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 00:00.000
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 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 all other councillors. Attendance. Item 4 is confirmation of the minutes. May I have a move and a seconder of the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 20th November 2025 please. Happy to move. Councillor Lorentson, seconded. Happy to second. Councillor Finzel, any discussion? No. All in favour? Unanimously. Can I have a movement, the minutes of the Special Meeting held on 11th December Stockwell, Councillor Wegener, any discussion? All in favour? That's unanimous. We have no petitions. There are no presentations. We have one deputation, 15 minutes per deputation. The applicant is Willy Ostwald, Jill Brownlee, Friends of Noosa Botanic Gardens. The topic is master plan for the Noosa Botanic Gardens. SPEAKER_06 01:41.756
I don't think they've arrived. Shaun Walsh 01:44.746
Yeah, they're not in attendance. Do you want me to see if they're downstairs? Frank Wilkie 01:48.086
They're outside. Or downstairs. Yeah. Amelia Lorentson 01:51.646
They haven't made themselves known to us. Frank Wilkie 01:54.286
It they could still be downstairs. Well, in the meantime, we'll move on to question time, if that's okay. The first application is from Mr. Bruce Mouland, who couldn't be here today. Our CEO, Larry Sengstock, will read Mr. Mouland's question, which will be answered by Shaun Walsh, Director Infrastructure Services. Mr. Sengstock. Larry Sengstock 02:17.640
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. Director Walsh. Shaun Walsh 02:38.963
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 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 on council has profiled many of its cycling and walking projects website and publicly available. The design has also been framed by the Active Transport Investment Program technical guidance prepared by the Queensland government department of transport and available on their website. This technical guidance references 14 different supporting standards to substantiate the design approach. Frank Wilkie 03:53.484
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 04:10.256
Okay, 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 Noosa that were previously assessed as higher priority. Priorities. Sean? Shaun Walsh 04:32.906
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 still progressing other initiatives as funding an opportunity for us. In short, the project matches current strategic priorities, responds to strong community feedback, closes a critical network and fully fundable making it a responsible and timely choice for delivery. Larry Sengstock 05:38.016
Thank you, Mr Walsh. Mr Sengstock. Okay, question number two from Mary Perry. How does council plan to implement a new three-metre-wide shared off-road pathway through the Peregian Beach Village, PID 358, and what impact will it have on the foreshore reserve amenities and parking? Shaun Walsh 06:00.110
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 specific design language and approach. Dot point two, avoid avoidance of sensitive dual 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. Frank Wilkie 07:06.810
Thanks, Walsh. Next application, two questions is from Mr. Nis. Denise Phipps and the same process will apply. Larry Sengstock 07:16.097
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. Feedback in 2021 to council's Walking and Cycling Strategy, especially those aimed at improving safe connectivity, genuine cycle safety, everyday usage, reduced traffic congestion and lower emissions. Shaun Walsh 07:44.763
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 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 pathways study and liveability feedback demand strong 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, fewer short car trips and consequently lower transport emissions aligning with the community's state of priorities and council's long-term transport and sustainability goals. In short, the active Street improves safety, creates everyday connectivity, encourage modal shift away from cars and supports lower congestion emissions, exactly the outcomes that community thank you. Larry Sengstock 09:14.684
The final one from Ms. Phipps. Second question from Ms. Phipps. Will council halt the current ill-conceived, unproven and unwanted active Street project planning, consult with all impacted residents feedback received 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 09:47.824
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 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. 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 10:32.899
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 Strategy & Environment. Pat Spicer 10:46.726
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 expansion because the show has served as the show's MDI. 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. Space was not an immediate need, but a DA for cemetery use was submitted in 2008 with the intention of activation of that DA in the next 15 years. For residents who purchased nearby properties after 1999, it is a justifiable expectation that land purchased for cemetery remains the intent use of the land. Because there isn't development on the site does not mean the site is not serving any purpose. My question: Noosa Council's Facebook page post on the 28th of January 2025 refers to the land at Lake Macdonald Drive, Cooroy as unused, despite its zoning for community facilities and its allocation for cemetery expansion in 1999 with a supporting DA in 2008. Local residents, including those who, as children, played on this land in the 1960s, have long used the land for recreation. One of the reasons the council considers the land unused. Kim Rawlings 12:51.534
Welcome. Thank you. 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 space area and its usage for that never encouraged. It has been Fallow since council acquired the property. The land was contaminated and when council was notified of this, signs were erected and restriction to public access to the area. The land is currently being remediated. Council has a responsibility to plan and to benefit the whole community, not only in relation to cemetery purposes, but a wide range of other community purposes and needs. Housing is one of those needs to be planned for. Our Shire is experiencing a significant long-term housing crisis and once remediated, social housing is proposed on the portion summer. 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 14:03.344
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 development. After ignoring much update to 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 South East 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 council is not planning for questions. 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 environmental and conservation in and includes privately property owned, on low density residential? Kim Rawlings 15:35.239
So just also acknowledging that I understand one of our staff had a contact that you had just to confirm the slot plot in question? That context it's been confirmed we've had which lot the question refers to. The split zoned property, privately owned lot in Garnet Street, Cooroy, has a small portion of zoned low density residential and a large portion of zoned environmental conservation and management to protect native vegetation on the lot. The native vegetation is also 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 plan 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. Yeah, Frank Wilkie 16:39.601
Thank you, Pat Spicer. We normally have an adjournment when there are questions and give or tease here, but given that there is not many adjournment, there's not any patents, we can probably have Larry Sengstock 16:53.906
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 so they kept me from coming at 5 o'clock. 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 thank you. Shaun Walsh 17:33.063
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 17:54.566
Thank you, Director. Okay, there are no Mayoral minutes. We have one notified motion. Advocacy for affordable housing. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to talk about the motion? Amelia Lorentson 18:07.688
I'll move the motion that council A request that the Mayor write to the Queensland state government seeking clarification on whether the State is considering the development of affordable housing for essential workers above state-owned car parks located at key service facilities such as schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations. SES facilities and surf clubs, and 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. I'll second. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson. 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 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 developing housing on these sites would optimise health. 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. I have an amendment. Frank Wilkie 21:56.900
Okay the amendments are additional of an additional clause A and the addition of clause C and the changes requested the Mayor support efforts by the Noosa MP and right to the Queensland state government seeking clarification whether the State is considering the development of affordable housing for essential workers. And part C is requested them when they release the audit on state owned land as requested by the Noosa MP. This, 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, 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-owned lands for housing or otherwise. So it's basically about supporting MP and recognising that we're working in terms intently with our local member on this very important state issue. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Karen Finzel 23:54.838
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 any discussion tables. That's been non-existent in terms of us representing on that. So I guess my question would be, I do support the intent given our housing situation. Of Noosa, like, I'm just wondering, in my mind, I can't think of any state-owned car parks that would be high enough to. Or any that would facilitate further building on top of that. So. Frank Wilkie 24:42.009
Is that a question to me? Karen Finzel 24:45.249
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 25:02.348
In answer to your first question, state owned car parks are in schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, SES facilities and surf 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 border, about the 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 Rawlings Director 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 25:59.391
Sorry, given 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 were we 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, selling, 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 leasing above car parks and on council owned land. Karen Finzel 27:10.638
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. 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. Frank Wilkie 27:32.886
It has nothing to do with the notified motion in front 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 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, do you have a question of staff about the actions of the Housing Strategy. Karen Finzel 28:19.417
Yes, I would just like to know, this is a high priority matter. At the start of the year, councillors are invited to participate on the committees and that is formally. All motions ratified. So my question is, given 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 has brought through the motion which I'm grateful for, because we need to address this. I'm just wondering, when we talk about transparency and identifying gaps. Frank Wilkie 28:54.576
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 29:01.040
And through love, that, Through the Chair, 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. It was brought together very regularly during the development of the Housing Strategy, the comprehensive housing needs and to help inform 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 Frank Wilkie 30:14.902
Thank you Director rollings anybody else to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 30:24.782
Just to add that I personally know lifeguards, I know teachers, I know police officers and fireys who are commuting, only 30 I live 30 to 40 minutes away from the news. 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. Frank Wilkie 31:20.441
Thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? 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 from minor change to a development permit from the MCU for a duplex at Duke Street, Sunshine Beach. 11.1.4 was an other change to an existing approval for material of use, expansion of special purpose waste disposal and recycling facility and ongoing clearing purposes at 561 Eumundi Noosa Road, Doonan. 11.1.5 were the planning applications decided by delegated authority in October 2025.11.1.6 was referred to the general committee as a confidential item about proposed Environment Levy purchase.6 11.1.7 Planning & Environment Committee recommendations en bloc can either move or be seconded for these planning to be adopted. Councillor Wegener, seconder. 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. 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 have Director Community Services Kerri Contini point out the correction. Kerri Contini 33:28.322
Thank do cell error in the previous attachment that's been corrected. It's for Jelly Productions. And at the time when we presented the first report in the column that has the moderated score, there was an error that's now showing the correct score of 13.3. There are no other corrections. Frank Wilkie 33:51.210
Okay, so we have the amended motion please. So I'll move that the report by the arts and culture to the Services and Organisation Committee dated 9th of December 2025 regarding the RADF 2025-26 annual funding round assessment and 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. I May we have a seconder please, seconder Councillor second 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? Happy to move, Mr Chair. Thank you. Moved by the Chair of the S&O committee, Councillor Finzel. Now the seconder, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's unanimous. 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 35:43.600
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, and I just wanted want to test an amendment, please. Frank Wilkie 35:54.667
Have someone to, um, move Councillor Stockwell. We have a seconder, please. SPEAKER_06 36:04.787
This is the General Committee recommendation. Yep. It's the general, the recommendation from the General Committee that is being moved. Tom Wegener 36:15.515
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. Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to speak? No, I'll hold to the end if I may. Amelia Lorentson 36:43.574
Yes. Councillor Lorentson? 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 37:06.074
Okay. Can we have a seconder for the amendment, seconded by Councillor Wilson. Amelia Lorentson 37:19.556
This amendment's just come about, I have been speaking to some of the residents and community groups that have been involved now for some time, some up to four years, and been part of the destination management process. They were concerned that there wasn't enough clarity in terms of their involvement, in particular around the Destination Stewardship Council. So the amendment, I put this amendment together to explicitly ensure that community voices are formally included. Alignment in terms of the Destination Management Plan are aligned with local expectations, understanding that what was delivered was a community led and community driven document. Frank Wilkie 38:18.580
Question of staff. Was of the DMP to include groups and agencies that have capacity to physically implement the actions of the DMP Kim Rawlings 38:50.361
The Chair. Thank you for that question. Do you mean the intention of the Destination Stewardship Council? So yes. Is to be a collective of people and groups that have the capacity and capability to drive implementation, oversee monitoring and. 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. Frank Wilkie 39:59.820
Questions or comments? Professor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 40:03.560
Speak to it. The motion talks about, the original motion talks about developing a terms of reference. In my mind the Destination Stewardship 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. The 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 appealing 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 people for expertise and also connection. Community groups. To me it's a bit of a cart before the horse amendment that we should be really I've no problem in saying 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 terms of reference and then determine the make-up rather than putting in something that may in the end of the day be somewhat frustrating if groups think it is for example a little bit like the body that we had in 2016 cancer. 20 council that had lots and lots of community groups and couldn't get to a resolution. So to me it's important to attempt to reference first. Frank Wilkie 42:10.876
Anybody else want to speak to the amendment? Nicola Wilson 42:12.856
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. Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 42:41.012
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 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 44:17.901
I think we will be able to engage the community in a meaningful way, but in order to do that, we need to very firmly understand what this Destination Stewardship Council is there to do. And I'm concerned that if you approve this amendment, that will give signal to the community that anyone who wants to be on there can. And that may not be the case. As Councillor Stockwell said, there was a come one, come all approach to a previous Stakeholder Housing Reference Group that couldn't reach consensus. I understand that the Destination Stewardship Council will have a very different role in holding various agencies to account and will involve various agencies with the real capacity implement the DMP actions. 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. Councillor Finzel. Finzel? Karen Finzel 45:50.663
Question Through the Chair to the CBO. 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 of reference independently once the people are at the table through ERI ally process or meaningful representation the for the terms of reference to be set at that point. Um Larry Sengstock 46:32.053
Thank you Through the Chair Councillor, that's a that's 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 on that group and then we 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 and provide that expertise back into it my experience 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 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 in my opinion. Karen Finzel 47:43.737
With 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, can you correct me? Frank Wilkie 47:57.543
Well, I wasn't, so I wasn't here at the time, yeah. Kim Rawlings 48:00.743
So Through the Chair, just to build on what the CEO said, with a group like this, very important to be really clear about the purpose of the group and then the capacity and capability of who might be needed, what organisations might be needed to enable that purpose and deliver on that purpose. I think it is 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 did the same for the river management group, but groups do then check in on their terms of reference and review things like rules of engagement of the group, numbers of meetings. Times we'll meet, protocols as a group, the values that 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 49:16.664
Does anyone wish and I to speak? Before Councillor Lorentson closes? Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. Amelia Lorentson 49:25.769
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 was when the report was released. This amendment doesn't tie council into anything. Sometimes we read too much in the amendment. The intent, and the intent is live stream, and I'm telling you what the intent is. 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 around participation and meaningful representation the Destination Stewardship Council. We respect their four years and understand also our job is to represent them. That's why we're standing 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. And soul into this Destination Management Plan. Frank Wilkie 51:03.314
I'll put the amendment those in favour. Councillors Lorentson, Wilson and Finzel those against. Councillors Wegener, Stockwell, Wilkie. I use my casting amendment 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. Yeah, I will. Brian Stockwell 51:29.772
It's important after the last discussion that we do reflect on how we've got to this point and where we're heading. And councillors, you may remember I put around a detailed table and a couple of different options of governance of the stewardship council and I'm just looking here and I mentioned groups across about 10 different functions. And the decision about who goes on the stewardship council should respect the work that those who came before have done. But in my experience in developing long term strategies, the people who are quite useful and suitable in strategy development are sometimes not the right people to help you guide the implementation. If you've got a purely representative model, you tend to slow down the implementation of my experience 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 into 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 53:49.374
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. Wegener, we're going to stop. Stockwell, Finzel and Wilkie against, councillors Lorentson and Wilson, the motion's carried. 11.3.4 confidential, not public police 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 54:41.610
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 55:13.482
Okay, so that's in dispute, so some councillors say that they have received. Reports. Councillor Lorentson says you haven't. Brian Stockwell 55:23.981
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 55:37.001
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 56:01.420
Question is, when is the time for the release of the reports for the Ordinary Meeting? It's standing. Yeah. Thank you. What's the standard time for the release? Larry Sengstock 56:13.360
Yeah my understanding is that it's the close of business on the two days before. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 56:18.680
Not 10am? No, not 10am, we said the close of business is what we're working to. Toward. Okay, thank you. Nicola Wilson 56:25.142
That's 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 56:39.442
I'll say that it was close of business was Tuesday the time timeframe. 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 not. A subjective call depending on each councillor's disposition. Nicola Wilson 57:07.455
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 Larry Sengstock 57:21.016
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 they closed the of business on Tuesday was acceptable in terms of our terms of reference, so our Standing Orders. Amelia Lorentson 57:43.517
I'd yes. 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. Was that updated? Larry Sengstock 58:07.852
That's what's in the Standing Orders, so that's maybe something 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 closed for business on the Tuesday before. Amelia Lorentson 58:22.158
Through the Chair, again, my 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 58:45.816
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 that's 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 59:22.008
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 59:38.497
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 would like to have and we'll have a discussion 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 yancey wolk here to Larry Sengstock 59:59.963
Give us a summary. Deliver 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 committee has recommended chairperson for an initial three-year term. Ian has significant experience in internal Audit & 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 will ensure continuity and seamless transition for the committee to deliver independent oversight and advice on Audit & 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 a term of three years. So I'll give that to councillors. Frank Wilkie 01:01:04.408
Councillor Wilson moves the motion. Can I have a seconder? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wilson will speak to the motion. Nicola Wilson 01:01:11.848
Just briefly, I've worked with both Tim and Ian since my appointment to the Audit and Risk Committee last April, have been great 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 01:01:30.426
Thank you Councillor Wilson, anybody else wish speak to that motion? Councillor Wegener? I'd like to Tom Wegener 01:01:35.712
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 01:01:57.133
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 have Director Strategy & Environment Kim Rawlings here for the report. She was here? It's my report. 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 SPEAKER_15 01:02:29.634
Five-minute recessed comfort break. SPEAKER_06 01:10:30.544
Yes Frank Wilkie 01:10:36.204
Welcome back, everybody. We're up to item 12.2, which is the adoption of the Tourism Noosa roadmap, and Director Rawlings, or CEO Larry. Larry Sengstock 01:10:53.456
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 to draw your attention to the executive summary. In line with council's DMP, consideration of the DMP, it is now equally important to work with our partner organisations, including our local tourism organisation, which is Tourism Noosa, Mercer industry and businesses associations-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 shift toward regenerative tourism. Transition this cannot be achieved by council alone. Noosa ambition goes beyond attracting visitors. It is about ensuring tourism actively contributes to the health of our environment, the wellbeing of our community, and the protection of our unique lifestyle. An aligned local tourism organisation plays in supporting council in turning the aspirations of the Destination Management Plan into everyday practice, shaping visitor expectations, supporting local businesses, and ensuring tourism contributes positively to Noosa community, environment, as I said, in May 2025, council called for a collaborative Roadmap to be developed with Tourism Noosa, detailing council's future expectations of tourism Noosa role, structure, focus and actions and any further funding arrangements and informed by the final resolution. 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 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 businesses to deliver experiences that reflect us. 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. Are a mature local tourism organisation with strong local, national and international connections and robust channels to market developed over many years. They have strong networks and have been very successful in upholding Noosa brand as an iconic destination. Now is the time to ensure this momentum continues in a manner aligned of the line to council and community expectations and the DM. 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 Roadmap provides council with a comprehensive, evidence-based framework for the future of tourism delivery in Noosa. Developed collaboratively by Noosa Council and Tourism Noosa and informed by independent benchmarking, global best practice, the Roadmap is intended to respond to community expectations for change. How we manage and market our destination while ensuring tourism supports economic value while protecting and prioritising Noosa unique environment and lifestyle. So the Roadmap assessed a range of eight options considering role, structure and service delivery model for in alignment and alignment with the Destination Management Plan. The Roadmap process was rigorous a review of tourism Noosa current operating models, strengths and challenges. Benchmarking against destinations globally, highlighting success factors such as cultural change, partnership-based governance and sustainable funding mechanisms. An assessment of eight service delivery options against governance, financial sustainability, strategic alignment and risk and there are a number of workshops that were carried out during this process. 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. Four, collaborative shared services model; in-house delivery. Six, outsourced brand management. Seven, partnership with Regional Tourism Organisations, RTOs, which in this case is Visit Sunshine Coast. And eight, establish a new entity. Council's newly adopted DMP provides clear direction and roles for the local tourism organisation. These are summarised in this document as lead, regenerative destination marketing and storytelling, support industry development and capability. 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 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. Recommended option includes core and aligned services to the DMP such as destination marketing, international trade, visitor servicing, industry development and strengthening sustainability while balancing continuity with managed evolution ensuring transparency, efficiency and alignment with the Destination Management Plan. Recommended option also recommends changes to aspects of current service delivery that reflects an estimated 40% absorption of identified DMP actions within TNs to Noosa existing core activity demonstrating some capacity and agility with TN to adapt and make these adjustments within current funding and resources. 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 the new financial year 26-27 and undertake a review to make an organisation name change for example destination Noosa a title aligning seamlessly with the Noosa Destination Management Plan and perceived as more inclusive of the wider community whilst maintaining its relevance with the tourism sector locally nationally and internationally the change such as this signifies a new era alongside council's new strategic direction for the destination as articulated in the DMP the stewardship the report recommends council endorse option two as a preferred model option two is based on core annual funding of two million dollars plus CPI this option reinforces the importance of an evolved approach and model for the delivery of destination marketing industry development sustainability programs and visitor services for Noosa and that an evolved Tourism Noosa is a deliver these as a partner with council in line with the Destination Management Plan. The recommendation as it stands is note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the ordinary committee day-to-day. Regarding the Tourism Noosa Roadmap. Part B approve the Tourism Noosa Roadmap attachment one in accordance with the requirements of the current 12 month Tourism Noosa funding deed. Endorse option two evolve Tourism Noosa to align with the Destination Management Plan as the immediate and primary source 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 the Tourism Noosa tourism round of council meetings. I put this report to you councillors. Frank Wilkie 01:19:55.462
A seconder. I have a second. Can't stop well? As we've heard, this Roadmap outlines the way in which this tourism nursery will evolve after serving Noosa's the Noosa community very well for 25 years into a new organisation that reflects the community's aspirations for a model that better protects our environment, our liveability and prosperity. Has 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 to regenerative tourism. We're all marketing and industry development shifts to a regenerative focus where visitors are encouraged to join residents, businesses and residents as Noosa custodians, helping to care for our environment, respect our community. 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 on the Olympics the proposed new model is informed by industry benchmarking and research into global best practice for destination marketing organisations. Independent benchmarking Australian and New Zealand local and Regional Tourism Organisations indicated that Tourism Noosa was unique in many ways that it operated more like a regional tourism organisation than a local tourism organisation. The report notes it is difficult to compare like-for-like organisations due to differing visitor numbers and types, population, funding arrangements, structure and strategic focus. TAN's next form, 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 unique context. It found most were not-for-profit entities, were funded by a bed tax, dedicated debt sustainability staff as well as marketing specialists, community engagement roles, and also focused on visitor education. TN's funding is modest when compared to international destinations with access to bed taxes and diverse revenue streams. Domestic LTOs and RTOs were mostly funded by councils, but unlike Noosa where TN is funded by a higher rate for commercial properties only, others are funded by residential and other rates. Lessons learned from these global success stories and insight into global best practices were that adaptive change over time was critical. They had KPIs to measure gauze, 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 destination council. And that no one size fits all. In determining the best fit for Noosa Council, eight service delivery models were mentioned, and they have already been read out, so I won't go into them. Third is the evolve 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. Will 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 $2 million, funded by the differential rate on commercial properties. No residential rates will be used. One, the new one, involve the tourism nurse 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 sustainable. 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 by then. And TN will be a participant as a member. Other revenue.new revenue opportunities will be implemented where fees. Feasible. Regenerative tourism messaging fully embedded across campaigns. And more progress made towards having Noosa achieve eco-destination certification. It's already a leader in that regard. Year 3 is a year focused on consolidating, embedding the roles of Destination Stewardship Council, scaling up sustainability programs and visitor contribution initiatives. Years 3 plus: future evolution, expand revenue generation and explore other models, evolution into other models, if deemed appropriate. This change now starts 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 TM on the work done. TN in coming to this Roadmap. Any questions please. Questions, Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:26:23.502
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 Roadmap and KPI achievements. Have those KPI achievements been met? Larry Sengstock 01:26:47.200
Those KPIs were due by the 31st of December so we've received those. We're still, we're now currently redoing those we won't be making a decision on that until those, until we've reviewed those, KPIs. Nicola Wilson 01:27:00.508
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 01:27:19.297
Sorry, I want to ask, do you want to read? Kim Rawlings 01:27:25.337
Through the Chair that report has been received it was received after the 30th of November and it's currently under assessment. Nicola Wilson 01:27:35.897
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 01:28:15.840
So a raft of things have been considered throughout the process and the Roadmap refers to those things. It refers to estimated costs for services and within that has been a review by TN around efficiencies and organisational changes. So that sits within that process. Nicola Wilson 01:28:45.098
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 tourism future. Has that consultation occurred? Kim Rawlings 01:29:06.388
There's been significant consultation on the issues relating to our local tourism organisation, Tourism Noosa, funding of tourism activities and how 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 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 01:30:06.235
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 Noosa. Nicola Wilson 01:30:23.376
News 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 01:30:39.452
The question specifically in the survey, I don't have word for word, but the questions in the survey were directly related to the actions listed in the DMP. Draft DMP and the draft DMP had a specific action relating to reviewing Tourism Noosa and the organisation around their role. So there was a specific question around that, which we received feedback from. I'd have to refer to a document to get exact stats, but we did get 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 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 I have been Nicola Wilson 01:32:18.961
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 was sentiment 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 01:32:38.347
Yes so I think of the and Councillor Lorentson and please 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 ish um I'm looking at Councillor 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 I'm going to get this wrong Councillor Lorentson did you want to put Amelia Lorentson 01:33:28.180
I just have some percentages in front of me participant sentiment regarding Tourism Noosa 62 percent negative 17 positive 21 neutral I also have proposed actions per thing for destination management in terms of stop public funding of tourism 31 stop promoting new society or visitors 35 reduce public funding of tourism 2% reduced destination marketing 4% read direct% Nicola Wilson 01:34:01.422
So just final one then I'll come back with more later but does this road map and preferred option reflect that community sentiment Larry Sengstock 01:34:12.322
I can think just need to draw back the attention to the road map 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. What this then spells out is these are the items, these are the elements that need to be delivered and we need support with. The cost to do that is a figure that we have is around two million dollars. That's to be still I think now that 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. Nicola Wilson 01:35:12.871
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 that I'm I think that's a highly critical question. It's up to us to decide. I'm asking how the CEO's comments satisfies if we're deciding on three years funding today and we were supposed to ensure any future proposed funding decisions for tourism. These would include consultation. We haven't had that consultation, so how can we satisfy part G? That's the question. Frank Wilkie 01:35:53.459
I think you've heard from the staff that there was consultation which garnered feedback about funding, and that's the answer. Nicola Wilson 01:36:02.070
And it was against the funding. SPEAKER_06 01:36:04.530
Let's just ignore it then. Larry Sengstock 01:36:06.190
I'm happy to. In 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 February. So the idea 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 01:36:42.415
Just some clarity. Firstly, as a CEO, 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 01:37:22.164
I 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. 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 01:37:51.882
Back to the road map. 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 sources it says TBC is council expected to fund this? So where is the funding source is my question. Larry Sengstock 01:38:19.211
I agree there's no there's no commitment for that that's just what they what they're remembering this done in collaboration with Tourism Noosa. So that's what this document has. It has both our input and tourism Noosa input. This is what Tourism Noosa believes looking at the DMP timing of this is what they think is required to do it. It's for us to decide whether we're the ones who have the ability to fund or not fund. Based on what we want in terms of what delivery outcomes we want from Terrace and Noosa. Frank Wilkie 01:38:59.080
Anybody wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wilson? SPEAKER_01 01:39:04.605
On the scoring of the eight options, Nicola Wilson 01:39:08.045
How was the process arrived at? Sorry, how were the scores arrived at? Was it just one person's assessment? Or were there multiple people involved in arriving at these scores? Kim Rawlings 01:39:23.172
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. SPEAKER_06 01:39:37.490
Thank you. Nicola Wilson 01:39:39.310
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 report findings 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 01:40:43.015
Yes, there is 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 that was really the difference option one and two was more focus on alignment and evolution of their current services and that be reflected in funding agreement and KPIs Nicola Wilson 01:41:28.565
Thanks 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 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 between options one and two both have base funding of two million dollars both don't have any funding for DMP initiatives so TM will still need to continue to request budget so just could you explain please why the two are different and why one would be preferred over the other Kim Rawlings 01:42:19.334
It's a good question our current funding agreement only runs till June so it's limited you know to 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 probably could have relied on the current clause in the current 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 01:43:11.459
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 so how is this scoring higher than the stable current state I'm also noting the outsourced brand management has predictable costs 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 is yes, you've lost me. This boring could you raise it in a clear question please, Councillor Wilson. Option one for financial sustainability scored three which is moderate. Option two which has a base funding stable but needs further diversification I.e. there's no further funding to deliver the DMP promises scored four. Which is good. Seems to me that one's more risky than option one. So are you making a comment or are you asking a question? Kim Rawlings 01:45:06.062
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. Um for Tourism Noosa in an evolved model. Nicola Wilson 01:45:38.050
Just to clarify the only thing that was actually mentioned was a visitor levy question? Yeah, well, it that. 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. So you're making a statement or we need a question? No, I'm not. I'm asking what the process was of scoring these that this option was deemed less risky than the stable state. Why was option X less received? Yeah. And that was my answer. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Got a couple more. Governance. Option one was ranked three. Governance remains 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 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 the corporations act, but reduced remit work may weaken board engagement and oversight relevance. So why would it And then in that case, why does it school the same as number one? Kim Rawlings 01:47:07.964
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 01:47:50.175
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 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 how would these arrived at in terms of assessing industry whether the industry and community are supportive to be able to give those Kim Rawlings 01:48:31.820
So that was you know based on those who took part in the assessment which the working group and an understanding and you know being having a good sense by Tourism Noosa of their how they're in how their members and industry reps might perceive these changes and also it was to reflect the feedback some of the feedback we received through the process around community sentiment we know that there are some parts of the community who a little are looking for change Amelia Lorentson 01:49:13.530
Sorry and 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 or community members included as part of that working group Kim Rawlings 01:49:34.318
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 of Environment Strategy Noosa Council and the CEO of Tourism Noosa a um 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 option three we financial funding implications council contribution could reduce significant significantly 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 paired back model would actually look like in terms of cost efficiencies workforce any of those things before evaluating it Kim Rawlings 01:50:39.589
There was various scenarios looked at from scaling back what from 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 what that scaling back meant to the service and the organisation's viability and all the things that go with considering an organisation's viability. Frank Wilkie 01:51:21.954
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:51:24.914
I think I'm done unless anything comes up in the debate. Frank Wilkie 01:51:27.234
Thank you. Can I just stop Brian Stockwell 01:51:29.695
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 nurseries funded out of a component of commercial and accommodation rate, variable properties. It's no longer a tourism levy but we through the same amount, 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 01:52:30.153
I would have to confirm that, but my recollection, looking at Lynne to feel free to jump in here, is that we received submissions from business organisations, representative business organisations, seeking support for ongoing and stable funding for Tourism Noosa. I'm going to go to the Manager Economic Development and Destination Management. In the submissions we had 131 submissions an independent of those submissions and it almost was half and half. What we observed is that residents were anti-funding, but the business community. Were pro-funding. They didn't say amounts, it was sentiment. Amelia Lorentson 01:53:20.116
Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. I'd like to move an amendment please. Amendment? Yep. A lot of questions I've 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 Economic Development Levy. Specifically to reconsider whether the higher rates currently paid by commercial properties should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated levy rather than as part of general rates. Can we remove the estimator? Estimated to generate please? Remove estimated to generate approximately 8 million per annum. You very much. Approximately 8 million per annum. No, I'll just talk to-- I'll talk to that. But can we remove that from the amendment? It's just Delete that. So request the Chief Executive Officer a report of the council consideration on the reintroduction of a Tourism and Economic Development 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. Can we have a seconder for that? Second for debate. Seconder, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson. At present, commercial properties in Noosa pay a higher differential rate, which is estimated according to raise approximately $80 $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 Development 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 it is a valid amendment to the motion in front of us which doesn't address where the money comes from. I'm not clear whether there are discussions, if there is discussions on the sorts of revenue in Roadmap road map in May if there's no discussion on the source of it. May not be an appropriate amendment it goes broader, so that's a question to the CEO or to. It's simply his revenue. Sources part of the Roadmap? Kim Rawlings 01:57:48.641
Well the Roadmap does and the council report states it does have in it that council collect to the commercial properties and that is the source of where tourism is funded from so that is in the documents. Brian Stockwell 01:58:23.277
I think there's an easy way to address it that this becomes part of the. Portrait identified in very many days from then, which would make it more. Consistent with the motion. Nicola Wilson 01:58:35.270
I'll support it. As Director walling said, there is reference to commercial rates 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 case would be considered. Karen Finzel 01:59:02.193
The intent of this. It has been challenging for our community since that change came into being. From my understanding, the levy was originally set up to promote an embryonic tourism organisation. For my from my understanding at the time of the change came. It was about that organisation had matured and that we had reached a point purpose was yeah, cool business. So, I welcome the idea that we bring this discussion to the table to clarify that process. I'm not sure the day is the right place to actually 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 Development Levy that would let this fall. We could look at, like- I love the idea of going, like, we'll re-look at it and we'll revisit it. I think that's really important and highly valued when we're looking at transparency and providing a community with clear eyes on why we're making these decisions, how we're informing. 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. I'm not sure this is right forum for that, but let's get out of the way and continue to speak. Amelia Lorentson 02:01:06.581
If I could provide some clarity, Councillor Finzel. Tom Wegener 02:01:19.800
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 Development 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 02:01:47.839
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, but I like what. 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 in levy, because 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 disrobed the name, so we can't 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. I've said, we do look at 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 02:03:25.500
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 levy. Rates. Brian Stockwell 02:03:54.172
I'm happy to hear that. Shaun Walsh 02:03:57.012
Very happy to hear that. SPEAKER_06 02:04:05.083
We don't need to repeat it. Frank Wilkie 02:04:09.223
I'll just give it a take out. Challenges. Request the CEO to prepare a report to council on the reintroduction of the dedicated levy specifically to consider. Amelia Lorentson 02:04:23.154
Whether the higher well if we consider specific the reintroduction of the dedicated levy specifically to consider whether Frank Wilkie 02:04:34.074
The higher rates currently paid by commercial properties should be collected and accounted for as a dedicated of general should rights. Everyone's happy with that? Yeah. Councillor, do you want to say something? Amelia Lorentson 02:04:55.640
Basically again the amendment doesn't commit us to anything except a report to come back to council and the report you know what I'm envisaging is this discussion that we're having around 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 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've put this amendment up. Maybe three times in the last 12 months, but I just think it's really important there is too much confusion in community. And also, we need to also recognise that it is our business community that are paying the high differential rate. I just think an amendment like this also pays respect to our business community by acknowledging that their high contribution and ensuring that whether it's through a dedicated levy, that the purposes, the agreed purposes are fixed and whether those 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 02:06:59.258
As Council Stockwell, Lorentson, Wilson, Finzel, Wilkie against, Council Wegener, the amendment is carried and becomes part of the suspended motion. Any other amendments? Nicola Wilson 02:07:15.030
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 02:07:45.640
It's up to you, it's sent it up to you, we put it in its terms, if you want to put funding in there then that's that, to change that or hand that to terms that are, to be more specific but final terms of course. Yeah, it makes it funny. KPIs in funding, attached to that or associated with that. So it was really a liberal term for that reason. Nicola Wilson 02:08:17.030
I think it's pretty impossible to decide on a preferred option without knowing what it costs. Um, and the next step says confirmed future base funding of Tourism Noosa for three year agreement. So we. Thank you. Actually decided to have a three year agreement. So I'm just not sure what we're actually committing to today and where. Um. Given that this. There's references to the funding agreement and the three year figure in the report and the Roadmap, how are we not deciding on that today? Larry Sengstock 02:08:53.572
What I guess we're proposing is that if you agree that option two is the model to go forward 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 because remember when we were working through this the DMP was still in train. So we need to go back and understand that. Our assumption currently as you see in the Roadmap is they're requesting $2 million to deliver that. Whether that's the final figure, that's 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 02:09:42.079
I think there is a problem there's been. Because in the road map there is. A number and number of recommendations, including alternative options. 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 Roadmap, because yes, so, and then leave D to February, because that's just my is, B actually is. Thinking too omnibus to be useful and to interpret D. Question, when you say too many options, you're referring to the Roadmap, referring to option two and option four. So, on. Because here it says, C says Noosa option two. Yeah, but that's, in. High. Page 19, you have service delivery recommendations. And, it does say option two in C. But then you have, three is funding recommendations. Four is governance and oversight. So, three does say allocate base core funding of $2 million per annum. So, I think if B and C stand, then we are committing $2 million. And it might be good to break it down so that if certain councillors do or don't want to approve that. I'm happy with that. That's just my thinking. Nicola Wilson 02:11:44.215
Can I add another element? If you are relying on the scores from this process they refer to the amounts as well. Frank Wilkie 02:11:55.530
So what are you proposing Councillor Stockwell? What would be the change that you're proposing? Brian Stockwell 02:12:01.070
I'm not proposing any change but I'm saying if we want to out. Separate funding, the amount, then we would need to specify what recommendations in the Roadmap that we are agreeing to and what will be determined as part of the. Frank Wilkie 02:12:26.843
Specifically the funding amount as say a part, make it clear that we are not committing to 2 million as part E to this recommendation. Brian Stockwell 02:12:39.272
Yeah part of that is all 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 02:12:46.340
Can I just maybe make it a little bit simpler. Again I reference page 20. By 31st of December finalise a three year funding agreement 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 DMP or whether we're actually today confirming a three by two million dollar year plus any other Destination Management Plan actions on top of the two million dollar core base. Sorry, my suggestion is maybe it just needs some wording. Finalise three year funding agreement, base core funding, maybe that just needs to be removed. Kim Rawlings 02:13:44.221
I think Councillor stockwell's suggestions. Suggestion is the best one so far in terms of having a little break and just getting the wording right around this just to make sure it's completely accurate. Frank Wilkie 02:13:58.710
Much. Thank you. We'll have a 10-minute adjournment. SPEAKER_01_b 02:14:03.630
Are we okay with the public in the gallery? Can we have the public in the gallery? Frank Wilkie 02:41:16.140
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 only myself has spoken to the motion. Does anybody else like to speak to the motion? Amelia Lorentson 02:41:45.097
I still have quite a few questions I'd like to ask. Questions? Councillor Lorentson. 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. The report states it's of high level, and as it reads, it's largely descriptive. I'm just trying to understand, have I missed something? Are there any quantitative or evidence-based analysis that underpins the one to five scores for each criteria? Kim Rawlings 02:42:36.300
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 02:43:00.361
So there's no other analysis other than what's presented on the page 12 of the report? Kim Rawlings 02:43:07.620
The analysis is presented as the attachments in the eight tables appendix B. Appendix B. The explanation of the scorings and the criterion ratings is on page 12. Amelia Lorentson 02:43:22.719
So okay where I'm going with this I'm just trying to understand would a million dollar funding arrangement constitute what we would consider a significant procurement under council's policy and what documentation and evaluation standards would apply and should we be applying them to this report Larry Sengstock 02:44:00.930
Yes money, there's no question about it. It's a significant funding arrangement so it would be subject to and that's why we're suggesting that we come to a future meeting for endorsement because we need to do that work. Amelia Lorentson 02:44:15.013
You very much. 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 looked at combining moving tourism in-house and having an independent advisory group and then a Roadmap towards something like an economic, a Brisbane economic style development agency. Because we're all other reasonable options, properly assessed and reported before committing to long-term arrangements or the only ones the eight presented. Kim Rawlings 02:45:02.616
So the ones you just described of the eight presented five is bringing it in-house. Option eight is a new entity like an economic development and tourism organisation and as you can see option combines a in number of those. So yes your what was what you just articulated was assessed and considered. Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 02:45:34.769
Yes, Through the Chair. Just a question around when you are negotiating with jurors and Noosa, is a procurement option one of the considerations that can be brought to that conversation? And how would that work? Is that a possibility? SPEAKER_06 02:45:54.319
Option six is that. Larry Sengstock 02:45:58.499
Sorry, Councillor, when you say a procurement option, what? As a service option that goes like any other procurement process. Oh, sorry, yes. Option sorry, option six, consider that. So in terms of, sorry, in terms of each of the actions you were looking at procuring. That's right, sorry. Yes, that was option six that we considered in SPEAKER_06 02:46:23.615
Thank you, thank you. Further questions, Councillor Finzel? No, Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:36.664
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. Frank Wilkie 02:47:21.860
Second that? Karen Finzel 02:47:25.540
I'm happy to second the debate. Frank Wilkie 02:47:28.000
Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Amelia Lorentson 02:47:32.140
Just, council's been asked to make significant and long term decisions about the government. Future of tourism governance and funding in Noosa and these decisions carry financial, operational and reputational implications and to me it should not be made without a complete and transparent understanding of all viable options. To me at the moment I don't see in front of me a fully costed comparison of all reasonable delivery and governance models including alternatives and hybrid models to the current arrangements. Without this information I can't be as a Councillor confident that a model of selecting a model that delivers the best value accountability and outcomes for our community. Preparing a clear Roadmap that assesses costs and compares all options side-by-side will provide council with the evidence needed to make a sound and defensible decision. 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 is aligned with long-term strategic objectives rather than short-term convenience. This amendment strengthens transparency and also acts responsibly interests of best Noosa by basing its decisions on complete, accurate and publicly defensible information. Karen Finzel 02:49:19.106
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 02:49:42.228
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 is something I don't think that we as an organisation are geared for and or the timeline for this would be would be quite 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 environment at the time. So it's really trying to get us to a point. There's no question that we've been successful over many years with Tourism Noosa to say it's an immediate fix is really not the case this is really looking at it and saying this is the most appropriate 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 02:51:21.890
As it comes on 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 community for 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 and where's the time that we could take it back to community. Larry Sengstock 02:52:14.467
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 quantum that's being proposed in here then that will today for the then that will come back we'll do more work come back with a future I'm comfortable with that timing of that I would have to have that conversation. Tourism mission if that's the decision or the direction. Does that answer your question? Sorry it's a timing thing and I'm not sure that when the timing is we're talking February here obviously we're sitting in December at Christmas you know everything's squeezed so you know I'd much prefer to have a bit more time but I'm not sure we can given the limitations of the organisation of Tourism Noosa they're at a point where they you know they want to make decisions going forward as well Frank Wilkie 02:53:13.027
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 so it's a very good advisory way forward it does it has explored eight different models different options it's benchmarks global benchmark global best practice its benchmark 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 get to ask for another Roadmap to be done in my mind is just absurd and a waste of ratepayers money I won't be supporting it. Nicola Wilson 02:54:25.720
I'll it, I think it's absurd. That support we've taken seven months to get to this point and still don't have full costings we really have a that's got analysis of all the different options we've just have a Roadmap we've just ended up back at the base case level of what we already spend that's really not what I was expecting after seven months of research and analysis and I think the community deserves better we need to be transparent we need to have meaningful consultation as we promised in the resolution back in May and we need to have as councillors a complete and evidence-based basis for decision-making I don't feel I've got that today and I don't need to be patronised about that 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 it on an unfinished document and items that haven't been posted and we adopt this Roadmap today there's a two million dollar figure that's all over it how do we ever decide that we're going to have a different funding amount when the public is seeing this two million dollars obviously the working group has decided on this two million dollars and where does council actually get to decide on this? Frank Wilkie 02:55:43.452
The councillors will speak to the amendment. SPEAKER_08_b 02:55:45.892
Councillor Finzel. Yes please, a question back Through the Chair to the CEO. The opportunity given we're at this decision-making place we've arrived here today we have to Karen Finzel 02:56:03.600
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 TM around the dollar value I think we're all seeking confidence today given the pressure from that we heard and listened way back as far as our campaign to run and represent our community today be transparent yes it's a question at what point does the two million dollars the question is the two million dollars a figure that can be changed Larry Sengstock 02:57:10.101
Thank you Councillor the report makes a recommendation for option two option two has a figure of two million dollars attached to that as a recommendation it is that the report is also based on the DMP and the actions out of the DMP the DMP was only decided on Monday in terms of the actions so yes my if you wish today to go down that path in my opinion my position would be yes you could you could what I propose is we go back to Tourism Noosa understand exactly what the 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 what the would 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 that's what is possible Frank Wilkie 02:58:26.061
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 it stands option two which basically is that TM 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 that the Roadmap today that's what you'll go away and come back with after talking to the news in terms of the deed when you agree the final terms and council will decide in February whether they accept that or not. Larry Sengstock 02:59:08.602
That'll be the other decision I think that the only case the for that is that the recommendation is says two million dollars so if you want to make it like a part of your amendment or resolution that you don't accept that two million dollars at this point but you accept a future report that outlines what the potential cost for those services are then that's a safer way to go if you like in terms of the position we're in. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:59:40.948
Through that negotiation you're saying there's possibly opportunity to actually reduce the amount of two million based on your negotiation of two million? Amelia Lorentson 02:59:52.408
Point of order we've got an amendment in front of us and I'm confused as to where conversation is going. I'm allowing it because Frank Wilkie 03:00:00.728
It talks to funding which is instrumental Larry Sengstock 03:00:18.498
Be is more properly costed and understood at that point again more than likely would be and we'd be looking to understand exactly what it is and you would get a costing against each of the actions and then it's a decision for council as to whether you accept those actions. Frank Wilkie 03:00:34.698
So far only Councillor Lorentson, Wilkie and Wilson have spoken to the amendment. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Lorentson, do you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 03:00:47.925
I do. I'm going to start off with the formation of the working group. Brian Stockwell 03:00:57.425
It's made up of the Tourism Noosa board member, Tourism Noosa there was no mention of the working group in the debate closed should only respond to what was raised debate or it will what's in there. It's bringing in new business into a close which is not permitted by the Standing Orders. Frank Wilkie 03:01:22.050
That is true Councillor Stockwell. Please sit down Councillor Lorentson. There is no mention of the working group. In the members of the community. That is true working group. Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:01:39.954
So in my opening speech I talked about risk so I'm going to continue on that basis. The options analysis and the Roadmap carries a risk. 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 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 but 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 interest of the community. So please Mayor Wilkie, I ask that you refer from referring to delay, defer or obstruction tactics when all the councillors are asking for is complete information. Robust information. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:03:35.717
I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Lorentson, Wilson and Finzel. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Stockwell and Wilkie. I'll use my casting vote. The amendment is lost. Anyone else speaking? Wish to try and speak to the motion? SPEAKER_06 03:03:52.361
I'd like to move an amendment please. Unknown 03:04:12.180
Is that what you want to do? Frank Wilkie 03:04:18.120
Yes please Councillor. Karen Finzel 03:04:25.040
Watch. Right, that item B be available. 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 completed the 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, 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 03:05:53.089
Someone care to second that? I'm sorry question to the Chair first. Is the amendment in front of us ultra vires? What do well, it doesn't negate the intent of the original motion. Frank Wilkie 03:06:17.606
Not from what I can see. Larry Sengstock 03:06:26.307
Sorry, if I can speak. The original motion refers to bringing the report back in February in terms of the agreement. So this is really just refining that a little further. In my mind. Frank Wilkie 03:06:49.190
Did someone like to second? This? For the purpose of the debate. Thank you Councillor Wegener. Councillor Finzel you have the floor. Karen Finzel 03:07:04.461
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 think when we talk about psychosocial hazards in the workplace and the pressure that this has put us under at the end of the year in a short amount 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. Today, I'm choosing to put this amendment up to help you with some clarity and progress this forward with the intent to try and. Provide leadership in a very difficult intersection that we have found ourselves up against the wall in December, I might add, you know, anyway, we're just going to try and get some leadership around this table and I bring this forward for debate to see if we can progress it any further. Frank Wilkie 03:08:30.097
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 03:08:34.617
Councillor Finzel, could you actually explain to me how the changes, what you're changing about the original recommendation? Karen Finzel 03:08:49.065
Intent? Yeah. Well, I think it's trying to just bring debate around the table to try and bring to the light that amount of funding through the deed is not what we're deciding today. We're agreeing to the Roadmap, in my opinion, so that then that allows the agreement with Tourism Noosa that has to come to a conversation, from my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, to the CEO. We can't move forward, apparently, based on legal advice you know, that's where we're at. We can't change that, is that correct? That's the given. So how do we inch ourselves towards an outcome that can progress the conversation around aligning a future agreement with TN as the 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 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 03:10:45.120
I'm 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. Some want the an 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. For option 2, the indicative costs are $2 million. So, make a decision, you support that or not. This says endorse option 2, but we may not agree to 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 because I don't know how other councillors feel. If you support the $2 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 03:12:43.848
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? Dorset road map agreed. To give the so they need that certainty to progress forward. I don't believe this amendment supports, this a question or are you debating? This support a locked in figure of two million dollars 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. Larry Sengstock 03:13:48.926
Through the Chair, Karen brown. Councillor Finzel, yes you're correct so what's what we're proposing here is that we agree that the Tourism Roadmap so that then we can the second tranche of funding for um for Tourism Noosa for this current um deed could be progressed as long as the KPIs are met we still have to finalise those as we talked about it now but then it also what it does is we endorse the option two as a guiding framework um 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 that's the if that makes it clear. Nicola Wilson 03:14:49.680
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 um so 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 um here that means we're not locked into that figure of two million dollars because they were still costing to be done um 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 endorse them funds today for any particular period but we are saying there will be an ongoing relationship with TN if this is supported. I believe in the resolution in May last year we 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. Tom Wegener 03:16:21.160
I'll speak to it. With the funding, I totally get where you're coming from, but we are given 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, I want them to be, to feel confident to be funded right so we can start, this now. Frank Wilkie 03:17:08.200
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:17:12.040
With all due respect I think that we should be also considering what's important to our community, not just Tourism Noosa. I am in support of the motion amendment in front of us and I think it's a really good middle ground. It doesn't commit us to funding and requires that we get more information before we actually make any decisions. Tom Wegener 03:17:41.685
Got I've got a question, without 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 enough? It enough to agree to the Roadmap but not agree to any funding? Larry Sengstock 03:18:08.702
From my discussions with who's amused, I believe that we've got the ability to. What it gives them is some surety between now and July 1, or June 30, for the second tranche of funding. And the negotiation, we've taken the position where, as a guiding framework, we accept that they are the relationship 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 03:18:53.136
So there's not much of a change at all as far as the funding goes. 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 03:19:11.377
What it what it does is basically says deliver the DMP as best we knew. 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 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 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 03:20:02.238
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 many could there Larry Sengstock 03:20:17.970
Be others? Could there be another fee? No, that's what I'm saying is by this amendment is saying we're not locked in, we need to work that through and we have to make a decision and if they need to make a case for each of these pieces. I'm comfortable with this as an amendment, I think this meets the needs and gives us the ability, which we always wanted to do, but timeframes and getting this through hadn't allowed us to do, but this gives us a bit more time to actually. Work it through and come back to some more detail. It's really just giving us the ability to finalise the 12-month planning agreement, the deed, and also to say, well, Tourism Noosa is the body that we believe has got the ability to, at this point, the ability to help us with the DMP. What that means is we need to now really knock down and come back to you in February with a further plan. Frank Wilkie 03:21:20.674
So if this is yours, the figure that you may come back with may be $2 million, maybe more, maybe less. Larry Sengstock 03:21:30.826
And I can't. You've seen. Sorry. Yeah, it could vary. We don't know what the cost is. 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 be 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 doing that if the other motion gets up? Look. Motion? Option, the original motion no that would that would commit us to well that would we still bring it back and prove it but we committed it 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 numbers, that you can then decide upon. Frank Wilkie 03:22:23.637
So we're not locking ourselves in. It commits us to following through and delivering option two, which is the evolved TN model. And whatever that may cost. And that's what you come back with in February, as opposed to with the other month, it's locked into two yes. Now. Thank you. Okay, I like that then. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 03:22:49.249
I think we need a bit of clarity because I know councillors are feeling under pressure and I know 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. When we made that decision, we didn't perceive that there'd be such an extended period of negotiations. And those negotiations have resulted in what's in front of us as the Roadmap. And we've been subbed 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. Of just over $3 million, and of that, they're suggesting $2 million would be needed from council to provide those core services. And that's really 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 we're not agreeing, because we're not 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 before 31st of December to go down this track. If that written agreement doesn't come, we're technically in breach. That's the risk. The CEOs' CEO's what we've got 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 to the community saying we've achieved that. We've already done those negotiations and we already know what the answer is that for 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 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. Frank Wilkie 03:26:34.037
Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 03:26:36.377
To the CEO, the semantics between approve and agree to. Seems to be quite a difference between the two. Larry Sengstock 03:26:49.662
Sorry, Through the Chair. In the deed, it requires us to agree. Roadmap by 31st of December. So that's why we've changed it to that term, agree. That allows me to then continue through. Again, it's the Roadmap as well as the KPIs before we can provide the second tranche. Amelia Lorentson 03:27:13.190
Question to this CEO, a just to follow up from what Councillor Stockwell just referred to, agreeing to this amendment, as I've understood from Councillor Stockwell, is there is a very slim that $2 work that's been done in terms of what is core service delivery for Tourism Noosa, that $2 million isn't really going to change much, am I correct? Larry Sengstock 03:27:43.662
Based on the information and you've all seen the spreadsheets, based on that, that's where it's at, but I can't say whether it will or won't, but that's what Tourism Noosa is saying is required to run their business. I think there's an ability to negotiate, 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 03:28:13.403
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 in front of us, amendment we're agreeing to something that we don't know. I figure we don't know. Larry Sengstock 03:28:35.520
That's correct, but it's also what it's agreeing to is the ability for us to go back and understand exactly what the elements that we want from the DMP and what each of those cost and whether we're prepared to actually pay for those elements. Amelia Lorentson 03:28:49.788
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 03:29:07.477
None of those have been agreed by us. Nicola Wilson 03:29:12.100
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 03:29:42.003
Well in my opinion, it wasn't. This clarifies it. Frank Wilkie 03:29:52.200
Can I, oh, Karen Finzel 03:29:54.300
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. In 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 03:30:20.023
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, I have confidence that will happen, my discussions, um, and all that's all I can say, but I have confidence that they understand that and that they're willing to accept that. Karen Finzel 03:30:48.095
Through the Chair, that didn't really satisfy me. Are we in breach of the current agreement with the wording on this amendment? Larry Sengstock 03:31:00.942
No, we're not currently in breach of the agreement because it says we need to be. It needs to be in writing from both parties. So until that's not agreed, we're not in breach. Brian Stockwell 03:31:15.809
Yeah, can you. 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 CEO is saying. He feels that agreement in writing is a likelihood. Frank Wilkie 03:31:37.515
From the advice given to him. By December 31st. Larry Sengstock 03:31:43.771
He's 31st. 13th of December, but to push it out before we reclaim the actual funding. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 03:31:49.307
So it sounds like there's a risk if this goes out SPEAKER_08_b 03:31:52.946
In the current wording the risk and is that it will still proceed to over $2 million. Do you identify that as a risk? It's an unknown. Is that a risk? I'm concerned now about breach and risks and gaps, which are huge. Larry Sengstock 03:32:17.279
I don't. Personally, I don't believe that. I think it's a very, very, very, very small risk. Because of my discussions with Tourism Noosa, and I don't believe we're in breach, and there's also, within the deed, there's opportunities for dispute, a 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 03:32:47.533
Question. I think I asked this back in May. Clause 2.10 says, and this is potentially where we're at. In the event the Roadmap is mutually agreed by the parties, but not yet endorsed, which is why we've got agreed rather than endorsed still, by 31st of December. 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 need to leave agreement, I've 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 03:33:36.002
Thank you very much. Thank you. Kim Rawlings 03:33:41.772
The wording of the agreement is very specific to anticipate this scenario. So it says two things. It says that the Roadmap needs to be mutually agreed. The Roadmap has been mutually 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. Sorry, Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 03:34:30.045
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 03:34:38.304
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. Brian Stockwell 03:34:52.284
I think that's one clause. The clause I was referring to is separate. Can you just clarify? Kim Rawlings 03:34:57.703
Yes, the clause, the second clause is that discussions about any, current agreement is a 12-month agreement and expires on the 30th of June 2026. There's a clause in there that says discussions must be undertaken in, starting in November on any, on potential for a further funding agreement and discussions provide have the in front of me? Yeah, thanks Nicola, thank you, that would be helpful. Thank you. So the parties will commence discussions after the 1st of November 2025, which has happened, regarding a potential further term, funding for the further term and the terms on which the funding may be provided, and will conclude those discussions by the 31st of December. So we have to have had discussions around any potential further term or funding agreement, funding by, and advised Unless, that great, 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 Noosa by the 31st of December. SPEAKER_02 03:36:32.787
Thanks. I'm sorry, I was just going to say. Frank Wilkie 03:36:35.607
Councillor Stockwell, do you have a question? Brian Stockwell 03:36:38.087
No, that's clarified quite about where we're at. Karen Finzel 03:36:43.765
Consult? Finzel? Yeah, look, Through the Chair, look, I'm not, I think I'm going to withdraw this because I'm not comfortable, it doesn't give us 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've certainly sent a strong message that we preferred them as that provider. Know, however, 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. You know, 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 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 03:38:23.347
Councillor Wegener, do you have a seconder? Do you consent to the motion being, the amendment being withdrawn? That's be in the whole council. Brian Stockwell 03:38:30.226
I had the agreement cancelled. Frank Wilkie 03:38:32.666
Okay, and all in favour? That's councillors regner, Stockwell, Lorentson, Finzel and Wilkie against. Is withdrawn. We go back to. SPEAKER_06 03:38:46.700
It has to be consented by the whole council to be withdrawn. Frank Wilkie 03:39:00.475
Shall not speak. Brian Stockwell 03:39:01.755
I don't think it has to be 100%. The seconder and Councillor. That's a majority, isn't it? A majority. A majority? Yeah. That's a majority. SPEAKER_06 03:39:12.615
Okay. Councillor Wilson. Double check. Nicola Wilson 03:39:16.535
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 03:39:50.422
Unless we've got a written agreement to take? We've do we have that? No. we don't. But that's the reason for the withdrawal is my understanding of that. But my. I feel confident that we should get that. Frank Wilkie 03:40:07.788
Okay, so, far only himself has spoken to the original motion, which is as the amendment added about the levy. 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. Karen Finzel 03:40:45.460
Can we just have a break before we go to that point? Frank Wilkie 03:40:49.280
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 03:56:48.940
Welcome back, everybody. We're now. We have a five-part motion before us and to which only Councillor Wilkie has spoken. Who else wish to speak? We'll move an amendment. Councillor Wilson. I'd like to move an amendment, please. Yes, Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 03:57:08.940
Let item F be added to read. Request in relation that to item D, council's procurement department lead the development of any future funding agreements. Happy to second the debate. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. We've had a lot of going around in circles today trying establish what exactly we're voting on today, whether it's just a Roadmap 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 we, the 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 we're approving under this resolution today and where the decision about funding will be made. Usually we're spending amounts of if 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 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 03:59:41.430
So, isn't council's procurement department involved in all funding agreements with council along with governments and finance and procurement Larry Sengstock 03:59:57.980
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. So that's where it's sort of gone 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 KPI's and then it's going to be a bit longer 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 there are service providers, so they're part of it and they 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. Sorry, just to answer Mayor wilkie's question, they're not currently involved, is that correct, in this agreement? They 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. Nicola Wilson 04:01:39.474
I'm happy to amend that to support if that doesn't change it too much. Frank Wilkie 04:01:43.954
I'm happy to agree to that. I think that's a good change. Can we change that please? Thank you. Okay, anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Amelia Lorentson 04:02:01.200
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. I'm in two million dollars, it's not our money, it's community funds. I think this is a really good addition. Happy to support. Councillor Finzel? Yes, Karen Finzel 04:02:28.711
Thank you Councillor Wilson for representing 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. Frank Wilkie 04:02:49.186
Thank you. Yeah of course of course we support it. I think the change from LEED, the development of the futures funding alliance, to support is a really wise one. Obviously the departments involved need to be, read discussions procurement there and support is extremely wise. Brian Stockwell 04:03:13.583
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 the sleep 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 04:03:52.692
You wish to close? The amendment goes in favour. That's unanimous. It becomes part of the substandard motion. Are there any more amendments? Anyone wish to speak to the substandard motion? No. I'll keep going. Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 04:04:17.472
No. That we have A really diverse set of opinions in the community. And as we heard from those who are engaged enough to bribe written comment into the phase 2 of the Destination Management Plan, there is a sizeable body of people in our community who would not support this approach. And I can tell you a lot of the people that I've heard very vocally advocating for that approach, a lot of them have been very long-term supporters the way I look up 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 lever to address over tourism and why I don't think that's a wise move. And there's another whole group in the community who just see an amount of money and think well that could be better served from fixing potholes. And we know that a previous amendment will try look at an outcome so that people are really aware that this is an amount of money as part of the overall pie for economic development and that those who pay those rates have not raised opposition to it and so while why I think on a big picture it's important to follow the Roadmap is. We've got a very significant analogy. An analogy, an aircraft carrier. Which we call the visitor economy in Noosa. It's been one of the biggest economic boats we've had for a long time and what I think just pulling pin would do would be setting that 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 road map lists some of them. And what are those actions? And so I suppose to me, it also brings in this concept of not having consultation. I don't need any more specific questions going out to the public and saying, "Do you support this amount of money? " Because I know what the response is. We've heard from them. They've been very effective advocates, and a lot of the people who oppose are very effective long-term advocates for the good of Noosa, and course, they see it as a good for Noosa. And I. Look, and I argue that I'm right and they're wrong. And I 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 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 just brand management and have a small 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 within the Roadmap really a guide for how council is 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. That was another one that the successful ones were tourism destinations that have evolved to a point where they're now world's best practice. And we gave one example where they tried to make a significant change in the way they delivered it and they were successful in that transformation. Partnerships matter. Effective collaboration between council, tourism 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. Funding is a key enabler. Sustained investment, and that's what we're talking about now, being the driver of this, trying to get more than a year after year and constantly having to run up against deadlines for no one size fits all. So they're the key messages that came out of our global benchmarking, and while I understand all the queries and comments today, I have enough with what's in this Roadmap and what we've heard in our newest workshops to say that 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 tourism destination map and to get the fine details sorted out in February. Frank Wilkie 04:11:14.330
Thank you Councillor Stockwell, is there anyone else who wants to speak before I close? Tom Wegener 04:11:22.799
Go ahead, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Finzel, this a typical Tom speech. A great Mayor said that a nice place to live is a nice place to visit. And that is Noosa. But there's a threat and the threat is from that this is maybe deteriorating as 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 threat of over tourism of overpopulation 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, you study it. You create an answer and we have endorsed the Destination Management Plan and now we need to get it going to enable it and so today we're looking at the 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 groups that are still in a little bit been a long morning but the groups that are for this of course the Tourism Noosa the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation Zero Emissions Noosa 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 my 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 volunteer and they're in the same situation where on well first of all the majestic theatre is run by the Pomona arts incorporation and they run the market 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 you have little seed productions and all these other groups using this fantastic theatre that is not funded by council it is privately funded through the 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 piece 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 our the volume of our wealth comes from. Basis 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 04:15:59.200
Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 04:16:00.440
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 root. When we invest in solid organisational foundations, clear processes, open communication and a culture of learning, we create conditions where the 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 improved transparency, minimising reputational, financial and delivery around change facilitation. Each of us has a role in shaping the path ahead. Align our strengths, share our insights and move with purpose, we turn vision into reality. So let's begin one informed step at a time. Toward a future where we design together, 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. And trust is what allows real collaboration to take hold. What we're building together isn't change for sake of change. It's shared future shaped 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. Strong foundation of good governance is what makes visionary change feel not just possible, but safe, shared, and genuinely exciting. When people can see that the decisions are guided by clear principles, transparent processes, and considered accountability, trust stops being something we hope for and becomes something we build together. Reinforcing that governance culture doesn't require grand gestures. Starts with everyday habits. Creating open channels for honest feedback. Making decision making criteria visible and ensuring roles and responsibilities are clearly understood to help all people feel grounded rather than uncertain. These small signals show that the foundation beneath the change is steady. Deepening collaborative trust grows from similar 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 naturally create together. People feel it when decisions are made with care, when voices are genuinely welcomed and when the purpose behind change is grounded and shared. In shared humanity. This is the kind of foundation that makes collaboration not just 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 passion, ignites 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 meaningful, sustainable change. Frank Wilkie 04:22:56.258
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 04:23:02.838
I might need a little leniency please. 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 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 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 two days. 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 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 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. 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. Without 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 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 2 sets a base of $2 million, 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. This model can't actually support an evolved DMP-aligned 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-paying. 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. 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 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 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 04:29:18.135
Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 04:29:27.380
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 to act in the best interest of the community. That requires us to test assumptions, understand financial exposure and make decisions based on clear evidence, not to commit funding first and work out the details later. Yet the recommendation in front of us largely preserves the existing model and funding level with proposed improvements only to be developed after funding is secured. That reverses good governance practice and exposes 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 governance requires that councillors are presented with the full range of options, clear costs and an independent assessment of risk before a model is endorsed. Anything less falls short of due diligence and the 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 performance, priorities or oversight. The recommendation also in front of us commits significant base funding to Tourism Noosa before KPI thresholds and accountability measures are properly defined. There are no explicit triggers for intervention, for example if regenerative tourism outcomes or community expectations are not met, creating both financial and reputational risk for council. Has been very positive. 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 significant financial and structural decision again we're talking about two million dollars of community funds. It leaves me as a Councillor without the evidence needed to make a confident and informed choice about the future of tourism governance in Noosa. I support tourism preferred body to deliver some of the actions in the Destination Management Plan. That's not in question. What's in question today is the until the report. Gaps in the are resolved, 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 04:33:50.640
Councillors, councillors it's easy 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 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 schools and 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 road map 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? Now that's Lorentson, Wilson, and pinzel. And Finzel. I use my casting vote. The Tourism Noosa Roadmap is being endorsed. We now move on to the next item on the agenda, which is 20/25/2022.3 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. Margaret Gatt 04:36:41.700
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 fraud event of December 2024. Forward 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 event to mitigate or minimise risk of any subsequent fraudulent events. The perpetrators, as mentioned in the previous report, used social engineering techniques that were sophisticated, strategic and targeted. While council systems and services were not affected by this fraud, the incident did highlight non-compliance with some of our standard processes. Through our subsequent investigations, we have identified that there were elements of human error that contributed to some failures in our internal controls. I'll just provide a high-level overview of some of the analysis around our control environment. So we do have standard operating procedures designed to prevent fraudulent activity. And these procedures incorporate key internal controls intended to safeguard financial processes and ensure compliance. Some of 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 generated 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. Councillors, our support 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 supply 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 suppliers email address from an independent source such as the suppliers 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 were caught regarding payments or questioning of it to be escalated to a senior officer for action in summary these lessons highlight the importance of us consistently applying existing controls enhancing verification processes and fostering a culture future of vigilance to protect council from similar incidents in the 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 in the process of implemented implementation of a third-party software protection that validates banking details regularly regular mandatory cyber security training for all staff that cyber security just to clarify also includes social engineering and other identifying fraudsters. Development of an 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 the commitment. Staff to compliance with that policy and procedure through the understanding of the impacts of non-compliance both financial and reputational. A council system control where changes to supplier contact details require approval. The requirement for all changes to supplier accounts to be recorded in a register of creditor changes which is reviewed by a senior officer monthly to identify any patterns or anomalies that may indicate fraudulent activity. And council lastly 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 the implementation of this FMAP embeds a proactive risk-based approach to the organisation and is consistent with previous recommendations from the auditor-General in reports to parliament for local government. As part of the incident analysis, corrective measures and considering lessons learned 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 integrity and ethical conduct, ensuring the prevention of fraud and corruption throughout all areas of our operations. Council maintains a strict zero tolerance stance on fraud and corruption. These behaviours undermine public trust compromised service delivery and damage to reputation of local government. Fraud and corruption control is a shared responsibility. I will leave the report there, councillors, and I'm happy to answer any appropriate questions. Frank Wilkie 04:43:10.730
We are in formal session. Be asked and answered after the motion is moved. Someone can move the motion. I'm happy to move the motion. Councillor Stockwell. I second. Wilson. Councillor Stockwell. I Brian Stockwell 04:43:28.520
Thank Acting Director Gatt for her verbal and written 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 had a lot of angst in our community as any problem. Crime has victims and what I think we as councillors have to be aware of that the matter has been analysed. In a detailed way and we've been privy to a range of detailed step-by-step sort of briefings that gives us an understanding of both what happened and 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 in it. 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 that the openness and honesty and also the steps taken to minimise our risk into the future. Nicola Wilson 04:45:03.340
I think various people will speak. I want to thank directors. 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. Team's also been working with the external auditors, KPMG and the QAO who are obviously external to establish the facts, ensure no other events have occurred and record the event appropriately in the financial statements. I'd like to thank Acting Director Gatt for all the improvements she has made this year in such challenging circumstances and the full finance and 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 to the hay thing, 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 04:47:01.788
That's awesome. I'd like to move in a minute. Amendment that council 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 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. SPEAKER_06 04:48:24.440
One I'll second. Frank Wilkie 04:48:26.320
The second of the original motions of the time pope. Oh, yeah. It's now a second of the amendment lapses. So the amendment has lapsed. Go back to the original motion. That's the one with the second. And anyone else wish to speak to the original motion that had Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Wilson so far? Amelia Lorentson 04:49:05.360
I will. In October, I moved an amendment at the Ordinary Meeting, recorded in the minutes of 16 October, 2025. That council commit to releasing a publicly accessible follow-up report by the December round of meetings. That report was to address key questions raised by the community and outline findings, actions taken, lessons learned, subject to legal and privacy obligations. The amendment was supported by the majority of councillors. Firstly, I do want to acknowledge and thank our Acting Director, Margaret Gatt, for the resilience to implement and not expertise, just thank you, mark. You started at a very difficult time, the council, and the way you've yourself ten 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. It 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 is asking. Who takes responsibility and what are the consequences? Again, as I said first time round, this is not about blame, it's about leadership. And leadership means buck 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. Inadequately resourced. 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. 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. 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 I'm just please continue with your thing without knowing how the council is going to do it. 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 they would their own. You there, Councillor Lorentson. Linesmith? Supporting board. Impugning your problem motives. We're 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. Happy to if that's what was inferred. Thank you. Finished just us with this. Public trust is earned. Leadership is demonstrated. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 04:54:03.842
You very much. I want to apologise for this event today has been used as a platform to lectern, which is very disappointing. I remember distinctly back in October the CEO saying if anyone is responsible for this, we're if you're looking for someone blame me. Say that in an interview. At this table, I said I'm sorry this has happened. Regarding this report, it is a grant report and tomorrow. And at the time, we did raise the possibility that due to legal and policy 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. Of what went wrong, and what's been done subsequently to mitigate against that ever happening again. There are people in this organisation who, more than us, a million times more than us, have been hurt. 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 are probably they hurting even more as a result of some things they may have heard around the stable today. So we're dealing with human error and with human error we're also dealing with human frailty. People make mistakes and it's also human nature I guess for some to seek to blame and that's the other downside of this but anyone who's interested can see steps taken subsequently to react and protect against this ever happening again and there are lots of lessons learned for all of us so i'd I would like CEO, he did so. For this to happen if anyone's to blame he did say that he did take responsibility and if you've seen his press statements recently he's done the same again it takes a large person to do that and I'm that this has happened as well. I can't help it any other way thank you. Now, council 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's 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 according thank 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. The staff. I pass on my thanks through you, Mr CEO, thanks to the staff for their great support and work, enormous workload throughout the year, what they do every day to. Make the shawarma bread. 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've joined us here today, thank you for coming along. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
