation that makes 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 04:23:00.618
Cancel Councillor Wilson. Cancel Wilson? I might need a little leniency, please. Disappointed 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 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 Phillips a left for long-planned leave on 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 in on the 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 recommended staff recommendation and Council resolution of May 2025 in my opinion put us into a predicament. It predetermined there would be an ongoing relationship and funding agreement with TN even though we were supposed to only be making funding for the 2025-26 financial year. The resolution directed Council and TN staff and board to agree future service levels, organisational 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 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 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 TN at all and it just seems like this whole seven months has been about, I don't know, about why we're here. Anyway, the working group was formed between the Council staff who made the recommendation and the TN CEO on board who most was 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 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 and RTOs that the resolution required. We're briefly told that Noosa Council's contribution of $34 per capita is higher than comparative reasons. Per stating what these are and we move on with an inconvenient truth so there's eight LTOs and eight RTOs researched. We're 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 2 did not emerge as the preferred outcome because it was set out in the Council resolution in May. 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 $2 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 $7 million for rate pay to fund. There will be no community or industry consultation specifically on this matter. No survey questions in the DMP directly asked about TN's funding over the next three years. They were strong support for a review of the current model. Respondents voluntarily made written submissions including comments on TN's funding overwhelmingly against funding or increasing funding to 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 $7 million with poor analysis. Roadmap that doesn't meet fully the requirements of the main resolution and especially that has not seen consultation with industry stakeholders and residents. We still have no justification on this baseline of $2 million 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. Frank Wilkie 04:29:18.443
Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 04:29:27.597
We. 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 to act in the best in 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 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 strong accountability. Good requires governance that councils 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 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 substantial 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's performance, priorities or oversight. The recommendation 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 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 reputational 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 for just 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. Two million dollars 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 04:33:50.982
Councillors Councillors, 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 one into uncharted territory that's why we have a Roadmap to help get us there are uncertainties things are unclear there are is extensive research and benchmarking that may not necessarily support your view but it is sound benchmark it is an excellent standard of work it's easy enough to pick 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 sporting clubs, but who rely on a sustainable, long-term, regenerative tourism industry for us. They're putting their trust in us to make the right decision today, 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 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 Lawrence and Finzel. I use my casting vote. The Tourism Noosa road map is being endorsed. We now move on to the next item on the agenda which is 2024 2020 item 12.3 forward event corrective action and status update. We have Acting Director Corporate Services Marg Gatt here for this report. Please give us a summary of the report. You Margaret Gatt 04:36:42.741
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 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 so 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 these include independent verification of supplier detail changes. Any changes to supplier details such as contacting bank account or contact information must be independently verified against 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 or fraudulent alterations. A review, an audit log is also for every payment run and provided to the approver for review. This log serves as a critical control mechanism enabling the approver to confirm the accuracy and integrity of the transactions prior to finalisation. You for your question. Councillors, our staff have taken very seriously this incident. It weighs heavily on not just individual staff members but the entire finance team and we've had many conversations around the lessons learned from this very serious 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 search for contact details often referred to as the vendor master file. 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 with that direct contact with the supplier. Also, requirement for inquiries from our bank regarding payments or questioning of it to escalated to a senior officer for action. In summary these lessons highlight the importance of us consistently applying existing controls, 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. 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 organisational 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 a commitment from staff to compliance with that policy and procedure through the understanding of the impacts of non-compliance both financial and reputational. Of the impacts A Council system control where changes to supplier contact details 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 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 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 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 and 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 process improvements are implemented. In summary, Council is firmly committed to maintaining the high standards of 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 control is a shared responsibility. I will leave the report there, Councillors, and I'm happy to answer any appropriate questions. Frank Wilkie 04:43:11.317
We are in formal session and precious careers. We ask, and answer after the motion is moved. Someone can move the motion. I'm happy to move the motion. Councillor Stockwell. I second. Wilson. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 04:43:28.625
I thank and congratulate for the report and for the effort she's put in addressing this matter since she first started with this issue earlier came on as the Acting Director it's not an event that any organisation wishes to have to deal with and it has obviously grabbed a lot of angst in our community. Any crime has victims. What I think we as Councillors have to be aware of is that the matter has been analysed. In a detailed way and we've been privy to a range of detailed step-by 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 Eftsure as a supplier to Council. I presume that's because I get paid when I put it. In a travel invoice or something. 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. There's also, I think, for the openness and honesty and also the steps taken to minimise our risk into the future. Nicola Wilson 04:45:04.659
I think various people will speak. I want to directors. Thank Acting Director gap 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 since. 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. An independent investigator coming in now would not have access to all that information the team's also been working with the 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 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 that the truth was available, and I see that there's a headline Council should have told the truth from the start, so I hope that this report will help to build reputation and trust back with our community. Amelia Lorentson 04:47:03.712
I'd like to move an amendment that cancels requests that the chief executive officer's management of the December 2024 fraud incident. Oh, sorry. That Council request. Excuse me. Council request that a Councillor-led. Sorry. 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. Nicola Wilson 04:48:24.521
I'll one second. Frank Wilkie 04:48:26.784
You seconded the original motions that we found. Oh, yeah. It's now a second of the amendment lapses. So the amendment has lapsed. Anyone else wish to speak to the original motion that had Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Wilson so far? Amelia Lorentson 04:49:06.203
I will. In October, I moved an amendment at the Ordinary Meeting, recorded in the Minutes of 16 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. Firstly, I do want to acknowledge and thank our Acting Director, Marg Gatt, for the resilience her resilience to implement an expert and not expertise just you started at a very difficult time the Council and the way you conducted yourself over the last 10 months is nothing but really commendable and 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. Doesn't answer the questions raised by community. 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 clearly in my opinion with the CEO, 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's 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 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 inadequate. Resourced. 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, that no leader stood up at the beginning and said this was my responsibility, the buck stops here. Mayor Wilkie, can I ask why you were laughing? I was not laughing. Frank Wilkie 04:52:34.532
I said I was laughing about a councillor's answer. You just laughed at me. I think you were imagining it. So I'm just please continue with your thing without drawing other Councillors into it. Amelia Lorentson 04:52:58.969
I am disappointed that no. like the Mayor or CEO stood up at the beginning and said this was my responsibility that the buck stops here. The community expects more from its leaders and so do I. Noosa deserve leaders who put transparency and honesty above self-preservation, protect staff as fiercely as they protect budgets and treat community money with the care Frank Wilkie 04:53:27.458
They would. We can stop you there, Councillor Lorentson. Linesmith? Supporting board. Yes. We're- You're a problem. Impugning improper motives to other people, in the name of the CEO and myself, and that's unacceptable in the medium of combat. Please retract the statements and apologise. Amelia Lorentson 04:53:41.331
Happy to retract the statements and apologise if that's what was inferred. Thank you. Finished just us with this. Public trust is earned. Leadership is demonstrated. Frank Wilkie 04:54:02.063
And I'll leave it at that. Thank you. I want apologise. I'd like to apologise that this event today has been used as a platform to lecture, which is very disappointing. I remember distinctly back in October the CEO saying if anyone is responsible for this, if you're looking for someone to blame, me. 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, again. And at the time we did raise the possibility that due to legal and privacy obligations it couldn't go as far as the expectation was being set at that meeting. But there is good information in there and people have a good understanding. That 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 are times more than us, have been personally impacted by this. The ratepayers, of course, are 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 probably 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 react and protect against this ever happening again and there are lots of lessons learned for all of us so I would like to acknowledge like to admonish the CEO, the he did say for this to happen if anyone's to blame he did say that he did take responsibility if you've seen his press statements recently he's done the same again it takes a large person to do that and pitching this out. I'm personally sorry that this has happened as well. I can't help it any other way thank you. I'm Councillor Stockwell and I would ask that you speak. Councillor Stockwell, are you with the clients? I put the motion. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Now that brings us to the item third. Thank you. Director Gatt. Confidential, no confidential session. Item 14, the next Ordinary Meeting will be at Council chambers 9, Pelican Street, Tewantin at 10am on 22 January 2025. Before we go, 2026, that's the last meeting of the year, before we go I would 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 faced all of us under pressures that we haven't faced before and we've all responded accordingly. To our natures. And we've all done the best we can with what we know. I really believe everyone around this table has the interest of the community at heart. I'm wishing stuff 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 shine. Shire look great and keep it running well. And I wish all the dancers at the table a very good Christmas, a good Christmas break and a bright and cheerful 2026. And to the people in the gallery who have joined us here today, thank you for coming along. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
