Ordinary Meeting - 18 June 2026
Date: Thursday, 18 June 2026 at 10:00AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 04:13:58
Synopsis: Active Street halted; grant reallocation sought, Tourism Noosa deed approved, Fees and charges adopted, Grants endorsed with guideline review, Biosecurity engagement, Financials stable.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Jessica Phillips Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Community Services Kerri Contini AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Petition to install lighting on pathway Yellowood Close–Tewantin Sporting Fields received and referred to CEO (5.1; 01:10–02:50). Report requested on process, framework, timeframe and cost to move to divisional boundaries; carried unanimously (10.1; 12:36–19:27). Audit & Risk Committee recommendations adopted en bloc, incl. cyber risk update, QAO briefings, internal audit closouts, financial exception framework, STA legal posture (11.1.1–11.1.22; 21:40–23:58). Peregian Beach Active Street Stage 1: staff motion to delegate contract award lost (For: Stockwell, Wegener); Council instead resolved project not proceed in current form and seek grant reallocation to practical works (footpaths, stormwater, parking, street planting); report back ASAP (11.2.1; 23:58–01:48:36). Community Grants Program approvals: Projects, Facility Development, Equipment, Events, and Three‑Year Signature Community Event Grants endorsed (11.2.2–11.2.7; 01:48–01:56). Legacy Plot Reservation Management Policy adopted to manage unused cemetery reservations 25+ years old (11.2.8). Sport4All outcomes noted; consider ongoing access & inclusion function and framework subject to future funding (11.2.9). Noosa Botanic Gardens Masterplan approved to guide future funding/programming (11.2.11). Tourism Noosa Deed 2026–2029 approved: $2m p.a. (CPI cap 3.5% from Y2), Balanced Scorecard KPIs, performance-based second instalment adjust up to $350k; CEO authorised to execute/administer (11.2.12). Draft Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2026–2031 endorsed for community engagement; report back after submissions (11.2.13). Land rationalisation (Lanyana Way/Noosa Dr) approved to proceed via land exchange under LGR s236(1)(c)(v); no fetter of DA role; all costs by proponent (11.2.16). Environment Project Grants (Round 21) approved: Teewah Turtle Trackers $17,301.16; Noosa & District Landcare $10,870.84; Wildlife Noosa $6,828 (12.1; 01:56–02:01). Climate Change Response Grants (Round 6) approved: NBRF Youth Climate Summit $14,820; Zero Emissions Noosa (ZEN) Swap the Drive $12,899.06; NICA Urban Wildlife Gardens $11,150; ZEN Solar on Low‑Income Homes $10,000; plus directive to review grant guidelines with public consultation before next round (12.2; 02:04–03:10). 2026–27 Fees & Charges adopted under LGA ss 97, 98, 262(3)(c); CEO authorised minor edits (12.3; 03:45–03:51). Financial Performance to 31 May 2026 noted; stable, no material risks identified; capital re‑profiling driving cash position (12.4; 03:54–04:13). Contentious / Transparency Matters Peregian debate saw ruling on procedural motion overturned; meeting adjourned for legal advice; advice confirmed original committee recommendation could be moved at Ordinary; staff motion then lost (11.2.1; 24:16–01:06:24, 01:00–01:02). Community concerns cited: consultation adequacy, safety, parking loss, data transparency; majority opted to halt current design and pursue practical works/grant reallocation (11.2.1; 01:08–01:18:37). Climate grants: attempt to strike ZEN items withdrawn; amendment carried to publicly review guidelines before next round to strengthen trust and value-for-money assurance (12.2; 02:16–02:27, 02:34–02:55). Public Q&A: climate KPI transparency and DMP total cost answered on record; commitment to live reporting platform for climate actions (8.1–8.2; 03:46–06:59, 08:48–10:09). Dog infringements issue: Council confirmed renewals/reminders generated for all; 576 multi‑year non‑registrations fined; significant recent updates/registrations noted (8.2; 10:18–12:00). Legal / Risk Peregian grants timing risk: Active Transport Fund completion timelines; CEO noted awaiting formal responses; potential rate-funded works if grants cannot be repurposed (11.2.1; 01:24:21–01:26:00). Procedural law: Standing Orders 31.1 invoked; dissent carried; adjournment to obtain governance/legal advice; CEO confirmed committee recommendations are not Council resolutions and can be moved anew (11.2.1; 27:21–29:36, 59:36–01:01:55). Land rationalisation relies on LGR 2012 s236(1)(c)(v) exception; explicit no fetter of DA role; all costs by proponent; sound contracting principles affirmed (11.2.16). Audit & Risk: QAO fraud recommendations progress; Public Interest Disclosure Policy/Procedures amended; ICT cyber risk update; financial exceptions policy adopted; STA legal position to monitor with no further investigation warranted (11.1.3, 11.1.10, 11.1.12, 11.1.21, 11.1.9). Financial: Fees & Charges mostly ≤10% increases; animal reg. increases minimal; pensioner microchipped dogs remain no‑fee; typographical correction to legislative reference noted before publishing (12.3; 03:49–03:54). Emerging disaster funding risk flagged in debate (Commonwealth 50/50 proposal); officers to model scenarios in LTFP and brief Council (12.4; 04:01:52–04:02:54). Conflicts of Interest Frank Wilkie : Prescribed COI on Peregian Active Street (donor family member adjoining street); left room; later declarable COI (volunteer at Noosa Arts Theatre) determined he could participate under s150ES (11.2.1, 11.2.4; 23:58–24:08, 01:50–01:53). Brian Stockwell : Prescribed COI—President, Noosa Lions FC—left for Facility Development Grants and Climate Grants (11.2.4, 12.2; 01:49–01:50, 02:01:46–02:03:59). Nicola Wilson : Prescribed COI—Senior VP, Noosa Arts Theatre—left for Facility Development Grants (11.2.4; 01:49:51–01:50:22). Environmental & Climate Program Highlights Environment Grants target turtle monitoring, Pinbarren protection, and river-line hazard reduction with measurable outcomes (12.1; 01:56–02:01). Climate Grants span youth summit, modal shift via e‑bike loans, climate‑resilient native plant guidance, and solar for low‑income homes; staff to condition delivery and report outcomes (12.2; 02:04–02:13:20). Commitment to publish climate KPIs and progress via an interactive public platform; corporate and operational plan reporting cycles reiterated (8.1; 05:32–06:59). Biosecurity Plan to undergo public engagement before finalisation (11.2.13). Peregian Beach Active Street – Safety, Funding, and Community Signals Brian Stockwell: Cited multi‑criteria assessment showing Lorikeet Drive highest on safety/feasibility and alignment with long-term coastal pathway strategy; urged leadership despite local opposition (11.2.1; 01:05:55–01:06:24, 01:38:57–01:44:35). Jessica Phillips: Opposed “rubber‑stamping”; prioritised lived impacts and consultation quality over staff recommendation (11.2.1; 01:08:59–01:10:13). Amelia Lorentson: Argued overwhelming local opposition and safety concerns; moved alternative to halt current design and seek grant redeployment to basic infrastructure (11.2.1; 01:18:37–01:22:36). Officers confirmed formal grant body responses pending; reallocation uncertain; internal budgets don't currently cover substituted civil works (11.2.1; 01:23:55–01:26:00). Short-Term Accommodation (STA) A&R Committee noted STA matters previously addressed via legal advice/independent review; no further investigation warranted; continue monitoring legal developments (11.1.9). Community Transparency & Governance Signals Destination Management Plan development cost estimated ~$600k over five years; fraction of Council/Directorate budgets; itemised cost components outlined (8.2 Q1; 08:48–10:09). Financial Environment Monitoring, Exceptions & Escalation Policy adopted with standing exception reporting to A&R, enhancing early risk visibility (11.1.12–11.1.13). Fees & Charges early adoption improves certainty for users; small dog-reg increase, pensioner microchipped dogs fee‑free retained (12.3; 03:53:57–03:54:44). Climate Grants guidelines to undergo public consultation before next round, directly addressing KPI/value-for-money concerns raised in Q&A and debate (8.1; 12.2; 05:32–06:59, 02:34–02:55).
Official Meeting Minutes
ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 Ordinary Meeting Minutes Thursday, 18 June 2026 10:00am 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” Page 1 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 MINUTES ORDER OF BUSINESS 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 10.00am 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 Jessica Phillips Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Community Services Kerri Contini APOLOGIES Nil. 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ORDINARY MEETING 21 MAY 2026 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 21 May 2026 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Page 2 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 5 PETITIONS 5.1 PETITION: INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHT/S ON PATHWAY FROM YELLOWOOD CLOSE, TEWANTIN TO TEWANTIN SPORTING FIELDS Attachment 1 to the Minutes dated 18 June 2026 - PETITION - Street lights Yellowood St Tewantin - redacted Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the petition with 41 signatories submitted by Susan Dewar, requesting that Council requesting the installation of streetlights on the pathway from Yellowood Close to Tewantin Sporting Fields be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 7. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 8. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 8.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME APPLICANT: HAYLEY HASS Question 1 What measurable outcomes, targets and key performance indicators does Noosa Council use to assess the effectiveness of its Climate Emergency declaration and the expenditure incurred in delivering associated climate change, climate resilience, sustainability and emissions reduction activities, including Councils Carbon Reduction Project Officer? Response provided by Director Strategy & Environment, Kim Rawlings Thank you for your question. Since declaring a climate emergency in 2019, Noosa Council has endorsed a Climate Change Response Plan and a Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan, as well as supported the Regional Climate Action Roadmap developed in partnership with Sunshine Coast Council. Each of these plans contain a range of strategic priorities, targets, adaptation outcomes, and actions that Council uses to measure progress in responding to growing climate change risks. In addition, Council’s Corporate Plan 2023-2028 includes key objectives, projects and performance measures related to climate change response. This includes both measuring emissions reduction and efforts to build resilience. Progress in delivering Council’s Corporate Plan is reported on annually. Page 3 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 Projects and objectives which relate to climate response are then reflected down to Council’s annual Operational Plan which is reported on quarterly. Reports on Councils carbon footprint and monitoring of initiatives to reduce emissions are reported publicly to Council. In addition Council provided an update on progress delivering its Climate Change Response Plan at the General Committee on 16 December 2024. This included measuring progress on governance priorities and targets, as well as estimates on expenditure and external grant funds received since endorsement of the Plan. Council is working on developing a live, interactive and public online reporting platform, which intends to track progress on individual actions in the Climate Change Response Plan to inform the community of progress and strengthen transparency and accountability. 8.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME APPLICANT: NICK COOKE QUESTION 1 What has been the total cost of the Destination Management Plan from initial concept planning to final adoption including but not limited to internal staff costs, consultant fees, research, community engagement, workshops, surveys, advertising, communications, graphic design and any other direct or indirect associated costs incurred to date? Response provided by Director Strategy & Environment, Kim Rawlings The research and data gathering that informed the development of the DMP began 5 years ago, the issues the DMP seeks to address have been ongoing for many years and Council has sought to understand and address these issue throughout this period in different ways and therefore allocated resources to these issues also across this period. The estimated cost associated with the development and delivery of Noosa’s Destination Management Plan to date, is estimated to be around $600,000 over a fiveyear period or approximately $120,000 per year when averaged across the five-year period. This accounts for less than 0.07% % Noosa Council’s cumulative budget and likewise, less than 0.7 % of the Directorate’s budget responsible for the development of the DMP over the same period. This figure estimates the total cost of the project including (but not limited to): Portion of Internal staff salaries Consultant and professional service fees Research and analysis Community engagement activities over 3 comprehensive engagement processes. Workshops and stakeholder consultations Surveys and data collection Advertising and communications Graphic design and publication costs Associated project delivery and operational expenses to date (including development of the DMP Portal) QUESTION 2 Can Council confirm whether annual dog registration renewal notices for all affected dog owners were successfully generated by Council's internal systems for the registration periods that resulted in the recent infringement notices being issued? Response provided by Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray Thank you for the question Mr Cooke. Page 4 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 Yes, Council can confirm that dog registration renewal notices and subsequent reminder notices were successfully generated for all registered dogs. It is important to note that Council has over 10,000 registered dogs. 576 infringement notices were issued in April, all of which related to dogs not being registered across multiple years. Prior to infringements being issued Council also issued public media articles requested dog owners to ensure their dog’s registration and details were current. It is relevant to note that in the past two months alone over 1,000 dog record updates have been received and more than 220 new dogs have been registered that had not previously been registered. 9 MAYORAL MINUTES Nil 10 NOTIFIED MOTIONS 10.1 DIVISIONAL BOUNDARY REVIEW Council Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson DIVISIONAL BOUNDARY REVIEW That Council request a report to a future Council meeting that: A. Provides a clear understanding of the process required if Noosa Council were to elect to become a Shire with divisional boundaries; B. Identifies the regulatory decision-making framework that would need to be undertaken and completed; C. Outlines the expected time frame required to achieve the desired outcome; and D. Provides an indication of cost and resources required to deliver the overall process. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 11. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1. AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 29 MAY 2026 11.1.1 QUEENSLAND AUDIT OFFICE - 2026 AUDIT COMMITTEE BRIEFING PAPER That Council note the 2026 Audit Committee Briefing Paper by the Queensland Audit Office to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting 29 May 2026. Page 5 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 11.1.2 CROWE - FINAL REPORT - INTERNAL AUDIT OF 2025 QAO INTERIM REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS That Council note the report by the Internal Audit Service Provider to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding the Internal Audit 2025 QAO Interim Report Recommendations Audit. 11.1.3 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - QUEENSLAND AUDIT OFFICE FRAUD RECOMMENDATIONS (Response to Item 8) That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 reporting on Internal Audit’s review of Queensland Audit Office’s recommendations following the fraud event. 11.1.4 INTERNAL AUDIT UPDATE That Council note the report by the Executive Officer to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding the Internal Audit Update. 11.1.5 SUNDRY CREDITORS PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS - RISK REGISTER ITEM 22 That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding Risk Register Item 22 NonCreditor (Sundry) Payments. 11.1.6 CLOSING OF PAYROLL RELATED ACTIONS That Council: A. Note the report by the People & Culture Manager to the Audit & Risk Committee dated 29 May 2026 regarding action items from the 2023-2024 Internal Payroll Audit; B. Approve the closure of actions 44, 45, 46, 48 and 49 relating to payroll matters and their removal from the risk register; and C. Note the current low risk status of these items and strengthened control environment. 11.1.7 VALUATION OF BUILDING LEASES TO EXTERNAL ENTITIES That Council Note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding Action Item 13: Update on the valuation of building leases to external entities. 11.1.8 CAPABILITY FRAMEWORK & WORKFORCE PLANNING That Council: A. Note the report by the People & Culture Manager to the Audit & Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding Noosa Council's Capability Framework and Workforce Planning model; B. Note development and delivery of a strategic workforce capability plan aligned to corporate plan objectives is identified as a key People & Culture action to Page 6 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 address strategic risk 10 on the organisational strategic risk register - human resources not managed effectively 11.1.9 SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION – RESPONSE That Council; A. Note the report by Director Development and Regulation to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding Short Term Accommodation; B. Note that the matters raised have been previously addressed through detailed legal advice and independent review; C. Note that the material does not warrant the need for further investigation or external referral; and D. Continue to monitor legal developments relevant to short-term accommodation as part of its oversight role. 11.1.10 ICT CYBER RISK REPORT That Council note the report by the ICT Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee Meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding an update on ICT Cyber Risk. 11.1.11 SHELL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND END OF FINANCIAL YEAR UPDATE That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding Council’s progress preparing for the 2025/26 financial statements. 11.1.12 FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT MONITORING, EXCEPTIONS AND ESCALATION POLICY That Council: A. Note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding the QAO recommendation response and the implementation of a new policy framework to address financial risks across Council’s financial environment; B. Approve that that the Audit and Risk Committee have a standing agenda item reporting on identified exceptions under this framework. 11.1.13 FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT EXCEPTION REPORTING PE 30 APRIL 2026 That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding exceptions in Council’s financial environment to 30 April 2026. 11.1.14 QUEENSLAND AUDIT OFFICE'S LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORT 2026-26 That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding the Queensland Audit Office’s report and the pending self-assessment project commencing in late April 2026. Page 7 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 11.1.15 TECHNOLOGYONE HEALTH CHECK That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding the TechnologyOne Health Check. 11.1.16 FRINGE BENEFITS TAX (FBT) PROJECT That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding Council’s FBT compliance and governance framework. 11.1.17 SUPERANNUATION ON CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding Council’s requirement to pay superannuation on payments to deemed employees. 11.1.18 FINANCIAL SERVICES WORKFORCE PLAN - UPDATE That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Audit and Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 providing an update on the Finance Team Workforce Plan. 11.1.19 RISK MATURITY PROGRESS UPDATE That Council note the report by the Governance Manager to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding Council’s risk maturity progress under the Queensland Audit Office’s Risk Maturity Model. 11.1.20 INSURANCE MANAGEMENT UPDATE That Council note the report by the Governance Manager to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 29 May 2026 providing an update on insurance management matters. 11.1.21 Confidential - FRAUD, CORRUPTION & PID UPDATE That Council A. Note the report by the Governance Manager to the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting dated 29 May 2026 regarding an update on fraud, corruption and PID matters and: B. Adopt minor amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Policy as per Attachment 4. C. Adopt minor amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Procedures as per Attachment 5. Page 8 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 11.1.22 AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the Recommendations of the Audit & Risk Committee meeting dated 29 May 2026 be received and adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 11.2. GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 9 JUNE 2026 11.2.1 PEREGIAN BEACH ACTIVE STREET - STAGE 1 PROGRESS UPDATE AND NEXT STEPS (Deferred from the Ordinary Meeting dated 19 March 2026 - Item 12.2) Cr Frank Wilkie "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 - I inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to Item 11.2.1 - PEREGIAN BEACH ACTIVE STREET - STAGE 1 PROGRESS UPDATE AND NEXT STEPS on this agenda as my mother, who donated $5000 to my election campaign, lives in a street adjoining Lorikeet Drive which is the subject of the Active Street project. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on.". Cr Wilkie left the meeting. Cr Stockwell assumed the chair. Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council: A. Note the report by the Project Officer to the General Committee meeting dated 16 March 2026 regarding the Peregian Beach Active St - Stage 1 project status including key findings from the community consultation activities and proposed design amendments; B. Delegate authority to the CEO to finalise, negotiate and award the construction contract for the Peregian Beach Active Street – Stage 1 Project, including approval of all contract variations within the approved project budget, for the purpose of expediting delivery enabling project completion by the required State and Federal grant funding timeframes; C. Note that whilst the project is grant funded, financial reconciliation is not finalised, with additional costs arising from additional community engagement and project scope changes; Page 9 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 D. Support the development of an “Active Street” and “Coastal Pathway” awareness and education campaign across the shire to raise awareness of the safety and active transport benefits associated with Active Streets and the ultimate delivery of the Noosa Cycling and Walking Strategy and Noosa Transport Strategy; E. Support the CEO to submit available grant funding applications for Stage 2 of the Active Street/Coastal Pathway extension to commence design and construction as soon as practicably possible. Cr Lorentson attempted to move a Procedural Motion to adjourn the meeting. The Chair ruled that a Procedural Motion was out of order as the matter had not entered into debate. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That the Chairperson's ruling be dissented from. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips The meeting adjourned at 10.33am to obtain legal advice. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Brian Stockwell The meeting resumed at 10.59am. Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council: A. Note the report by the Project Officer to the General Committee meeting dated 16 March 2026 regarding the Peregian Beach Active St - Stage 1 project status including key findings from the community consultation activities and proposed design amendments; B. Delegate authority to the CEO to finalise, negotiate and award the construction contract for the Peregian Beach Active Street – Stage 1 Project, including approval of all contract variations within the approved project budget, for the purpose of expediting delivery enabling project completion by the required State and Federal grant funding timeframes; C. Note that whilst the project is grant funded, financial reconciliation is not finalised, with additional costs arising from additional community engagement and project scope changes; Page 10 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 D. Support the development of an “Active Street” and “Coastal Pathway” awareness and education campaign across the shire to raise awareness of the safety and active transport benefits associated with Active Streets and the ultimate delivery of the Noosa Cycling and Walking Strategy and Noosa Transport Strategy; E. Support the CEO to submit available grant funding applications for Stage 2 of the Active Street/Coastal Pathway extension to commence design and construction as soon as practicably possible. Lost. For: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Against: Nicola Wilson Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council: A. Note the report by the Project Officer to the General Committee meeting dated 16 March 2026 regarding the Peregian Beach Active St - Stage 1 project status and determine that the project not proceed in the current form; B. Direct the CEO to engage with the Southeast Qld Liveability Fund and Active Transport Fund to determine whether available grant funding can be reallocated to deliver practical infrastructure improvements in Peregian Beach South or alternatives, including but not limited to pedestrian footpath connections, stormwater infrastructures, formalised parking and street planting, consistent with the priorities expressed by the community throughout the engagement process; C. Direct the CEO to report back to Council as soon as possible. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Cr Wilkie returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair. 11.2.2 2026-2027 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT AND SIGNATURE COMMUNITY EVENT GRANTS - SUMMARY That Council: A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2026 outlining the summary of the 2026-27 Community Project Grants, out-of-round Three Year Signature Community Event Grants; and B. Approve the allocation of the remaining 2026/27 Community Project Grants budget to Quick Response grants and emergent grant requirements that may arise throughout the year, subject to sufficient funds being allocated in Council’s adopted 2026/27 Community Grants Program budget. Page 11 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 11.2.3 2026-2027 COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS PROGRAM – PROJECTS That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2026; and B. Approve the 2026-27 Community Project Grants Program - Projects as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $61,916.10 being allocated in Council's adopted 2026-27 Community Grants Program budget. 11.2.4 2026-2027 COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS PROGRAM - FACILITY DEVELOPMENT Cr Nicola Wilson "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 - I Cr Nicola Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to Item 11.2.4 - 2026-2027 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (FACILITY DEVELOPMENT) as Noosa Arts Theatre have been recommended as a recipient of a facility development grant. I am the senior Vice President of Noosa Arts Theatre. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on." Cr Wilson left the meeting. Cr Brian Stockwell "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009 - I Cr Brian Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to Item 11.2.4 - 2026-2027 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (FACILITY DEVELOPMENT) on this agenda, as I am the current President of the Noosa Lions Football Club who are recommended for funding. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on." Cr Stockwell left the meeting. Cr Frank Wilkie "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I Cr Frank Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter Item 11.2.4 - 2026-2027 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS (FACILITY DEVELOPMENT) on this agenda in relation to the application from Noosa Arts Theatre. While I am no longer in a decision-making position on the Noosa Arts committee, I continue to volunteer my time in productions at the Theatre. Although I am making a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because as Noosa Arts Theatre is a Not-forProfit group and I am participating in an unpaid capacity and am not involved in any decision-making capacity. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision." Page 12 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Cr Jessica Phillips be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting for this item for the purpose of considering the conflict of interest declaration by Cr Wilkie Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None Have declared a conflict of interest, Cr Wilkie did not vote in the above motion. Cr Phillips assumes the Chair Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wilkie and determine that in accordance with s150ES of the Local Government Act 2009, and having considered the Councillor's conflict of interest as described, it is decided that Cr Wilkie may participate and vote on this matter relating to the 2026-2027 COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS PROGRAM - FACILITY DEVELOPMENT. Carried. For: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None Have declared a conflict of interest, Cr Wilkie did not vote in the above motion. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2026; and B. Approve the 2026-27 Community Project Grants Program - Facility Development as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $147,296.32 being allocated in Council's adopted 2026-27 Community Grants Program budget. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson Against: None Cr Wilkie assumes the Chair Cr Stockwell returns to the room. Cr Wilson returns to the room Page 13 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 11.2.5 2026-2027 COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS PROGRAM - EQUIPMENT That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2026; and B. Approve the 2026-2027 Community Project Grants Program - Equipment as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $16,754.40 being allocated in Council’s adopted 2026/27 Community Grants Program budget. 11.2.6 2026-2027 COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS PROGRAM - EVENTS That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2026; and B. Approve the 2026-27 Community Project Grants Program - Events as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $32,500 being allocated in Council's adopted 2026-27 Community Grants Program budget. 11.2.7 2026-2027 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - THREE-YEAR SIGNATURE COMMUNITY EVENT GRANTS That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2026; and B. Approve the out-of-round 2026-27 Three-Year Signature Community Event Grants as outlined in Attachment 1, subject to sufficient funds totalling $27,000 being allocated in the adopted 2026-27 Council budget. 11.2.8 LEGACY PLOT RESERVATION MANAGEMENT POLICY That Council A. Note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee dated 9 June 2026 regarding unused cemetery plots (burial and ash interment sites) reserved 25 years or more ago at the Tewantin, Cooroy and Pomona cemeteries; B. Adopt the Legacy Plot Reservation Management Policy, as provided in Attachment 1 to the report; and C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to implement the Policy, including the development of supporting procedures, notification processes and record keeping requirements. 11.2.9 "SPORT4ALL" ACCESS AND INCLUSION PROGRAM - OUTCOMES AND LEARNINGS That Council A. Note the report by the Inclusion Coach to the General Committee dated 9 June 2026 regarding the outcomes of Noosa Council’s Sport4All Access and Inclusion Program; B. Subject to future funding availability, consider establishing an ongoing, organisation-wide Access and Inclusion function to strengthen inclusive practices across planning, infrastructure, services and programs, and support community organisations to sustain and expand participation pathways; and Page 14 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 C. Subject to future funding availability, develop a whole-of-Council Access and Inclusion Framework to embed inclusive principles and guide priorities. 11.2.10 2026-2027 FEES AND CHARGES That General Committee Agenda Item 7.10 2026-2027 Fees and Charges be referred to the Ordinary Meeting for a further report. 11.2.11 NOOSA BOTANIC GARDENS MASTERPLAN That Council A. Note the report by the Parks and Streetscapes Coordinator to the General Committee dated 9 June 2026 outlining the Phase 2 Engagement summary and the finalised draft Masterplan for the Noosa Botanic Gardens; B. Note the Masterplan's proposed use to inform ongoing future operational and capital works program budgets including sourcing funding from external grants; and C. Approve the finalised Masterplan for the Noosa Botanic Gardens provided at Attachment 1. 11.2.12 FURTHER REPORT - TOURISM NOOSA FUNDING AND PERFORMANCE DEED 2026–2029 That Council A. Note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee dated 13 April 2026 and this Further Report to the General Committee dated 9 June 2026 regarding the Tourism Noosa Funding and Performance Deed 2026–2029; B. Note that, in response to Council’s resolution of 16 April 2026, the Deed Schedules have been revised to: i. Separate Agreed Obligations and Deliverables (Schedule 1) from performance measures; ii. Introduce a Balanced Scorecard framework of KPIs in Schedule 2; and iii. Simplify the performance-based funding adjustment model in Schedule 3; C. Approve the revised Tourism Noosa Funding and Performance Deed 2026–2029 with Tourism Noosa Ltd for a term of three (3) years, commencing 1 July 2026 and ending 30 June 2029, for funding of $2,000,000 per annum (ex GST), with CPI indexation applied from the second year of the Term, capped at a maximum of 3.5% per annum, subject to the terms and conditions of the Deed as provided at Attachment 1; D. Note that funding will be paid in three instalments, with the second instalment subject to a performance-based adjustment of up to $350,000, based on Council’s assessment of performance against the Schedule 2 KPIs using the scoring methodology set out in Schedule 3; E. Note that failure to deliver Schedule 1 Agreed Obligations may constitute a breach of the Deed and is managed through the Deed’s compliance and governance provisions, separate from the performance adjustment framework; F. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to: i. Finalise and execute the Tourism Noosa Funding and Performance Deed 2026–2029, including any minor or administrative amendments required; and Page 15 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 ii. Administer the Deed in accordance with its terms. 11.2.13 NOOSA BIOSECURITY PLAN 2026-2031 That Council: A. Note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 June 2026 for the Draft Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2026–2031; B. Approve the Draft Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2026–2031 provided at Attachment 2, for the purposes of community engagement; C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to undertake community engagement on the Draft Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2026–2031 in accordance with the Biosecurity Plan 2026 - Communications and Engagement Plan provided at Attachment 3; and D. Note that a further report will be presented to Council following completion of the community engagement process, including a summary of submissions and any proposed amendments to the Draft Noosa Biosecurity Plan 2026–2031. 11.2.14 ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS - ENVIRONMENT PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND 21), CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS (ROUND 6) That General Committee Agenda Item 7.14 be referred to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 June 2026 for 2 x further reports - separating the Environment Project Grants & Climate Change Response Grants. 11.2.15 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – APRIL 2026 That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2026 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for April 2026 as provided at Attachment 1 to the Report. 11.2.16 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PROPOSED LAND RATIONALISATION - LANYANA WAY LOT 2 ON RP889596 AND NOOSA DRIVE LOT ON RP884396 That Council note the report from the Acting Property Manager to General Committee meeting dated 9 June 2026; and A. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to provide landowner’s consent, if required, to enable lodgement of any future development application involving Councilowned land affected by the proposed Land Rationalisation Process; B. Note that the provision of landowner’s consent and the actions authorised under this resolution: do not constitute approval of any development application; do not bind or fetter Council in its role as assessment manager; do not commit Council to completing the land exchange; and do not authorise any works on, or transfer of, Council land prior to completion of all required approvals, agreements and settlement conditions. Page 16 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 C. Note that the proposed Land Rationalisation Process: is intended to facilitate land tenure outcomes that support implementation of the Noosa Junction Framework and Character Plan; supports opportunities for future housing outcomes consistent with Council’s Housing Strategy and broader planning objectives; will result in no net loss of existing public parking; is intended to improve future access arrangements associated with the planned public road connection; and supports increased public realm and green space outcomes within the precinct. D. Agree to facilitate a land tenure rationalisation process involving: Council-owned land located at Lot 2 on RP889596, Noosa Heads, including a 363m² portion of the existing driveway; and adjoining land located at 99 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads, Through a market value land exchange whereby: a 363m² portion of the existing driveway within Lot 2 on RP889596 is transferred to the adjoining landowner for amalgamation into the adjoining land; and part of the adjoining land is transferred to Council. E. Pursuant to section 236(2) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, resolve that the proposed disposal of part of Lot 2 on RP889596 proceed other than by tender or auction in reliance on the exception under section 236(1)(c)(v) of the Regulation, on the basis that: the consideration comprises land exchanged for land; the disposal is in the public interest; and the transaction is otherwise consistent with sound contracting principles. F. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to undertake all actions necessary to implement the Land Rationalisation Process, including: negotiating and entering into agreements; preparing and lodging survey plans; finalising Infrastructure Agreements; securing easements, access arrangements and road dedications; facilitating title and tenure arrangements; and completing the transfer of land interests. G. Note that all costs associated with the Land Rationalisation Process, including legal, valuation, surveying, lodgement and stamp duty costs, will be funded by the proponent. H. Note that any future development application affecting the subject land: will be assessed independently under the Planning Act 2016 by the relevant assessment manager; and remains separate from the Land Rationalisation Process. 11.2.17 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC Council Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the Recommendations of the General Committee meeting dated 9 June 2026 be received and adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Page 17 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 12 ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS 12.1 FURTHER REPORT - ENVIRONMENT PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND 21) (referred from General Committee dated 9 June 2026 Item 7.14) Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council: A. Note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2026 and the Further Report to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 June 2026 regarding applications received for the Environment Project Grants (Round 21); and B. Approve the allocation of funding to the following organisations for Environmental Project Grants for 2026/27 financial year: i. $17,301.16 to Teewah Turtle Trackers Inc. for the Teewah Turtle Trackers Monitoring and Conservation Initiative; ii. $10,870.84 to Noosa and District Landcare for the Protecting Pinbarren Project; iii. $6,828.00 to Wildlife Noosa Ltd. for the Noosa River Hazards to Wildlife (Lines and Lures) Reduction Program, Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None 12.2 FURTHER REPORT - CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS (ROUND 6) (referred from General Committee dated 9 June 2026 Item 7.14) Cr Brian Stockwell "In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I, Cr Brian Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter Item 12.2. - FURTHER REPORT - CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS (ROUND 6) (referred from General Committee dated 9 June 2026 Item 7.14) on this agenda as I am the current President of the Noosa Lions Football Club who I am aware submitted a grant application for a Climate Change Response Grant. I will now leave the meeting. Cr Stockwell left the meeting. Page 18 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 Motion Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council: A. Note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2026 and the Further Report by the Sustainability and Climate Change Coordinator to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 June 2026 regarding applications received for the Climate Change Response Grants (Round 6); and B. Approve the allocation of funding, totalling $48,869.06, to the following organisations for the Climate Change Response Grants for FY2026/27: i. $14,820.00 to The Trustee for the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Trust for the Future Tide - 2027 Noosa Youth Climate Summit; ii. $12,899.06 to Zero Emissions Noosa Inc. for the Swap the Drive: Supporting Modal Shift From Cars To Bikes program; iii. $11,150.00 to the Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Inc. for the Get Climate-ready with Noosa Native Plants project; and iv. $10,000 to Zero Emissions Noosa Inc. for the Solar on Low Income Homes project. Amendment No. 1 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That C be added to read: C Remove Zero Emissions Noosa from the list of approved recipients under the Climate Change Response Grants. Cr Lorentson withdrew the amendment Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That C be added to read: C. Undertake a review of the Climate Change Response Grants Guidelines involving public consultation on any proposed changes prior to the next round of grant funding being opened. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Tom Wegener Page 19 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council: A. Note the report by the Environmental Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2026 and the Further Report by the Sustainability and Climate Change Coordinator to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 June 2026 regarding applications received for the Climate Change Response Grants (Round 6); and B. Approve the allocation of funding, totalling $48,869.06, to the following organisations for the Climate Change Response Grants for FY2026/27: i. $14,820.00 to The Trustee for the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Trust for the Future Tide - 2027 Noosa Youth Climate Summit; ii. $12,899.06 to Zero Emissions Noosa Inc. for the Swap the Drive: Supporting Modal Shift From Cars To Bikes program; iii. $11,150.00 to the Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Inc. for the Get Climate-ready with Noosa Native Plants project; and iv. $10,000 to Zero Emissions Noosa Inc. for the Solar on Low Income Homes project. C. Undertake a review of the Climate Change Response Grants Guidelines involving public consultation on any proposed changes prior to the next round of grant funding being opened. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Tom Wegener Against: Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Nicola Wilson Cr Stockwell returned to the meeting. 12.3 FURTHER REPORT - 2026-2027 FEES AND CHARGES (referred from General Committee dated 9 June 2026 Item 7.10) Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council: A. Note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Meeting dated 9 June 2026 and the Further Report to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 June; and B. Pursuant to Sections 97, 98 and 262(3)(c) of the Local Government Act 2009, adopt the updated 2026-27 financial year cost-recovery fees and commercial charges provided as Attachment 1 to the report. C. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor changes or administrative amendments as required prior to publishing the final document. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Nicola Wilson Against: None Page 20 of 21 ORDINARY MEETING | 18 JUNE 2026 12.4 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT MAY 2026 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the Ordinary Meeting dated 18 June 2026 regarding Council's financial performance to 31 May 2026. Carried. For: Cr Frank Wilkie, Cr Karen Finzel, Cr Jessica Phillips, 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 16 July 2026 at 10.00am. 15 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 2.14pm. Page 21 of 21
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:00.000
Ordinary Meeting of Thursday 18th June 2026, declare the meeting open at 10am. We acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi People and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging and also acknowledge their recognition of each and every one of us as joint custodians and respecting and caring for this beautiful place that we all love each other. All councils are in attendance. Item 4.1 is the confirmation of the Minutes. May I have a move and a second for the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on the 21st of May 2026. Councillor moved by Councillor Lorentson, by I might be looking at it wrong but it appears that there's a March and it's better attached. Did you double check that? Good, okay let's have a look at that. May, okay, okay, some reason to keep up on that March. Okay. Got, you're saying on the Resolve System? Mm-hmm. Mine says yours may, that's weird, okay, good. Thank you, good that you've checked, you're checking Councillor. We have one petition. I move that the petition with 41 signatories submitted by Susan Dewar requesting the installation of street lights on the pathway from Yellowood Close to Tewantin Sporting Fields be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine the appropriate action. I have a seconder please. Councillor Lorentson. Look, the submitter submits that the pathway is one of three access points created by Council into the Tewantin sporting fields. The serve as soccer, netball, pickleball, tennis, rugby league, touch football, baseball and the pony club. This pathway is also utilised for other events such as the red hot summer concerts, rodeos, vintage car club days, the walk, run, bike, race, the circus and many other events during the years. They submit parking from the overflow is always utilised in Yellowood Close and Blackbutt Court through this access point. They submit that this is a high safety risk to all community members, the lack of lighting that is. Families, women on their own accessing these sporting fields that are there for community use safe without lighting. Use, congregate, damage the park area and playgrounds, smash bottles, play in these areas because of no lighting and these are among, in our streets we have multiple disabilities in the community crossing a four metre long bridge, people with wheelchairs, visual impairments. Where lack of lighting is dangerous. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you Mr CDO. There are no presentations, we have no deputations. We have two submissions to public question time. The first question is from Ms Hayley Hass. Ms would you like to come to the lectern to read your question which will be asked by Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy and Environment and Richard MacGillivray, Director Development & Regulation. Hayley Hass 03:08.197
Declaring a climate emergency, Noosa Council has invested considerable resources into climate related activities, including dedicated staffing, strategic plans, policies, programs and projects. This includes the employment of a carbon reduction project officer position with an annual salary exceeding $100,000. Addition to expenditure on associated climate initiatives across the organisation. Of funding provided to tourism Noosa through the use of key performance indicators and measurable outcomes. Similar principles. Frank Wilkie 03:46.105
Sorry, Ms Hass, that's not the question we. No, it's the background information. Which I've been allowed to read at previous meetings. You have a different history. The question itself is that in relation to the total expenditure incurred by Noosa Council about the declaration of climate emergency? No, it's the what measurable outcomes question. Hayley Hass 04:07.027
Okay, two. Apologies. Council is currently considering how to measure the effectiveness and return on investment of funding provided to Tourism Noosa through the use of key performance indicators and measurable outcomes. Similar principles of accountability and transparency would. Appear relevant to climate-related expenditure. Given the outgoing commitment of RETPAD funds to climate programs and initiatives, it is reasonable for the community to understand how Council measures success, evaluates effectiveness and determines whether these investments are achieving their intended objectives. This question seeks clarification. Of the key performance indicators, targets and measurable outcomes used by Council for that purpose. Question is: what measurable outcomes, targets and key performance indicators does Noosa Council use to assess the effectiveness of its climate emergency declaration and the expenditure incurred in delivering associated climate change, resilience, sustainability and emissions reduction activities including council's carbon reduction project officer? Frank Wilkie 05:10.383
Thank you Ms haas. Director Rawlings, come over here so we can hear you please. Kim Rawlings 05:33.100
Thanks for your question, Hayley. Since declaring a climate emergency in 2019, Noosa Council has endorsed a climate change response plan and a coastal hazards adaptation plan, as well as supported the regional climate action Roadmap developed in partnership with the Sunshine Coast Council. Each of these plans contain a targets, adaptation outcomes and actions that Council uses to measure progress in responding to growing climate risks. In addition, council's Corporate Plan 2023-2028 includes key objectives, projects and performance measures related to climate change response. This includes both measuring emissions reduction and efforts to build resilience. Progress in delivering council's Corporate Plan is reported on annually. Projects and objectives which relate to climate response are then reflected down to council's annual operational plan which is also reported on quarterly. Reports on council's carbon footprint and monitoring of initiatives to reduce emissions are also reported publicly leads to Council. In addition, Council provided an update on the progress of delivering its climate change response plan at the General Committee on the 16th of December 2024. This included measuring progress on governance priorities and targets, as well as estimates on expenditure and external grants received since endorsement of the plan. Council is working on developing a live, interactive and public online reporting platform which intends to track progress in individual actions of the climate change response plan to inform the community of progress and strengthen transparency and accountability. Frank Wilkie 06:59.648
Thank you, Ms. Haas. Is from Mr. Nick Cooke. Mr. would you like to come to the lectern and read your questions, which will be answered by Kim Rawlings, Director Strategy and Environment, and Richard MacGillivray, Director Development & Regulation. Nick Cooke 07:16.686
Thank you. Uh, Destination Management Plan. Uh, strategic, significant document intended to guide tourism and visit a management Noosa over the coming of the plan commenced with community engagement in 2023 and involved extensive consultation, engagement, workshops, surveys, communication activities, advertising, staff resources and external expertise over a period of more than two years. While Council has reported on the aspects of the engagement and the process and the outcomes of the plan, it does not appear to have been publicly available consolidated figure outlining the total cost incurred by Council in developing the plan from inception through adoption. Understanding the full cost of the strategic planning initiatives is important for transparency, accountability and informed public discussion, particularly at a time when Council is proposing rate increases and communities are seeking assurance that resources are being allocated effectively. This question seeks to establish the total investment made by Council in repairing the preparing Destination Management Plan and provide clarity on where those funds have been expended. So the question is: what has been the total cost of the Destination Management Plan from initial concept planning to final adoption, internal staff costs, consultant fees, research, workshops, surveys, advertising, communications, graphic designs and the like, and the other direct or indirect associated costs. Kim Rawlings 08:48.639
Thanks Nick. The research and data gathering that informed the development of the DMP began five years ago. The issues the DMP seeks to address have been going for many years and Councillors sought to understand these addressed throughout this period in different ways and therefore allocated resources to these issues across this period. The estimated cost associated with the development and delivery of noosa's Destination Management Plan today is estimated to be around $600,000 over a five-year period. Or approximately $120,000 per year when averaged across the five-year period. This accounts for less than 0.07% of Noosa Council's cumulative budget and likewise.0% of the relevant directorate's budget responsible for the development of the DMP over the same period. This figure estimates the total cost of the project including but not limited to a portion of internal staff salaries, consultant and professional service fees. Research and analysis, community engagement activities over three comprehensive engagement processes, workshops and stakeholder consultations, surveys and data collection, advertising and communications, graphic design and publication costs, associated project delivery and operational expenses to date including the development of the DMP portal. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 10:09.748
Your second question, Mr. Cook. Nick Cooke 10:18.380
Your second question is about dog registrations. Recently reports indicate that Noosa Council issued over 500 infringement notices to dog owners for unpaid registration resulting in substantial community concerns and a large number of appeals. The Council has probably said that renewal notices were sent via postal mail, however many residents have publicly claimed they did not receive a renewal notice prior to receiving an infringement notice. Council has also reported that approximately 200 appeals have been lodged in relation to these infringements and there's rumblings of class actions. Given the number of residents raising concerns and significant financial penalties involved, it's important the community have confidence that the registration process operated as intended. The question seeks clarifications to whether renewal notices were successfully generated first and foremost in internal systems and sent to dog owners for the registration periods that ultimately resulted in infringement notices being issued. So the question is simply can Council confirm whether the annual dog registration renewal notices for all affected dog owners were successfully generated by council's internal systems the registration periods that resulted in the reset. Recent infringement Frank Wilkie 11:30.800
Thank you, Nick. Director of regulation and development, Mr Moore. Deliberately answer your question. Richard MacGillivray 11:36.342
Thank you for your question, Mr Cooke. Yes, Council can confirm that dog registration renewal notices and subsequent reminder notices were successfully generated for all registered dogs. It is important to note that Council has over 10,000 registered dogs. 576 infringement notices were issued in April this year, all of which related to dogs not being registered across multiple years. Prior to Noosa, Tewantin, infringements being issued, Council also issued public media articles through various mediums requesting dog owners to ensure that their registration and details were current. It is relevant to note that in the past two months alone, over 1,000 dog record updates have been received by Council staff and more than 220 new dogs have been registered that are not previously been registered across the Shire. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 12:25.477
You. There are no Mayoral minutes. We have one notified motion which is included in the agenda, which is 10.1 divisional boundary review. Councillor Lorentson would you like to move yeah, happy to move the motion. Do we have a seconder for the motion, please? I'll be happy to second. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson, you have the floor. Karen Finzel 12:45.231
Yes, thank you. First of all, thank you to the Councillors and the CEO for their consideration of this motion. I think it's timely that when we, you know, in a situation in time and place there's a lot of change, we are leaders, and it's prudent, in my opinion, to actually rigorously look at the systems that are serving us. Are they currently fit for purpose, or is it time to, like, pull them out, illuminate them, and, um, have a review to see are they serving us effectively now and into the future. Um, this is a matter about accessibility, transparency, and accountability. I thank the CEO for his time to put um, time to, um, put forward his support for this motion to have a look at the, um, boundary review to provide clear understanding of the process, identify the regulatory decision making, and outline the expected timeframe. Um, that'll provide also to Council an indication of cost and resources required to deliver the overall process. I think it's really important that when we, um, sit in this role of leadership that we are informed by our past, present, and our future. I think in terms of looking at gaps and, um, risks into the future. Think we need to be ready. There is a lot of change going on, noting that the, um, LGAQ boundaries to the south and the north of us are divisional, and I think as we head towards growth in the region, we need to be on the ready. Of course, this doesn't mean that the current process is not working, as mentioned in the motion, but I think it's prudent that we have a look at, um, the best, um, options available to us moving forward. Frank Wilkie 14:29.671
Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Anyone else we also wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 14:34.136
I'll speak to it. Uh, I want to speak in support of the motion in front of us. Um, the motion doesn't actually ask us to change anything. Um, it doesn't introduce boards, and it doesn't cost millions it doesn't touch our standing as an independent Council. All it asks for is a report, one that tells us the process. If Noosa were to move to divisional boundaries, what are the steps involved? How long will it take and what would so we're not deciding on any outcome. We're just asking staff to bring back the facts so that we can have an informed discussion later. I want to thank Councillor Finzel for bringing the just of the notes that she put in the report. And first of all, it's on the background. So since the DML government in 2014, Noosa has run as an undivided Council. At that time that made sense. The Shire was actually smaller. And the thinking was that the whole Shire representation would avoid fragmentation. And at the time, there was it also very strong community support for it but that was over a decade ago and newstart has grown since then. And issues that councils deal with today are more complex, and community expectations of their Councillors have changed too. Again, none of that means that the undivided model is broken. As Councillor Finzel just mentioned, and in her own comments, it's still defensible, and it's still, may be delivering effective representation, but I think it's just proven through governance that we take the opportunity to just review the process and make a decision, is it still fit as I mentioned, right now, we actually have six Councillors, one that lives in kina, Cooroy, one in Boreen Point, myself and the Mayor, eastern beaches, Councillor Noosaville and Councillor Wilson in Tewantin. So around this table, the system that we have already really great representation. But I think the question that Councillor Phillips gets in the motion is that not guaranteed next term. That depends on how people were voted and who puts their hand up. I also want to raise, this isn't a new conversation. It was raised last term and I remember the discussion really clearly with the Mayor and I think it was Councillor Joe Jurisevic that raised it. Recently residents circulated a really good argument in an article on this very issue and what that tells me is that it's still something that people in this community are still thinking about and want addressed formally, not just left to genuine fair arguments on both sides. An undivided model keeps Councillors thinking Shire-wide instead of defending patch. Wards can create rivalry between areas instead of cooperation. And for a Council our size, and that's really important, some will actually ask whether a review is worth the time and resources and more importantly whether the State actually considers us big enough to warrant a review. And they're all valid points and I think that's exciting. Exactly what this, why this motion is the right way to handle this. It doesn't prejudge the answer, it just asks for facts, process, timeframe and cost so that whenever this Council or a future one decides to look at this properly it's an evidence-based decision rather than a guess. So again, I commend and thank Councillor Finzel and I'm happy to support the motion. Frank Wilkie 18:47.416
Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Jessica Phillips 18:49.256
I will really quickly. Thank you very much Councillor Finzel for bringing it to the table and I think you did really well with the process because again it doesn't have any authority it's just asking Council to invest in what that model might look like if it is or isn't right for our Council. I was around for the time where we were. I'm now part of a Council that isn't. I think it's a really good conversation to see if we're continually sort of testing are fit for purpose, whether it's current, whether it's meeting the needs of our Shire, but more importantly, whatever we can do to rebuild trust with our community, I'll support. Frank Wilkie 19:27.402
Councillor oh, Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 19:31.603
There's I think Councillor Wilkie also, who's experienced both systems. I have a particular view. This one's not asking for our views, it's asking to do a process and I think it is sensible after 10 years and because there are still community discussions on it too. That review. I most often get asked the question that why haven't we got the visions when I'm in the hinterland and I'm normally stopped in the street when I'm asked those questions and I'm going so what's different? In 1988 we had 13 Councillors in five divisions, multiple Councillors per division and a population of significantly less. That Council actually decided to take four Councillors out but still keep the divisions one less from memory. I always about I've spent a lot of my time well the majority of the time since I've been here 81 living in the timbiwa area if I get on my electric bike it's about 22 to 24 kilometres in any direction to get to the edge of the Shire so that whole thing about what is reasonable for someone to represent if you can ride there in an hour and a half it's probably not too big an area to represent and I think some of the shortcomings have been identified certainly parish pump politics and the horse trading around budget time I'll give you your toilet block you give me my bitumen row type things and that whole consensus of a Shire but I do agree it's probably time to bring it out in the open let the community see both sides of the story let the costs I noted that Councillor Lorentson pointed out we've got three Councillors who live in hinterland areas and three who live this side of that plus the Mayor if we were to adopt divisions it would be based on a one vote value so it's most likely that the hinterland would have locked in a smaller number of representatives. Frank Wilkie 21:40.210
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? The okay. Vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Brings us to consideration of committee recommendations. 11.1 audit and risk.1 Queensland Audit Office committee briefing paper. 11.1.2 pro final report internal audit 2025 QAO interim report recommendations. 11.1.3 internal audit report Queensland Audit Office forward.4 internal audit update. 11.1.5 sundry creditors process improvements risk register. 11.1.6 closing of payroll related actions. 11.1.7 valuation of building leases to external entities. 11.1.8 capability framework and workforce planning. 11.1.9 short-Term accommodation response. 11.1.10 ICT Cyber Risk Report. 11.1. Shell Financial Statements and. End of the year financial update. 11.1.2 financial environment. Monitoring exceptions and escalation policy. 11.1.3 financial environment. Exception reporting PE30 of April 2026.11.1.4 Queensland audit officers local government. Financial audit report. 11.1.5. Technology-Owned health check. 11.1.6. Fringe benefits tax project. 11.1.7. Superannuation on contract payments. 11.1.8. Financial services workforce plan update. 11.1.9. Risk maturity progress.2.0. Insurance management.1. Confidential forward corruption and PID update. 11.1.2. Audit and Risk Committee recommendations en bloc. Mover and seconder for the to be adopted, please. I'll move. Councillor Wilson. Seconded, Councillor Phillips. All in favour? That's carried. We go to the General Committee recommendations. Bridgerton beach, active street. Look, I need to declare a prescribed conflict of interest, which has been documented, and I will leave the meeting room. That's carried. Brian Stockwell 23:58.460
So, Councillors, I'm going to move the staff recommendation presented to the General Committee. And now it's automatic. Larry Sengstock 24:05.770
It's automatic because it's a deputy. Will wait for that to get up. SPEAKER_08 24:16.150
This is the original staff Brian Stockwell 24:18.990
Recommendation to the General Committee. Amelia Lorentson 24:28.600
A question to the CEO. This is a procedural question, not a question in relation to the report in front of us. Given that the motion was defeated at General Committee, and then an alternate motion Rose. Could it be for our Standing Orders that is this standard protocol or not? Larry Sengstock 25:05.300
I need to take a moment to actually talk to you. This is not something I expected today, so. Brian Stockwell 25:12.700
I'll make my ruling. Yeah, it's perfectly within standing order, so I'll speak to it. Amelia Lorentson 25:16.795
I ask through the CEO, Chair, what section in the Standing Orders gives you authority to re-litigate a motion that was defeated? Brian Stockwell 25:30.415
The motion at a General Committee is a recommendation to this meeting. That's all it is. So, any motion can be moved at the Ordinary Meeting. Amelia Lorentson 25:42.994
Can I possibly request an adjournment of this meeting and seek advice from governance, just not to challenge the just to ensure that proper process is actually being followed and also we don't compromise the integrity of our decision-making in trusting this Council. It's up to the police. Okay. We can, after I've spoken to the motion. It's a procedural motion. There is nothing in the standing order said you're going to need to remove the procedural motion before the speaker of a motion has talked. Can I move to deceit against the Chair, please? I put a second. Research my reasons are we had something very similar that came before us. We sought legal advice and I think it was in reference to about section 11.4 of our Standing Orders, correct me if I'm wrong, legal advice actually said that. Interpretation of the Standing Orders at the time which was to do a procedural motion after a motion was defeated was in fact incorrect. So again, not to compromise the integrity of our decision and trust in community that we're actually following our Standing Orders. I dissent from the chair's ruling and request an adjournment so we can get advice from our governance and legal team. Just get the correct. Brian Stockwell 28:02.780
I'm just looking for the procedure of motions. Through the Chair I have. So I've got the floor, thank you, Councillor. We've got a dissent motion. No, she's moved, I'm responding. That's how works. 31.1 of the Standing Orders states a Councillor at a meeting of Council may during the debate of a matter at the meeting move a procedural motion. A debate does not start until the mover of the has spoken to the motion after it has seconded. In the chairman's room should be voted against because anyone voting for it would be voting against the provisions of the Standing Orders. Nicola Wilson 28:45.671
We're asking whether the motion should be moved in the first place so it would be unfair to speak to a motion that potentially shouldn't be moved. Brian Stockwell 28:56.303
That's I accept that, your opinion. It's certainly not consistent with the Standing Orders. I've given the response. You can vote whatever way you feel. Those in favour of the motion in dissent of the chairman's ruling? The motion carried. Amelia Lorentson 29:15.926
I move that we adjourn and close the meeting to seek advice from governance and house legal Brian Stockwell 29:36.700
Anyone wish to speak to the motion? I'll just put the motion. In, those in favour? I'm not sure what you're voting going on. Just As I think it's contrary to Standing Orders I'll vote against. So those in favour was Councillor Wegener, Wilson, Finzel, Lorentson and Phillips against is Councillor Stockwell. We'll adjourn the meeting. Frank Wilkie 58:29.005
To go, Brian. Brian Stockwell 58:30.085
Yeah, we're good. So Councillors in accordance with 31.8b while we can specify the time the adjournment in the motion would was until such a time as governance advice could be received I believe the CEO is in a position to provide that advice. Mr CEO? Do you want to resume the meeting? No, there's no motion to resume. If you could provide the advice in regard to the yes, so we are open to the public. The meeting is open. The adjournment has been finished. As I said, 131 8B adjournment motion should specify the time. It did allude to the fact that it would be at such a time that there was governance advice on taking. We do have advice and therefore believe it is appropriate to restart the meeting. Larry Sengstock 59:36.976
Yes, so, following discussion, the position is that the best method forward was to, we are able to bring a new motion to the table. Because the from the General Committee Meeting to the board meeting is not a resolution, it's a recommendation. So a new motion is able to be brought. The fact that it is the original motion being brought is allowable, however it is not necessarily the best. Government's practice, again interpretation of the Standing Orders, it won't be dealing with you, it's not clear, but that's our interpretation, but it it's practice, but it is allowable to bring the original motion back as a new motion, because of the fact that it's coming from the general ordinance. So the ordinance is where the resolution happens, the general recommendation happens. Amelia Lorentson 01:00:41.196
Question to the CEO. Again, seeking clarity. At the General Committee, the staff recommendation was deleted and an alternate motion was held. My question is that the alternate. Motion then becomes decision or resolution, whatever the turning point is. That becomes. Question please, Councillor. A General Committee. I'm still challenged and seeking any further advice how recommendation that was repeated and replaced with an alternate motion is now resurfaced without applying section 34 of the. Yeah, so can you sit down? Brian Stockwell 01:01:32.843
Councillor, you asked for advice, you got advice. That asking the same question in a different way is not respectful of the chamber. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:41.903
Through the CDO, can I ask another question? Did you in the advice in terms of section 34 repealing or submitting resolutions and why that section doesn't apply to the situation? Brian Stockwell 01:01:55.731
I'll answer the question because I am the chairman. As the CEO clearly stated in his advice, the recommendation from. The committee is not a resolution of Council. Okay, so we have in front of us a motion. The is up on the. Panel, and I'll speak to it. So, Councillors, I think it was very important to once again give. Councillors the opportunity to respect the expert advice we've received, strategic direction that this Council has had for many years. In 20, we had a cycling and walking strategy that really set the current strategic direction. In 2020, we had the coastal pathway corridor study which identified this as a high priority corridor. We've had two liveability studies where we've asked a large number of people in our community what their priorities were and priorities at the highest level were walking, jogging and bike paths. Access and safety of walking, cycling and public transport. Now I appreciate that what is proposed is something different. And what we're dealing with is a small local area that is challenged by the change that is proposed. Our role as Councillors is to listen to what their concerns are, how the experts in the field respond to those concerns, and to make a judgement that's in the best interest of the whole Shire. We had a notice of motion about this, whether divisions may or not be good. But regardless if you're representing a division around Peregian or the whole of the Shire, it's always been the fact that your decisions have to be in the broad community interest. Being popular as a Councillor. Is quite easy. Making the hard decisions that sometimes mean that the perceptions of the community and the concerns in one area may be maybe listened to, but perhaps don't carry the weight of the whole Shire and in this case there is clear strategic steps that have been taken that's suggests what's in front of us is not only a outcome that is a high priority in that's been there for six years but it's also one where ratepayers funds won't need to funds be used to address the costs. The current deficiencies in pavement, in stormwater, in pedestrian and cycling safety. Supporting this means you do support access along that street not just for young but for the old and it is part of a process that will help build the current momentum towards a more frequent use of active transport by our it is one that yes, you may need to show leadership in this instance and understand that some people will be unhappy with the decision but it is a decision that is supported by strategy it's supported by overwhelming community feedback about what the priorities are and grant funds that means it is cost effective and won't put burdens on future ratepayers. That's why I think it's important to start this debate again from where it ended in terms of a six year process to get here. Councillor Wilson. Just going to say that Nicola Wilson 01:06:24.832
I want to say my offence at being told that being popular is easy. Brian Stockwell 01:06:34.092
Councillor, you may sit down please. You talk to the motion or you move a Amelia Lorentson 01:06:41.400
Point of order. Can I move a on behalf of all of our Councillors on behalf? Thank you. And what's your point of order? Through the Chair is a completed board, not a person. You haven't got a point of order? I'm sorry, can I make a reference to Local Government Act section 150D which says that we must talk with respect to one another and we have minimum standards around this table? Brian Stockwell 01:07:14.294
Thank you Councillor. As I said Councillor Wilson, to move a point of order about offence and what I specifically said that offended I'm happy to receive it otherwise if you're talking to the motion please talk Nicola Wilson 01:07:32.708
I will talk to the motion and say that an extensive community consultation process occurred and valid concerns were raised by the community we're being asked by Councillor Stockwell to ignore those and to show leadership in a way that I understand given that to listen to the community. Jessica Phillips 01:08:10.340
Okay, I'm going to also just say that I also take offence to being told that the job is about being popular because. Brian Stockwell 01:08:23.891
Councillor. I'm going to speak to I'm standing on the Chair so you need to sit down. Council, you've misrepresented me. And so if can I did not say that the judge or any I say that sometimes if you just want to be popular, that sometimes you can't just be popular because you don't achieve anything. I didn't specify any Council and I didn't refer to anyone. I said in a process. So inferring that what I said is incorrect. Jessica Phillips 01:08:59.602
I'll speak against the motion and I'm going to say that I don't just respect recommendations, I respect the needs of this community. That's why we are here and that's the job that we were elected to do. Our responsibility is not just to rub a stamp, it is to listen to our residents, to the people who live here and consequences of our decisions every day. Recommendations are incredibly important but they are one part of the broader picture. If every single time we came into this chamber we simply voted in line with recommendations then I what is the point of our role as a Councillor? Why would the community even elect us if it is not to apply judgement or bring lived experience and represent their voice? Good governance requires more than process. Job is to find balance, to expert advice with community sentiment to balance policy with practicality and to balance what is recommended with what is right but more importantly I'm going to respect this community and I will make decisions with them at centre of every vote that I cast. Brian Stockwell 01:10:13.074
Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 01:10:16.574
I'll move this. Tom Wegener 01:10:18.094
Oh. Okay. Um. Regardless of what was happening today, I was going to give this speech. I was in Paris a few years ago, and there's a very nice streetscape there, shared street pathways, bikes, zooming bath people, and the whole city moves so much nicer than London did where I was a few weeks before and other places so I really understood the streetscape and I thought this is wonderful I'd love Noosa to do this so and then since that we've had consultation after with the community and our number one goal is traffic congestion and management and that has been asked of us over and again as our number one priority we've had lots of consultations and of course we have our adopted Walking and Cycling Strategy 2021 and the goal of the strategy is to make riding and bike and walking so convenient and safe that it is preferred mode of transportation for the shire's residents and visitors and that's what I saw in france and other places in my travels. The Peregian active streets 1 2 & 3 are steps towards this goal towards answering the request of the larger community to please do something about congestion and traffic and here stage 1 has been funded by the southern South East Queensland liveability fund to the amount of eight hundred and eighty thousand dollars and on the website of the it states the project comprises of 800 metres of wayfinding signage and cycle street enhance the accessibility and connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists the project will provide a seamless extension of the Sunshine Coast pathway and I would love to see a seamless pathway along the entire Sunshine Coast that just be fantastic. The Federal active transport fund is also supported and that is supporting with one million five hundred and seventy thousand dollars and on the website it says the program has been created as a part of the Australian government's commitment under the national road safety strategy to improve road safety outcomes for people walking, wheeling and riding. Of the program is to encourage and increase active transport through the upgrade of existing and construction of new bicycle and walking pathways across Australia. So we have an alliance between our local government, the State government, and the Federal government. And I feel that to reject the active street is out of step with the vision of Australia. Have an identity in Noosa as being leaders and saying, you know, we're not afraid to try something that's going to be really good with long term vision. Noosa's specialty is Now, of course, I have listened to the residents concerns. Definitely. Putting boats in and out of driveways, the parking issues, speed, and I've listened very carefully and I don't believe they outweigh the benefits the rest of the Noosa will enjoy as a result of one, two, or three of the stages because I live in Cooroy and I would love to ride my bike up there. See all kids of Noosa, all the young people saying, "Yeah, let's hop on our bike and safely go down Lorikeet Drive and into Peregian, down to Coolum and have that safety aspect." They don't have that now. Drive is, in my opinion, I've been there a lot, is not safe. I think a safe streetscape is something that should be a given, especially in our Noosa community where we are working so hard for an active street. SPEAKER_09 01:14:26.690
This last week, I was actually at party and a man was talking to me and he was so angry at the Gold Coast government, local and he said, you know, Tom, I grew up in a beach house. I'm so sorry. It's supposed to be on silent. Tom Wegener 01:14:49.470
Okay, so I was talking to the guy at the party and he was like, well, yeah, you know, local government, blah, blah, And what happened? He said, well, we had this house on the beach and it was just right we'd go out in the morning and we just felt all by ourselves. And then the Council put a path in front of the beach in between his house and the beach. And I said, was that a public property? And he dude, I said, that's public property. Your private property ends here and the public property starts there. Brian Stockwell 01:15:19.618
So, yeah, I tend to agree. Your story is perhaps going a bit too far away. If you could draw the conclusion that you got from that conversation. Tom Wegener 01:15:29.478
The conclusion is the active streetway is about public property use. Used best for the majority of the residents and would love to have this active street riding pathway up and down the Coast. It would be a wonderful thing to have for ourselves and the next generation and that's what it is. The vast majority of the people would enjoy this and a few people are affected just like the folks that had a beach house. Brian Stockwell 01:15:58.119
Thank you. Councillor. Lorentson, would you like to make a motion? Councillor Lorentson? What I do want to say, firstly, on red bull, they are two of the greatest champions, so it's not worse. So point of order. This is the third time I've ruled against that as being part of the debate. I'm going to rule that you are conducted because you have not listened to the inappropriate meeting conduct and please desist and talk to the motion or, as I said. Amelia Lorentson 01:16:43.520
Can I speak a voice meeting? From this sitting? I'm back to the point where our times are not fully in interest and that's why I said again, can I seek advice from this sitting here, please? Larry Sengstock 01:16:58.511
Can I ask a question? Can you say what was not properly addressed? Did the Chair. I understand that the Chair addressed each of those points in a way as they came through. Amelia Lorentson 01:17:09.731
He did not address them in an order through Brian Stockwell 01:17:16.782
So, you feel I didn't give a solution, sorry, okay, I didn't accept your point of order as being one that is raised in that you suggested there was a motivation behind what I said that wasn't accurate. And that you argued that, what was it, was saying that councils should be able to raise matters other than what's under debate and not through a point of order. I thought I made it clear that I didn't accept it, but I will do that now, is that is in accordance with the Standing Orders, the Councillor was open at the time I said something, or to raise a specific issue. As said, what I said isn't easy. What appears to be what's taken offence is when I said it is easy to be would Councillor, you have to make cards. Hard decisions towards that effect. I didn't make any accusation of any individual Councillor. Wasn't offensive or made offensive remarks directed at any individual and therefore I did respond to both these Councillors giving that advice. You then sought to do it but I will withdraw the finding of inappropriate meeting contact because you might be right I might not have clearly articulated my response to your point of order. Amelia Lorentson 01:18:37.596
Thank you Mr. Doctor. My, like I said, I've already started spoken a lot about my position. On the curriculum in Jacob street. What I'm going to say just briefly around this table is that I think we're giving in the fundamentals. What's in this and what's still in dispute about this is whether the specific design, at the district project, whether this specific design on these residential streets has been properly assessed, consulted. And justified. Go to reference, again, reading the report a couple of weeks ago now. Council received correspondence. And summarised the views of over 94 people that were surveyed locally around the area. 62 of those residents were from south Virginia, more than 30 from Virginia springs. Of those, from recollection only two supported the project. To me, that's sort of an overwhelming signal that it's something that has gone something wrong in how this has been developed. And presented. Again, I'm just quickly going to repeat the report you know I mean you may have a lot of problem that might just a few minutes before cycling down to the city for one of our sessions. Organisations. And again, those organisations have a legitimate voice. But again, they don't live in the streets. The 94 people surveyed lived Those 94 people plus the whole precinct, the other ones that are going to be affected by the daily reality of potentially reduced-- parking, constrained roadways or a path design that raises genuine safety concerns to the children who walk into school and also conflict between users. I had an e-mail sent to me recently about a resident in south Virginia who referenced our risk appetite statement which clearly says we have zero tolerance for anything that puts safety in front of our residents. In the end, we've got a design plan that potentially puts at risk the safety of children that can serve weather management and pedestrians. So, in summary, to me, the recent proceeding with the recommendation in front of us, it's not just a design risk. It's also a public trust risk. This community has watched a consultation process that started with less than 24 hours notice for the first information session. If it attended meetings during week, jurors at work hours and raised concerns that it may or not be recorded or escalated. We've asked for survey data and not received it. Proceeding now on this report sends a message to our community that none of that matters. The lesson here is not that cycling infrastructure is wrong. It's that a consultation poorly costs more than some consultation done properly in community and trust in time and ultimately in outcomes. So we have an opportunity to get excited by supporting the alternative motion and not recommendation which in my opinion disregards the voices of community. That we are meant to live for. Karen Finzel 01:22:36.726
Through the Chair, question to the CEO. I didn't item number B of the last meeting was to direct the CEO to engage with South East Queensland liveability fund and active transport fund to determine whether funding can in fact be reallocated to deliver practical infrastructure improvements and encourage you to reach out for alternatives including but not limited to pedestrian footpath connections, stormwater, infrastructure, park and stream planning. Consistent with the priorities expressed by the community through the engagement process. Through the Chair and Mr CEO can you please advise us if any or what information you have received back with regard to that matter. Larry Sengstock 01:23:34.081
Correct me if I'm wrong Director but my understanding is that we haven't had any response at this point in time and as we said at the General Committee that we can't control that. We can ask questions but in terms of data response, we are in the SMS category. Haven't got a response. Shaun Walsh 01:23:55.711
I'd probably further support that as well. We have made informal communication with the funding communications area and General Committee recommendations. But we're also aware that we need to wait for the resolution of Council to formally act. Which is the resolution that will occur meeting. At this moment. So we have faithfully made initial approaches to them. In terms of us making the formal request, we have to go for the resolution. Brian Stockwell 01:24:21.794
Very much. While you're there Director, in some of the information that was provided prior to the there was a suggestion that on the existing arrangements that the active transport fund would need to see construction completed by October 26. Is that the case as it seems stands now? Shaun Walsh 01:24:43.641
The information presented the addendums to the report showed that there was an extensive extension to that time period which did allow us to Karen Finzel 01:24:58.875
President: another question please to the Chair, to Mr CEO. Is there opportunity at all to proceed with funding to address the communities um the communities expectations that the just the basic infrastructure um be upgraded and replaced? Is there opportunity that we could proceed forward with that and then address other issues around the gaps that I see around the demands of education to the board of the community about our higher order to meet our strategies in our Corporate Plan with regards to a whole Shire active street idea to support it. So Councillor Wegener brought to the table in terms of the higher goals of nationally around dealing with congestion and activating for health and wellbeing these streets. Larry Sengstock 01:25:59.020
So I think it falls on to what the Director just said, Sean, we are have to wait for holistic the funding bodies to come back to us in terms of whether we can utilise that money for something other than what we've prescribed at this point in time. Yes, the new recommendation or that was made in the General Committee looked to see if we could use it to do guttering and upgrade of the road and footpaths. We don't have an answer on that at this point in time. If we aren't able to utilise the funding for that, then that would come out of, that would be a project that would then come back into us as an organisation. To fund out of our own budgets, but that's not been included in our current budget for 26, 27 years, so that would have to be something that would be looked at as a future. You could use it on our list. As we all know, there's a long list of projects that we'd like to undertake. But it's not been scheduled because it's been focused through this funding. Amelia Lorentson 01:27:13.408
If this recommendation forms, is there an automatic or an alternate motion that is supported and generally is held in a tariff? Or is it a sacral, divinatory, charitable discipline that is available to an international community? Larry Sengstock 01:27:28.025
Um, my understanding is that if this one's not held then the recommendation from the General Committee needs to be put to the district for final resolution as it would normally be. Or any other alternative motion someone wants to make? Yes, sorry. Brian Stockwell 01:27:56.440
You. Councillor Finzel. Any more questions or talk to the motion? Karen Finzel 01:28:01.280
Well, a question I guess to staff or CEO, I guess it's probably going to have to be on notice, but off the top of everyone's head, in terms of that strategy. Straight and prioritisation, where is that sitting on the current register? Shaun Walsh 01:28:27.668
Probably to give a bit of context, we have streets with our kerb and channelling and footpaths across the whole of the Shire. So at the moment our new footpath budget over the previous years is only about $1.4 million. Sorry, not it's extensive to address all of the requests for new footpaths and also kerb and channelling across the Shire. So, um, and, um, Noosa Council over decades has been very advantageous actually taking advantage of grant funding to actually meet rural clients. So, getting back to that, core question is that, um, we can tap into funding, but, uh, it would be quite a significant amount of, um, increase to actually achieve it in this location, and it would need to be balanced against other priorities, um, yeah, so, there are other, in isolation, footpaths in the Shire that are actually higher priority in this location. The, um, advantage of this one is it met, um, funding criteria of external agencies. Jessica Phillips 01:29:43.497
You. Thanks. Just a question. Just please. Everyone put your hand Um, probably to the CEO. Um, has there been a body of work done previously when we talk about grants pushing a. Will get to a question. I'm just going to work out how to. When a grant funds a project that takes it from 90-something on the list to now prioritisation, but in the Capital Works Executive, I see that when we do capex, there's no operational cost in included. How does this. How does this change the prioritisation for community? So, one thing that I'm noticing is something will bump up on the prioritisation because of a grant, and then we have to fund it through opex, which continues to expand our operational. Budget and then we don't have I know on active street. I know. But it probably will be a question to the Acting Director Corporate Services, I think, in the end. My question goes to the CEO. Does it make sense what I'm trying to say? Larry Sengstock 01:31:00.392
Yeah. So, as Sean said, we have a long list of projects that we've scoped out to winnipeg. Some more than others. There it is, take advantage of funding, either that, be it through our own budgets or through grant funding, or both. So, when a grant comes along, an opportunity comes along, we then look at that list and which ones meet that criteria and then we if it's possible to bring it up the list because it meets a certain criteria, then we bring it to Council. And that's what's happened with this. We brought we all decided that was a project that met the criteria and was something that we could fund and move forward with because it actively met the criteria of all articles. The funding body was looking for. In terms of IBEX, currently we've got IBEX on that street, on all of our streets. We're continually upgrading, maintaining, we're doing work on them this would, what this does is actually brings in a new piece which then technically pushes IBEX budget out further, which we care for. We do that through our asset management plan, so when it's required to be upgraded or maintained or have new work done to it, that then fits into in the future. So what it actually does is by producing new, then it actually pushes our OPEX budget out, which is technically a good thing, because we've now got a new piece that shouldn't need work on it for a number of years, and we can build that future work into our future budget. So that's the principle and the model that we run with, and how we do it. And that's how this one got a higher rating or priority, because we've met some of the criteria, we brought it back, we had this opportunity, this is one we thought was a reasonable opportunity for us to take, and then we just agreed by Council to go forward with that project. That's how it's going to Amelia Lorentson 01:33:07.130
I'm just a sorry. Question, we now have a report which formally tables some significant safety concerns in terms of if an active street project goes ahead, there's the potential you've got pedestrians coming in the middle of the road with fast moving cars, coming from both sides. The report focuses on-- a lot on reputation and financial risk, not so much on safety risk. My question to the CEO, now that it's been tabled and given that our risk antics statement is very clear with a zero tolerance of what is safety, regardless of what happens in terms of all being bonded. The funding, will these unsafe risks, and I'm talking, you know, in south Virginia, but now we identify the table as high safety concerns. They be pushed up in terms of priority given the safety concerns which are now being tabled? Larry Sengstock 01:34:18.533
I can't give you a direct answer to that, Councillor, because we have any community, Shire, not just Noosa, but there's areas that have got similar risks or issues and we deal with them as best we can, and that's what we do. Certainly, this has been identified. This would now potentially go back into the mix, and when we do assess all of our projects and future projects, then that will be, part of it, but it's not what I count. Can't war. Say that it's more, a higher safety risk than some of our other streets. And again, you talk to residents, and they all claim different things, and we have to measure them against each other, and I can't say we're all against other priorities within Noosa, the Shire. Amelia Lorentson 01:35:10.377
Just in terms of discharging our obligations and of Councillors around the table, I'd just like to just say that I think that pockets of high risk, safety concerns and might be not really managed. Brian Stockwell 01:35:29.757
So, Councillor Finzel, I believe you're the only one that hasn't talked to the motion would you like to do so? I'm not really sure. Karen Finzel 01:35:40.613
This is really challenging I think. You know, again, I think sometimes we're at a point in history. Aspirations and our systems are not yet aligned. I think, for me, the big issue here when you look at the gap in education. And awareness across the whole of the Shire around those safety and active transport benefits. SPEAKER_06 01:36:20.145
That is a big gap in this decision-making model. That. I think all the issues have been raised. I mean, I think in terms of being a Councillor and leadership, our role is to ensure that it's in our Corporate Plan, which is what I bring to every meeting. It's well used and reliable. Karen Finzel 01:36:40.781
You know, our objectives 5.6 under exilis states increased opportunities for the meaningful collaboration and community engagement which is highly representative of our community, especially our so I think we've got a bit of work to do in terms of the Council around actually when we look at the future, when we talk about the follower Shire, high strategic thinking and decision making, I think we still have a lot of work to do. Think this highlights that for us today, how can we actually head towards excellence because clearly there are some gaps and we need to work towards excellence and engender trust in our community. So I think there's a few issues. Think As this stands today, I've still got a few matters, especially the one raised that until there's a resolution on this, apparently we can't hear back from the liveability funding. Is that correct, Mr CEO? Can you please clarify that? Larry Sengstock 01:37:54.245
No, as Sean said, we've been told to go to that, but to formally do it we need a resolution. We're waiting on it. We've done it informally, but it's part of the process. Brian Stockwell 01:38:06.230
Okay, thank you for the clarification. Amelia Lorentson 01:38:11.129
Intense. So, terms of the informal communications made, with state funding, has Council got any indication that part of the funding could be reallocated to genuine infrastructure projects? Just to south bridgeton, but across communities, that we're not going to lose the funding. Larry Sengstock 01:38:37.593
Again, no, we haven't had any. And we haven't asked, or we haven't got any response, put it that way. All we've done is said this is a position that we're currently in, terms of the recommendations coming to us. Just highlighting to them and basically getting them ready. Brian Stockwell 01:38:57.597
Okay. I'll close the debate. So there has been good discussion around safety. So refer back to the original report. It tells us that for Peregian beach south, segment six of the corridor, four route options were looked at: multi-criteria analysis looked at safety, comfort, directness and coherence, connectivity, strategic alignment and feasibility. Lorikeet drive scored the highest or equal to the highest across all criteria and ranked the highest in both unweighted and weighted scoring. Key between route A, David Low Way, and route B, Lorikeet Shearwater, were connectivity, strategic, alignment and feasibility. Several design treatments were also explored including cycle street, active advisory bicycle lanes and chaired pathways. These treatment types were scored against the following criteria: safety, connectivity, feasibility and impact, the active street concept supported by TMR performed best for safety and feasibility. So if we went with the recommendation from the committee. Are locking ourselves into a sub-optimal use of funds whether it's state or councils. Because the analysis has already beaten that. The design put before us is supported, performed, for safety and feasibility. So then we looked at the valid questions around prioritisation and this is where without a detailed understanding of the different ways this particular path has been prioritised it can be murky. So we know in the report it talks about the cyclone cycling and walking strategy of this specific link being quite low but if you link it through to the shops it goes up in ranking quite significantly. And that was something when we did the cycling and walking strategy it was really heavily debated about how we showed the priorities. But because as the Director told us in answer we only have budgets for small sections it would determine that it's best to keep it at that small section. From memory when we did the first prioritisation the highest priority link was between the Noosaville state school in st theresa's and district sports complex. That whole link I think it came up with one or two. You look at the individual segments that need to be done in there in Walking and Cycling Strategy they'll be much lower. So we go back to say well how is the best priority and as Councillor Wegener argued convincingly in my opinion. It might be. The priority is based on the fact that it's part of the long-term coastal pathway corridor that has looked at connecting caloundra a table for taunting shops. And we've been progressively doing that both along the beaches, both coming Hastings Street along the river and currently working on others. So it's not a matter of reprioritising, it's about choosing what's of the high priority areas are best to achieved limited impact with on the rate payer and in this case the bucket of funding identified that this section for cycle street was, or the two buckets funding, was most beneficial. I'm not going to discount the fact that yes, a lot of concerns raised by people in the immediate locality and we talked and we talked.loss of car parking, yes, but if we're going to do anything for safety we'll probably lose car parking because at the moment, when it's busy, you go to a one lane. Road with two lanes of parking that are uncontrolled. I then, because you know, people want to keep it the way it's been ever since south Peregian came across Noosa Shire many years ago, that sort of feel, pretty laid back, pretty coastal, or whether you want to start preparing for the future. And for me, if I owned a house on that street and I looked at the stormwater systems pavement, I would be over the moon to have a Council wanting to do what is proposed here. I'd because I do like riding to the shops or walking know it would increase my property value significantly. It's starting to create an atmosphere where residential streets are for the residents, not cars zooming up to get catch and serve. It's for the residents and people who want to visit in a low speed, high amenity area and the design, I am confident. It went ahead would be one that in two years time that the local residents will be thankful for. I put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stockwell. STOPWELL. Those against? That's Councillor Wilson, Finzel, Lorentson and Phillips. The motion is lost. Councillor Lorentson. I would like to move the alternate motion that was supported at the General Committee. And do we have a seconder for that motion? Councillor Phillips. You have the floor Councillor Lorentson. I think everything's been said. I just present this as the right way forward. Finkel. Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Karen Finzel 01:45:02.335
Finzel: can I ask a question? You may. Councillor Finzel could we somehow be able to add an extra bit into this that talks about like looking at broad community engagement through education around this matter? Is that relevant to this today? To be able to include that, support the development of education awareness around active streets in the whole of the community? Include the aspect around engagement given it's been a big part of this SPEAKER_08 01:45:36.910
Influence decision? You would be able to name it if for me. Shaun Walsh 01:45:40.190
Can I just pay back to that? Yeah, okay. Yes, I that's my question, is it relevant? Brian Stockwell 01:45:46.570
No, sorry. I'm looking at the motion. The report is only noted and there's only one action which is about the CEA to engage with South East Queensland to fund an active transport return with available grant funding and direct the CEA to report back on those issues. An amendment to do broader education would not be the motion, it would be a different motion. So, while I understand your desire to understand have it looked at, it wouldn't that motion. Amelia Lorentson 01:46:19.769
Okay. Thank you, Mr Chair. Through the CEO, could Councillor Finzel request the address operationally? It's on Shaun Walsh 01:46:34.009
Thank you Councillor for the question. Council every year considers the Go Noosa report and uses sustainable Transport Levy, which is all about encouraging active transport and there's actually a report coming to the July meeting about how we spend those funds which would include scope for education programs for active transport. So we'll offer further discussion with that at the next round of meetings. Brian Stockwell 01:46:55.939
Thank you. Happy to address you. Okay, would anyone else wish to talk? Councillor Lorentson would you wish to close? All those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson, Finzel, Lawrence and Phillips. And those against would remain at Wegener and Stockwell. And we can invite Councillor Wilkie back to Chair the meeting. The motion is passed. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:48:36.160
Okay. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell, for chairing. We're now at item 11.2. Which is the 26-27 community. Program, project and signature community event grant summary. 11.2.3, 2026, 2027 community project grants program projects, 11 Brian Stockwell 01:48:57.860
2.4, 26-27 Community project grants program facility development, and we have a few. Councillor Wilson? I'm already up. Oh, sorry. I've got a conflict of interest. Yes. And it's in accordance with the relevant section of the act. I wish to declare a prescribed conflict of interest. Yeah, I'm up for that. For item 11.24, for the community grants program, community project development on this agenda, as I'm the current president of Noosa Lions Football Club, who I recommend it for funding. As a result of my conflict, recommended I will now leave the meeting while the matter is considered and voted on. Frank Wilkie 01:49:44.058
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:49:51.800
In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I, Councillor Nicola Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to item 11.2.4, 2026-7. Grants program community project grants facility development as Noosa Arts Theatre has been recommended as a recipient of a facility development grant. I am the senior vice president of Noosa Arts Theatre as a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room. While the matter is considered to end. Frank Wilkie 01:50:22.627
Thank you Councillor Wilson. I also have conflict of interest to declare. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act, I, Councillor Frank Wilkie, informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in the matter, community grants program, community project grants facility development, on this agenda in relation to the application for Noosa Arts Theatre. While I am no longer in a decision making position on the Noosa Arts Theatre committee, I continue to volunteer my time in productions at the theatre. Although I am making a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because Noosa Arts Theatre is a not-for-profit group and I am participating in unpaid capacity and am not involved in any decision-making capacity. Therefore I will choose to remain in the meeting room but I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Amelia Lorentson 01:51:27.548
You. I'm happy to move that Councillor Frank Wilkie remains in the group and participates in the decision before us. Believe that his, if I could have a correct wording, probably easier than improvising, but do believe he can remain impartial in making the decision. He's no longer sitting on the executive and his association with the Noosa Arts Theatre, though involved is as a member, which. But I'll use the standard wording, Vicki. There we go, okay. SPEAKER_08 01:52:12.510
Can we have the Director? Frank Wilkie 01:52:14.570
Oh, just a small point of procedure. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson, but we do need to appoint a Chair before these motions. Amelia Lorentson 01:52:26.130
I'm happy to recommend Councillor Jess Phillips SPEAKER_08 01:52:31.490
Sits as Chair. Happy to second. Thank you. All those in favour? I vote on that. Jessica Phillips 01:52:40.790
Should. Yeah. So thank you, Councillor Lorentson. We wanted to move that Mayor Wilkie stays in the room. Amelia Lorentson 01:53:33.303
Council's conflict of interest as described. It is decided that Council may participate and vote on this matter relating to the 2026-2027 community projects grant program facility development. Jessica Phillips 01:53:45.923
Do we have a seconder? Happy all those in favour? And that's carried. Mayor Wilkie, you can stay and take your position as Chair, I believe. Frank Wilkie 01:53:58.806
Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Very well done. Now, can we have a mover and a seconder for the committee recommendations, please? Happy to move. Councillor Finzel, seconded, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That is carried unanimously. Can we have Councillors Wilson and Stockwell back in the meeting room, please? I don't know what time it was, but let's do it. 11.2.5, 20, 26, 27, community project grants program equipment. 11.2.6, community progress grant program events. 11.2.7, community grants program three-year signature community event grants. 11.2.8, legacy plot reservation management policy. 11.2.9, support for all access and inclusion program. 11.2.10, was referred to the Ordinary Meeting for a further report and we will deal with at item 12. On the agenda which was the Fees and Charges. 11.2.11, Noosa Botanic Gardens master plan. 11.2.12, further report, Tourism Noosa funding and performance deed. 11.2.13, Noosa biosecurity plan. 11.2.14 was referred to today's Ordinary Meeting for two further reports which we will deal with at item 12.1 and 12.2 on this agenda, which is the environment and climate change response. Environment project grants round 21, grants round 6.11.2.15, planning applications decided by delegated authority April 2026 which an 11.2.16 confidential not for public release proposed land rationalisation yarn away lot 2 on RP889596 and Noosa Drive lot on RP884396.11.1.7 is the General Committee recommendations en bloc. We have a move and a second for the General Committee that Councillor Wilson's off the mark. We have a second. Thank you Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's unanimous. We now move to the ordinary and we had a further report on the environment project grants round 21 which was referred to the General Committee from the 9th of June. And we have Ben Derrick thank you, Ben, to give us a summary. Of the report please? The place Ben Derrick 01:56:53.814
Mayor and Chair and good morning Councillors. By the environment that it is and supports the implementation of the Noosa Environment Strategy as well as councils other key environment strategies and plans. The environment project grant program is designed to enable collaboration with the community in initiatives that work towards outcome and identifying targets identified in the Environment Strategy. All initiatives funded by the environment grants program must have tangible and measurable outcomes and the total budget for financial year 26-27 is $35,000. This year we received nine applications for request totalling $162,282. In accordance with the environment grants guidelines, each application was assessed by panel of three officers against a set of criteria that are detailed in our policy. Applications from the 9th of February from 2026 until the 23rd of March 2026. Promotion of the grant guidelines includes social media advertising, specific emails to not-for-profit community groups that have been involved in the grant program previously, direct conversations with NRM groups and details published on our website. The grant required the applicant to engage with a relevant Council officer prior to submitting the application, which gave us with clarity and sight on the development of grant applications as they were being this round, following developed. Discussions from Council meetings last year, this round introduced more robust governance enhancements to improve defensibility, objectivity and transparency of the valuation process to ensure the integrity program, the assessment and methodology was executed in four phases. The first being probity and conflict of interest screening. The second one being an expert technical review by an internal member of our staff. Was a cross-disciplinary panel evaluation undertaken by the same three panel members for all grant applications in this program. And the fourth one was independent scoring and executive moderation by our Director. The recommendation for the environment project grants for this year is to fully fund two, 000. Applications totalling $24,129 and partially fund one application totalling $10,870. Information on the grant applications is attached to the report. Frank Wilkie 01:59:32.822
You, any questions for Ben? Some care to move the recommendation? Happy to move. Councillor Stockwell, we have a seconder please. I'm happy to second. Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to talk to the motion? Brian Stockwell 01:59:55.580
It's really good. Sometimes we don't get many applications for these small grants and this time we're well and truly, you know, nearly five times the amount of funds available, four or five times, that's been issued. We do have the larger grants that come up less frequently. But what we've got here is three really good local projects and while we would love to have more money it's also important that we maintain the Environment Levy so that the long-term modelling does allow us to do big projects and also allows us to keep a kitty to acquire land for our environment reserve network. So the Teewah Turtle Trackers funding, it's a great local initiative of a species that are of significance and it's in an area where we get a lot of exposure from both our residents who like to go fishing and surfing up that way and also from lot of visitors. The Wildlife Noosa obviously plays a great role looking at reducing. Their potential threats to birds like the pelican, no doubt. And yes, the Pinbarren project, there's lots to be done in Pinbarren and providing any funds to address the issues there a good initiative. Frank Wilkie 02:01:11.169
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anyone else wish to speak? Wish to close, Councillor Stockwell? Are you happy with everything you said? I'll put it to the vote. That's unanimous. Thank you, Ben. All right. We now move to 12.2, which is a further report of climate change response grants. Referred from the General Committee dated 9th of June. Councillor Stockwell, I believe you have a to declare. Brian Stockwell 02:01:46.549
I'll start. Under the normal section of the act, I have a prescribed conflict of interest. In regard to, Matt, item 12.3, environment and climate change response grants, environment project grant, round 21, six. Oh, is that the right descriptor? Or does that refer to how it was referred to in the general, so it'll be just, sorry, it'll be in regard to item 12.2. Yeah. Oh the Ordinary Meeting agenda, and yeah, and as I'm the current president of Noosa Lions Football Club, who I'm aware submitted grant I declare a conflict of interest oh, okay. Hang on. Actually, take out that whole sentence and say, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and I have gone. Okay, yeah. Isn't it prescribed? Didn't we say it was prescribed? Yeah, that's what I said at the top too, didn't I? Oh yeah, I tried to do it with declared changed, if you remember. Right, okay. So a lot of night, even late. Yeah, and if you change on the first line, change the declarable describe. Sorry. It's okay. All there. Frank Wilkie 02:03:32.331
Yeah. I don't want to leave, Larry Sengstock 02:03:57.620
So I'm going to ahead and leave. Counselled- Frank Wilkie 02:04:12.140
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell? Sorry, what's that Councillor Thank you. Okay, we have Cheyenne barman here for this report. Welcome, Cheyenne. Cheyenne 02:04:29.466
Through the Chair, thank you for the opportunity. Noosa Council's change response grants aim the implementation of the climate Plan, the coastal hazards adaptation plan, and the regional climate action Roadmap, as well as the objectives priorities in the Corporate Plan related to climate change response. Subject to budget outcomes, the current total financial year 26-27 budget for the response grants is $50,000. The climate change response grants are funded by general rates and this is the sixth round of annual grant funding to date. Nine applications were received for the current round for funding requests totalling $145,753.06 and a total combined project value of $269,000. Fifty four dollars and six these the strong desire for community support as well as the willingness to co-invest in measures that reduce emissions which cause climate change and adapt to growing climate change impacts by building resilience. It is noted that the calibre of grants received in this round was strong and represented actions across emissions reduction and climate change adaptation the projects all reflected well against the themes of climate change response plan applications were open from 9th of February 2026 until 23rd of March 2026 applications internally through a more robust governance process this year to improve defensibility objectivity and transparency of the evaluation process as mentioned by manager of environment services Ben Derrick. Four projects have been recommended for funding based on a thorough assessment against the evaluation criteria community benefit and Council priorities funding requested across the four projects totals $48,869. Hundred and sixty nine dollars and six cents staff have also identified number of minor conditions that would be required for each successful applicant to implement during project delivery would be included in the notice of successful grant outcome. Further information regarding the applications and individual funding recommended are provided in attachment one. Council staff plan to reach to out individually the successful applicants to let them know should they be approved by Council as well as the five unsuccessful applicants in this program and work with them on their projects to improve the identified gaps in their applications and see how they can be supported through existing programs and opportunities to meet the need that articulated. Overall, most applications worked highly against the relevant grant criteria and we are incredibly grateful for the time invested by all applicants and community groups to apply for the climate change response grants. Thank you. Any questions for Cheyenne? Jessica Phillips 02:07:16.495
I do have a question please. Cheyenne, thank you. Just in relation to climate change response greats being funded by general rates, can you talk me how, talk me through how that sort of came about? I would have thought and I think the community would maybe think that it came from Environment Levy. So could you just it comes out of general rates? Cheyenne 02:07:36.192
Yes thanks for the question Councillor. I wasn't here when that decision was made that predated my time but it comes out of the operational budget in relation to our sustainability bucket which is an operation budget that is separate to the Environment Levy. The environment grants come through and it was a decision of Council at the time as I understand to allow that. I'm out of operational budget. Frank Wilkie 02:08:07.998
Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:08:12.338
Probably just a follow-up and just I'm going to reference a public question that we heard earlier today. Yes. Terms of measurable outcomes, targets and key performance indicators. So think I raised this question at general meetings in terms of outcomes, looking at all our grants, not specifically this one, but whether we can report the outcomes that we've found in terms of the grants that we support. I understand that information already exists within Council. It's not publicly shared. So question or noting, can we expect some public sharing of that information in terms of what outcomes were committed and delivered, particularly when the projects are cumulative over multi-years? Cheyenne 02:09:08.009
Thank you for the question, Councillor. I agree that is very important. Thank you. And we can definitely do that. Look back and make sure that outcomes from previous grants and the current ones that have KPIs and outcomes against them can be reported and shared with communities. Understand the impact value that these projects have. Frank Wilkie 02:09:27.507
For the benefit of those who may be listening, could you talk us through and give us a summary of each of the projects that were successful? Cheyenne 02:09:34.727
Yes, sure, no problem. So thank you for there. For question, Mayor. So, the first recommended project for funding is from the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation and the called future tide: 2027 Noosa youth climate summit. So, NBRF, in partnership with the Noosa Environmental Education Hub, plans to host the free youth-led future tide at the J theatre on 27th of May, 2027. The event plans to empower young people to take practical climate action through keynote presentations led by youth, student-led sessions, hands-on workshops, and a sustainable careers expo. It will also embed First Nations knowledge sharing to highlight cultural stewardship and deepen connections to country. The second funding is by Zero Emissions Noosa Incorporated called swap the drive, supporting modal shift from cars to bikes. This project would build on the Noosa e-bike library and go car free Noosa campaign. It is and the initiative will promote cycling as a healthy, low emissions alternative trips. The program provide 120 free to each two-week e-bike loans, that's the target, deliver presentations and demonstrations on safe, legal and practical cycling and run a social media campaign encouraging everyday bike use. Activities would intensify around world car free day to boost awareness and participation. The third project recommended for grant funding is by urban wildlife gardens, which is a program by Noosa Integrated Catchment Association and the project is titled get climate ready with Noosa native plants. This project would update the website include climate resilience information, helping residents choose native species suited to future conditions and support urban greening. Working with Council and NRM partners, the project would assess around 350 priority species using established climate adaptation tools, updated taxonomy and cultivation information, develop ecosystem-specific garden templates, and deliver workshops and outreach to encourage uptake. The result will give the community clear, accessible guidance to create biodiversity. Diverse water-efficient climate-resilient gardens that support local project recommended for funding is solar on low-income homes by Zero Emissions Noosa Inc. This project proposes to install solar on ten low-income Noosa homes, building on council's 24/25 pilot that delivered systems to ten households. ZEN Inc.. Will replicate a proven crowdfunding model to raise $25,000 from the community, with the grant contribution the remaining $35,000 total project cost. Donations would be sought from supporters in the wider community and promoted with permission through media to boost participation, supported by zero emissions noosa's DGR status. The project provides an affordable community-backed pathway to expand solar access populations. For vulnerable households. So, as you can see, a diverse range across transport, renewable energy, lowering the cost of electricity for some of the most vulnerable in the community, as well as climate adaptation with regard to building. Frank Wilkie 02:13:20.417
I'll second it Councillor Wegener Tom Wegener 02:13:27.557
I would just say I'm just so proud of these projects. I'm so happy that Noosa Council amplifies incredibly good work of these community groups that are full of volunteers, volunteering their time to help us all through the enhancement of Noosa Shire. I'm especially looking forward to the Zero Emissions Noosa expo this weekend where I'm going to be learning about house batteries because get my electricity Bill going up and I know that electricity is very cheap during the day and more expensive at night. So, Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:14:01.539
For supporting these wonderful community Councillors wish to speak? Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 02:14:12.061
I'm a bit concerned with some of these recommendations and have asked that we revisit the assessment criteria for future rounds. My intent, of course, is always to act in the public interest, and I'm not sure that ratepayers paying for solar for 10 property owners is in the broader public interest regardless of income. I do support work zone does and know how hard the volunteers work. I do think the e-bike library is a good idea. However I'm not sure it should draw on Council grants to fund its ongoing operations. This is a long-term project and was set up with state government funding to acquire the bikes and other equipment. At that time. Zhen Zero Emissions Noosa should have had a plan to fund its ongoing operational expenses and I don't think that should be done by entering a competitive grant process each year. Council already funds ZEN's operating budget and I believe this should be covered as an ongoing BAU expense. If we fund this year, does that mean that we're now expected to fund it every year across the life of the project? If this is the expectation, it should have been agreed with Council as part of the project plan. Seems a poor process to start a capital project and not have an ongoing plan to fund its operations. Well, I like the idea of the bike library a lot. There is no evidence that the bike loans have reduced or replaced car usage, that they have led to significant purchase of e-bikes, based on participant feedback, it's less than 30 went on to actually buy an e-bike, and a two-week loan has minimal impact on emissions. If the loans had a servicing charge of $50 per week or $100 per fortnight loan, this project could be self-funded. If people are really in the market. To spend thousands of dollars on an e-bike, I think they would welcome the chance to try before you buy at a cost of a hundred dollars. It does not need to be free. If they can't spend that hundred dollars, then they're really not in the market to buy an e-bike. If they can afford I don't see why ratepayers should pay for the loan. Frank Wilkie 02:16:19.840
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Any Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Amelia Lorentson 02:16:22.800
Oh, sure. Councillor Wilson. Can I move an amendment? Of course. Thank you. I'd just like to that the motion be amended to exclude from the list of approved recipients under the climate change response grant. And it's, sorry, remove. Zero Emissions Noosa climate change response grants. SPEAKER_08 02:16:57.607
Happy to second. It's a C, is it? Remove. Amelia Lorentson 02:17:06.727
Zero emissions. Noosa. From the list of approved recipients the climate change response grants. SPEAKER_08 02:17:19.693
Climate change. Sorry. From the list of approved recipients under the climate change response grants. Climate change. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:18:04.503
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:18:07.523
I think we raised some of our concerns during a recent workshop and I think Councillor Wilson has articulated the concerns really well, so I'm not going to over that. Probably all I want to sort of raise is that. Importance that any money spent is that kind of money. And that in terms of projects, I always look at it and I think we have a really great panel that assesses all criteria, but I think a couple of the projects, in my opinion, to me, I look at biggest impact and are we delivering value for great paid so we had, like I said, raised some concerns rather than repeating what's already been said. My issue is simply the projects needs to represent best value for money when compared to other projects. That have requested funding. Frank Wilkie 02:19:12.156
You know, anybody else wish to speak to the motion? I will, the amendment. Can I just say, Councillors, these applicants have applied in good faith under a policy and a process that has been widely advertised and clearly understood. They have been recommended for approval by an expert panel because they do meet the objectives of the policies of which they're applied under. Concerns about value for money are valid, but if, as see in the attachment, the Zero Emissions Noosa projects administered by volunteers, one of them returned is a $12,000 recommendation returning 30 $37,000 worth of value. So a leverage of three times the investment. That's the swap the drive, the modal shift. Solar and low income homes which provides electricity Bill relief to our most vulnerable in our community. An opportunity that would never happen under any other circumstance. That investment of $10,000 to ease the burden of 10 low income households our community for a total project value of $45,000. So I'm saying Councillors if you have objections to that on value for money we need to see that reflected in the leverage that has been reported to us but also change the policy. Don't do it at this point of the process. It's okay to not agree ratepayers funds are being spent in this case less than fifty thousand dollars which is a relatively small amount I think it's point zero three percent of the total Council budget very small amount for such an important subject let's respect the process these applicants have entered to it in good faith and I think it's unfair to cruel their chances at this late part of the process. And if you have differences with the practice as Councillor Wilson said let's review the criteria but this is not the place to do that. I take the point about the criteria we need to review how the money is spent it's a very good point but I think point for them. SPEAKER_07 02:22:13.380
Castle Councillor Wilson. Can I ask a question please from the Chair. Just on a statement that Mayor Wilkie has just made about Nicola Wilson 02:22:23.140
The I just want to clarify some figures because I've been looking at this one for some time and asking lots of clarification questions. Which have been so blessed to work out since then $37,000 isn't actually the value generated by the project, it's the cost of the project. So it's about $11,000 that has been spent already with the State funding to purchase the bikes and equipment. Then it's $12,000 or nearly $13,000 from Council potentially under this grant, and $13,000 in. Volunteer time, please. Cheyenne 02:22:58.650
Thanks for the question, councillor. Councillor. So the way that we run the these grants through the guideline that we provide community is that we ask them to outline a budget and in that budget put how much your funding requests you're putting Council, and then also put in your co-contribution. And-contribution can come from both cash contributions as well as in-kind, which is common practice with many grants. And so for this particular grant, swap the drive from zero emissions incorporated. They requested $12,899 and then the remainder of that $37,000 total project value was from co-contribution, which one was the value bikes that they have existing and they were provided previously. From a previous grant in 2025, I think it was. And then the remainder is volunteer time. So that is reflected as income and as a co-contribution, cash and Jessica Phillips 02:24:04.541
Can I ask a question to Councillor Lorentson and just around this one. Are you recommending just for this round or for like if there was a policy review? I just need to clarify. I potentially if you're looking at it and then if we review the policy then the criteria changes and then they potentially are included again. Does that make sense? Amelia Lorentson 02:24:34.093
Thank you very much. Again, we workshopped and raised all these issues during the workshop and my issues were at the time you know around the table with people with quite a few issues, right? Of that is that rather than refuse the whole all the applications just the two that I have concern and it's nothing to do with zero emissions work. Just the projects that we put forward that those ones be removed and not approved and in terms of criteria and assessment that gets done as well. Jessica Phillips 02:25:22.003
And question because I'd like to support this I just wondered if we do go for a policy would you be willing to look at just for this one that's in front of us it for today and then that way I feel more comfortable if there's a review of the policy or the criteria that we can have that discussion in a workshop? Yes. Okay. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 02:25:48.041
Would an alternate method be to split the original motion and vote on A, B, C, D? Because I feel like this wording is maybe not. SPEAKER_08 02:25:58.898
It just might be misinterpreted of what the issues are. Amelia Lorentson 02:26:09.148
Absolutely agree with that because, as I said, Sarah mission has done excellent work and contributed a lot and I don't want this misread as we're not backing the organisation, for example, in the expo. It looks like we've got a team of excellent people, volunteers, who do good work. My issue with them is just. So what's the course of action you propose in Council? I would like to let this amendment fail and if we can reconsider. Failed as Councillors. Wilson said, just putting the motion into four pieces so we can vote on each project rather than using the wording that's not correct. I'm happy for this today. To vote. Frank Wilkie 02:26:54.708
Okay, so unless anyone else wants to speak to the motion, we'll put it to the vote. Or can I just withdraw the motion? You can with the consent of the meeting. Amelia Lorentson 02:27:06.906
Yeah, I'm happy, yes. Motion. Frank Wilkie 02:27:09.566
The amendment is withdrawn. SPEAKER_08 02:27:20.820
So, I need Larry Sengstock 02:27:18.780
To move--- Sorry, yes, just so you can get the wording right and bring it back and SPEAKER_08 02:27:24.440
We can-- get the original motion. Frank Wilkie 02:27:27.780
Is this for that? Yeah, bring up the original motion. So so this where it stands. We'll have to go to This is the original motion. Org community so you'd move an amendment which would strike out the ones you SPEAKER_08 02:27:51.435
He's put the motion we can vote on each separately. This has been first and second. I love you. SPEAKER_02 02:28:06.555
Oh, I see. Because it's been seconded. Spaniel. Frank Wilkie 02:28:10.016
Yes. Okay. And we can amend this motion. Each time striking out one of each time if you want. No, because and we can still vote on whether each project stays in or not if you highlight each as a name, or you highlight the ones you don't. Karen Finzel 02:28:39.910
I just have a question Through the Chair. I'm, you know, I've sat on committees with robust panels around the process to arrive at, you know, how funding is allocated and adjudicated. It's out already. Governance. It feels a bit to me like this is a bit like policy on the hot when we've got a process that has been undertaken in good faith and then yeah I'm just not sure I think do we need to raise an amendment where if we want to have those or an additional where first off we look at policy change further down the track further but you know I've got concerns around price the process has already been rigorously undertaken I understand the concerns around you know expenditure and making sure that we have good eyes over ratepayers' money and I'm sure in agreeance with that I just have this question around the governance around given it's already gone through a process that is an endorsed process it's followed the you know the process from what I've read it feels like it's followed that what we're questioning is I guess maybe the amount of money. Can I just please have some feedback through series? The CEO around those governance issues that you know and policies around how we do this process because I feel like what that's a correct Director say that. Kim Rawlings 02:30:27.053
Thank you. Councillor Finzel for acknowledging that because the report outlines the process that the grants go through and there's numerous steps in assessing those against you know guidelines and evaluation criteria and the panel and then moderation so thank you for acknowledging that is correct and that is what brings us to the point of recommendation you but ultimately you are the decision-maker so this is a legitimate part of the process. Jessica Phillips 02:31:04.684
Can I please test an amendment? That art I haven't sent it to you sorry Council undertake a review of the climate change response grants policy and conduct public consultation on any proposed changes I'll send it to you Vicky. Frank Wilkie 02:31:24.008
Will this SPEAKER_02 02:31:24.468
Be part 5? Frank Wilkie 02:31:25.668
Yes. So that's part 5 or C? Probably C I think. It should have just come through emailing. Jessica Phillips 02:32:12.260
Sorry, extra words Vicky, just to make it a little bit stronger and clearer. It's coming through now. I just sent another one. It's just got more wording in it. Thank you. Keeping in mind that the original motion has that Council at the top. Yeah, okay, so just take that bit out then. So add on C that, so complete a review of the climate change response grants policy. And undertake public consultation on proposed amendments with the outcomes of this process to inform the criteria and guidelines for the next round of funding, before the next, Through the Chair. Yes. Cheyenne 02:33:26.344
Just a point of clarification, it probably should say climate change response grants guideline, not policy. SPEAKER_02 02:33:39.124
Okay, thank you, now that's, right. Amelia Lorentson 02:33:39.124
Okay. Sorry, through thank you. The Chair of Council Councillor Wilson. The wording as agreed, so complete a review of the climate change response grant guidelines, and undertake public consultation with professor thanks. SPEAKER_02 02:34:00.884
That doesn't so sometimes the wording I think needs to be just a little bit tweaked, maybe complete a review of the climate change response grants guidelines, and any recommendations on changes. I think it should go back to my original one then, and I shouldn't have added the wording, 'cause I think I had that, right. I liked your original one. That's Jessica Phillips 02:34:21.864
Okay. So it'll be that Council undertakes a review of the climate change response guidelines, and conduct public consultation on any proposed changes prior to the next round of grant funding. Being opened, because that means the consultation happens and supports the amendments or consultation happens to help the amendments, not the other way around. Amelia Lorentson 02:34:52.340
Do you need to add proposed changes and conduct public consultation as part of the review or on any proposed- I think Or take that part out, does undertaker review climate change response grant guidelines? Frank Wilkie 02:35:23.186
Is this, would it be helpful if it said undertaker review of the climate change response grant guidelines involving public consultation? On any proposed changes prior to the next round of grant funding. I was trying to make it shorter, but then. Um. I think. Yeah, constant change. Happy to second. Okay, Councillor Phillips, you have the floor. Jessica Phillips 02:35:49.826
Okay, I'm just trying to listen to everyone around the table, and then, um. I think which. I agree with you, Councillor Finzel, about the process, yep. So, I think we can probably agree that the guidelines and going through a process to review the guidelines is probably. Where we're at by the review of the policy or the guidelines before the next round of funding would give us opportunity to assess what's working well and. Improvements can be made whether the eligibility assessment criteria and how those the outcomes are measured but equally important I've wanted to include the public consultation these grants are funded for the benefit of our community and it's an entire it's appropriate that the community has a say in how they are structured and delivered so consultation will help build trust ensure fairness and bring forward ideas that we may not have otherwise considered but the amendment won't delay today's progress it will just strengthen for next round so we're not having sort of policy decisions on at the meeting Frank Wilkie 02:37:18.450
Council will listen SPEAKER_07 02:37:19.691
Yeah would this adequately address the assessment criteria is part of the guidelines or is that a separate process, SPEAKER_08 02:37:29.966
A separate document that we would need to add in here? Cheyenne 02:37:33.706
This would adequately address that. The assessment of the evaluation Frank Wilkie 02:37:38.000
I'm going to support Councillor Phillips proposed approach to this is the way to build trust in councils processes this signals that we're going to undertake a review of the guidelines that's the way to do it so that when it comes to opening the next round of grant funding again the community can have clear expectations when they go to spend their valuable time and energy in applying that it will be very clear and assessed fairly under the guidelines whatever they will be where we were heading I think would not build trust because if I've understood correctly it would have been cutting groups the knees who entered into the process in good faith trusting Council would follow through and assess the projects on the guidelines and criteria as widely publicly advertised if we want to change it this is exactly the way to go so well done Councillor Phillips I will be supporting the amendment Councillor Finzel you had your hand up Karen Finzel 02:38:49.942
Thank you Mr Chair I have a couple of questions Through the Chair to the CEO of staff I see the intent of us and where we're going I do have some questions because the past we have had to go out repeatedly for community engagement I understand that meaningful community engagement takes time and money so my question around this is firstly for good governance and to reach the objectives of meaningful community engagement how will that affect our current calendar which does cause disruption as we've seen in the past when we have to like leave a project and go back out so that's my question I would like to look at the time frame the current calendar and how that can it reach the objectives within the time frame of the next round of meetings and the cost to the community. Kim Rawlings 02:39:50.878
Is there a short answer to that? Yes, absolutely. So we need to assess the implications of on the calendar, it's currently not planned, but what we'll say is that we had already agreed to review the guidelines operationally and we provided that to Councillors, so that was already agreed operationally that we would be reviewing the guidelines. That working with the Council on the guidelines in accordance with the Corporate Plan and the climate change response plan. That review didn't anticipate public consultation, but as I said we operationally already agreed to review so now the inclusion of public consultation, that would need to be assessed in terms of engagement calendar and when that could be done. On the fly I would think the engagement calendar is pretty, it's not here. I know that we're pretty full for the rest of the year so this would probably lead into next year and yeah we haven't. Thought about cost of this yet so there's still some unknowns in it but operationally we were already committed to continuous review of these and that will be happening. Frank Wilkie 02:41:07.292
Councillor Finzel, hand Karen Finzel 02:41:08.912
Up. Yeah, just following on. Maybe a question to Councillor Phillips. Would you consider like raising this perhaps through another channel where we can have those matters like the costing and the impact on the calendar given that may cause disruption and not meet the 12 month time frame. Are you prepared to move this forward so we can get that information to our decision? So we've got some data to support that? Inform Jessica Phillips 02:41:39.920
Unfortunately, no I won't because we're spending public funds each year and I don't believe that I'm willing to support continuation of public funds spent without public consultation because I can't in good faith on this then I don't believe it would be give me trust in the process without engagement first. Karen Finzel 02:42:08.146
Thank you just to clarify I'm not against the public consultation I'm around the process to make sure that we've got the best process with the understanding. Frank Wilkie 02:42:17.426
Question Councillor. You have the right to talk to the amendment or not. If it's a question ask the question. If you like to debate the amendment please do. I don't want to debate it. Karen Finzel 02:42:28.510
Just asking a question around the public consultation process. Are you prepared to raise that through another channel to support this data. Jessica Phillips 02:42:43.672
Yes except what would be to the CEO the other process that I would be able to raise including public consultation in it so that's why I brought through this amendment because I wouldn't know what other process we can bring up when it's on the floor for debate to have that included but so question to the CEO how would I bring public consultation into this if it goes through today without it? Larry Sengstock 02:43:15.370
Again, my reading of this is, there's two parts to this. One, we do have a very full public consultation schedule. So, it would mean, if this got up, reprioritising or finding its position in that, schedule of events and that then may delay this. We can't, that'll be your decision because something has to give. We've got it very full. The second question I have is when we say public consultation that's a very broad term. Now, what does that mean? Is that full public consultation? Is it more to stakeholder consultation that are more involved in this? Because that then governs how much work and how much time and effort and cost goes into that. So I'd ask that question back in terms of what's the expectation of public consultation for something like this. Jessica Phillips 02:44:10.768
Okay, am I allowed to speak to that then? If it would help to clarify then. Previously I put a notified motion around surveys being used. Could it be as simple as a survey for public consultation, given that my notified motion asked for unbiased surveys? And could that be included if was to amend it to have public consultation as per a survey? Would that satisfy Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 02:44:48.226
Is that a close one to me? I feel in terms of thereof. Part but meaningful public consultation, if we're spending time and money to engage with the public, then in my opinion it does need to be meaningful will what your suggestion actually go to of the board. Of where you want to go. So I guess it is about, like the CEO said, what would you like to achieve and which type of public consultation do you intend to use? Frank Wilkie 02:45:26.238
Can I ask a question that may help to clarify? Undertaking a review of the climate change response grants guidelines, we would have an internal discussion first. Could that then involve a discussion about an appropriate form of consultation, what it would take, what form it could take? Would it be surveys, just something on the your side, given that we're talking about guidelines only and a small budget of $50,000. Kim Rawlings 02:45:54.494
Yeah, could happen. The operational review, that's what would happen. So we would do an internal operational review. Would then be workshopped with Council about what's the evaluation criteria look like, what are the parameters that want to be considered, and then what's process that you would like to take this forward. So that could happen. Question? Jessica Phillips 02:46:15.068
Yeah, it does, but just in relation to the it's only $50 000, could I have clarity on how long these rounds have been, and if it's $50,000 every year, I'd love to know a total of how much we've spent on these grants, so we're not just saying one year. Cheyenne 02:46:33.562
This is, I believe, the sixth round of the climate change community grants, and it is $50,000 every year. Here, so. Amelia Lorentson 02:46:41.966
Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. I would like to raise maybe a suggestion to Councillor Phillips. So these climate change response grants, they're decided annually. Frank Wilkie 02:46:55.620
So are you speaking to the amendment? Amelia Lorentson 02:46:57.542
I'm just trying to throw an idea at Councillor to see if we have questions for Councillor Phillips given that the response grants are annual and also that we have a budget review too. Later in the year. Would you be able to maybe, because I totally support your intent. Question, please. Okay. Could you support maybe an additional wording? So I'm going to take a review of the climate change response grant guidelines involving public consultation and any proposed changes. Subject to funding and if someone can help me. So the intent is that it's subject to funding or acceptance through the budget review number 2. Because I accept the conversation. That people are going to do in 7 June. Frank Wilkie 02:48:05.914
Councillors, we're getting to the realm of policy on the run. Can I suggest we vote on this amendment, it gets up or stays. If you want to fine-tune it, if it becomes part of the motion and you can fine-tune it further, wordsmith it further if that's what you want to do. Yeah, that's fine. And so far only Councillor Phillips and myself have spoken to the amendment. Anyone else wish to speak or against the amendment? Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:48:31.258
I think that we can speak ells and with Smith in the amendment. I think we understand the intent and I'm happy with the wording as it stands, Councillor Phillips. I probably sort of backtrack a little bit with my wording and I really do want to make, put this formally on the table, my issues with, not my issue, but some of the concerns that I raised during the workshop prior to this were involving the projects, not with the community groups. So I do want to place that on the table. Secondly, in reference to what Councillor Wilson said, totally support that if the projects are what are in question, then being correct way to do this is through a review of the grants guidelines and in particular the criteria. And in support of what Councillor Wilkie said, it is the correct process and to do otherwise will erode public trust and also undermine the processes and I really want to also note, in terms of climate and environmental grants, possibly one of the most detailed processes in terms of assessment, and I commend you, so the issue is not with the process. I agree and I really respect the conversation around the table. It's in terms of the criteria and policy, so this is definitely, I think, the way forward, and the understanding that this will be done sooner, not later, I think tend to really capture this discussion today. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 02:50:19.184
May the Councillor speak to the amendment? Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 02:50:23.724
I don't like this process of just doing stuff on the fly. This consultation public thing before the next grant funding being opened easily could end up stopping for next year or the year after that if we don't get around to the public consultation because our staff is busy and it costs a lot of money to do this stuff and it takes them away from other really important stuff that we're throwing this upon them on fly and maybe really stuffing up our grant funding and the trust of our many fantastic organisations that depend on this grant funding that it might not come around because we couldn't get around to public consultation before that being open so I just I don't support this at all Council words now SPEAKER_07 02:51:13.710
Yes um I think this Nicola Wilson 02:51:18.490
Wording is broad enough public consultation can mean anything from just having a pop-up session or a capsule of coffee chat or Facebook survey or just inviting email submissions to Councillors like I don't think we need to necessarily say it's going to be an expensive huge process and I think we're just inviting public feedback on spending public funds so that's of course it. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:51:44.684
Councillor Finzel wish to close. Karen Finzel 02:51:46.504
Oh sorry Councillor Finzel. Yeah this is a challenging one. I don't like work. Doing like things this on the hop. I think public consultation, those words to me mean going out really with a meaningful objective. Councillor Wilson just talked about feedback from the coffee chat or whatever. I think for me it's about clarification what the city overall intent that how do we break that down. I believe there's other processes that we could arrive to that place. In terms of governance I have real concerns around the process to arrive at what's before us today in terms of that expenditure and how that process was undertaken in and through the policies and the guidelines that are pre-existing. I am always for like rigorous reviews, robust you know turning things upside down. I not support status quo. I'm just not comfortable with bringing this in this way to the table. I think for me well. In terms of governance, in good governance. I understand the intent around engaging the public. I stand on that all the time. I'm just not comfortable with how this is worded. Frank Wilkie 02:53:16.929
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Phipps, do you wish to close? Jessica Phillips 02:53:21.430
I respect Councillor Wegener and Councillor Finzel's points. Six rounds at $50,000, so we've spent $300,000 of public funds just through this process. That's just through grant funds. So every year it might seem like $50,000, but we sat at this table and disagreed that we would give Councillors $50,000 to assist in Councillor initiatives. And we didn't even, we knocked that straight off without even this sort of robust conversation. So that is interesting to me. I would think that sometimes with amendments the intent is that we can take it away during the guidelines review and the operational side of it in workshops we can probably talk about where we land comfortably with public consultation and what that means I agree with you Councillor Finzel making it on the fly is not my intent however sometimes we're at a crossroads where this is the only opportunity to bring it to debate and to actually have an outcome that says we're doing this um so that's probably why it was it wasn't um whilst the words were written quickly, it's not something that I haven't thought is something that we should consider anyway. But I will leave it to everyone to decide. Frank Wilkie 02:54:56.821
You Councillor Phillips. Put the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Wilson, Lorentson, Phillips and Wilkie. Those against? That's Wegener and Finzel. The amendment is carried becomes part of the motion to which only Councillor Wegener has spoken and Councillor Wilson. Yes, I found myself, part on my page. Yeah, Councillor Wegener and Councillor Wilson have spoken. This is, so can we, is it possible to have a look at the whole image of how you speak here? Sorry. With the same services? Including yeah. SPEAKER_08 02:55:44.474
It's safe, okay. Did you say the driver? Thank you. We can't see yeah, yeah, I'll bring it up. I've got my view. For some reason, the A and the C is the HD dollars over there. I'll have to fix it up. Here you go. Sorry, Mr Chair, we're just waiting. We didn't have a one-stop lounge break. Can we stop for a two-hour break if we're not going to do it? Frank Wilkie 02:56:20.103
Absolutely, we'll deal with this. You want that now? Can we motion? I think we're meant to. You're welcome to. We'll hold the vote for SPEAKER_08 02:56:37.224
It has been a long morning. Yeah. I, they, and then there's it's same with the other one in there. Oh, yeah, yeah, It's because haven't seen it yet. So you've got I. Iceland. Frank Wilkie 02:57:02.903
Okay. SPEAKER_08 02:57:05.343
Yeah, I'm going to actually see it. Since I've got the time, I'm just going to type it in. Can you? I. That's it. SPEAKER_08 02:58:32.100
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:59:07.260
Okay, Councillors, there's the full motion before you, to which Councillor Wegener and Noosa have spoken. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? I will, thank you. Councillor Phillips? Jessica Phillips 02:59:17.120
Okay, firstly, I appreciate the diversity at this table. I think that it shows democracy at its best and I also think that it's important. So we land in the middle of somewhere. Every time the dial is too far either way. I don't think we get great outcomes. So I appreciate the conversation. Firstly, I think it was perfect timing, although I didn't. Haley's hayley's question time at the commencement of this. I firstly want to acknowledge that, you know, as a long-term resident, I never came and did a question time. And I probably sat back and had issues but never spoke up. So coming and spending time. The today to actually sit in chamber, I think it's really commendable. It's easy to probably sit online and make a comment, but you've come out and put it on notice, so thank you for that. I also. Want to make a point of why I was grateful that we were able to separate the two grants from Monday, because it gave us the opportunity to look at this one with a little bit of a different lens. I firstly want to be really clear from the offset that supporting and protecting noosa's unique environment is one of our greatest assets. And I will always support Council in investing in projects that genuinely improve environmental outcomes, build resilience and leave lasting future generations. Interestingly, I had a company come around to look at solar panels and battery on my house. I have a four bedroom house, two children, a mortgage, and you know my income because you all have the same. Income. And you don't need to know my husband's but let me tell you where we represent many people in this Shire that are feeling the cost of living hurting. So the quote for my solar and battery on my home was onwards and I don't have the financial that money sitting in the bank to invest in that. So over the past two years I am probably becoming and increasingly uncomfortable with the way the climate change response grants are being rate funded from general rates without meaningful consultation. We are spending our ratepayers money and I think that every time we should be questioning is this project probably not so much about worthwhile. I think you could probably argue through the criteria that it is but is it the best way to invest limited public money. It's time that we start thinking about the way we're spending. As Councillors we have a responsibility to every rate payer ensure every dollar collected delivers the greatest possible benefit to our community. That responsibility is even greater following the significant rate increases in mortgages and cost of living. I'm increasingly concerned that we've probably reached point now a that we need to ask ourselves whether each investment delivers measures measurable outcomes. Does it represent value for money and does it provide the greatest benefit for our environment and our community. I'd also like to see Councillors be provided with more meaningful information during the assessment process, greater transparency about how projects are prioritised, a comparison of value for money and long-term measures just then. We worked out that whilst we sit and look at 50,000 on paper in six rounds it's 300,000 so that adds up really quickly and I don't want the future Councillors to who are warming the Chair for four years to look at it at two million dollars especially since we had a fair bit of robust conversation around spending two million dollars on Tourism Noosa. So how quickly will that escalate to future councils sitting here going why did we spend two million dollars without questioning public funds. So it's not about reducing our commitment to the environment today for me it's about ensuring that every environmental dollar we collect from our community is invested wisely transparently and that the projects are going to deliver the greatest possible benefit for Noosa both today and into the future and if we talk about good governance that requires us to continually review our policies and our guidelines and our funding frameworks so I'm going to believe today that grants have now reached a point where it is warranted that there is a review- I just had a question. Frank Wilkie 03:04:11.460
Question, Councillor finch-Hill. Karen Finzel 03:04:14.400
I know we made the decision today, but in terms of that experience, expenditure that has gone through the process to arrive at this figure today, for example then, if I choose to vote against all those allocations given what's been debated around the table and that ends up none of them get over the line, what are the legal and governance ramifications given we've filed a pre-existing process? Are we open to. What's my risk? Kim Rawlings 03:04:47.288
Councillor, it's within your right. You're the decision maker. So, if the funds aren't allocated through the grant process, they go back into operational and this is the right process for you to decide whether or not you support these or not. So, I don't believe there is any recourse or risk for you. Frank Wilkie 03:05:12.059
Ask, where does reputational risk come into this for the Noosa Council and the community's trust in the Council if these grants at this point in time are going to be overruled? Kim Rawlings 03:05:25.539
Thank you for picking me up on that because you are right. Was responding to like a liability or legal risk and my response was there yes as you know our strategic risk register identifies reputational risk as a core risk so yes potentially there could be impact on our reputation from a risk perspective but my response to Councillor Finzel was really if I heard your question correctly about if there was any kind of legal recourse or liability and I don't believe there is Frank Wilkie 03:06:02.467
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 03:06:07.447
Just briefly I think we need to always remember that a Director essentially and Noosa Shire Council it's an accountable body so I think the review of climate change scales. Guideline, I'd like that addition because I think it's exactly what an organisation of this size demands that we regularly review our guidelines and make sure they're fit for purpose. I hear consistently around the community that they want confidence in how their money is spent and I'm not just talking about grants. In every decision that we make terms of plans and strategies and consultancies and contracts that we give to when we outsource contracts. So to me, this is the correct way forward and again it's about continuous improvements and also just honouring the voices of those in the community that want transparency and also want to be involved in the decision making process. Not challenging not the organisations or the do tireless work for nothing for our community and they fill a gap that Council often can't fill and our grants and I need to about this our grants back people not only just the projects and that's how exactly you build strong communities by powering our community with funding and in these instances a lot of these are funded I think one of the grants four times the amount that we're actually funding so I don't want to diminish the importance of community work but this is a governance issue and it's governance oversight and again just requirement that as an accountable body Noosa Shire Council as a matter of transparency we should you know continually review all our guidelines all our policies to ensure they meet our community expects expectations in terms of value for money and that we're spending their money on matters that are important to them. Frank Wilkie 03:08:42.556
Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Any other members wish to speak? Councillor Wegener are you wish to close? Tom Wegener 03:08:53.996
The climate change response plan and these grants are to help noosa's vision to address climate change into the future and years ago under the Tony wellington Council they climate emergency and this is was a long sweep of go in that direction perhaps that era is over I'm so happy that these grants will be approved today this is wonderful for these communities as a councillor Lorentson says that is our community doing the thing resident working hard for a positive future but I'm a little bit pessimistic especially with the you know have having the next round of grants preconditioned on some sort of consultation and guidelines being revisited so I think I'll just enjoy the celebration today because these are wonderful grants going to wonderful groups. Thank you Councillor to the vote those in favour. Frank Wilkie 03:10:04.299
Councillor Wegener, Lorentson, Wilkie those against and the grants are approved on my casting vote. Okay we come now to on 12.3 thank you Cheyenne, thank you Director Rawlings. I think it's time we have a break. So we'll come back in half an hour. That'll be 1:41 Frank Wilkie 03:45:06.860
Welcome back everybody we resume at 1:46 we're up to item 12.3 which is a further report the Fees and Charges which was referred from the General Committee date on the 9th of June and we have the financial services manager Zach Morton-Ayr and acting corporate services Director Margaret Gatt here for this report. Zach or Margaret please give us summary of the report please. Margaret Gatt 03:45:36.801
Again apologies that this wasn't made out to be considered fully at the General Committee due to some lightning in the ministry there and also some changes around the policy act at the last minute that we needed to include in I'll hand it over to Zach now to take us through the report. Zach Morton 03:45:55.471
Thank you for the Chair. So the report in front of you today outlines our 26-27 cost recovery fees and commercial charges as provided in attachment 1. This version is Margaret. It is referred to and incorporates a number of changes related to the declaration of new state government right for information charges, cosmetic changes to the layout and function including descriptors related to environment and health. Descriptors and also the creation and update of the Fees and Charges related to the waste and cemetery areas. Contribute approximately 90 of council's overall revenue budget. Most in the 26-27 attachment increased by less than 10%. This aligns with CCI, CPI, Council cost index, CPI, consumer price index, or cost recovery measures. A number of random change due to legislative or market constraints, while targeted increases have implied cost recovery gaps exist. Higher increases are generally limited to regulatory and compliance services, commercial use of public assets, and use of paid services. Fees align with underlying legislative requirements, and we are determined to support a user-based models. The review of fees and services ensures they are cost-reflective, with major changes workshopped through budget processes and commercial activities fully costed. Early adoption of the Fees and Charges schedule improves transparency and gives the tenant violence notice to the community. I would like to draw particular attention to things. Two fees noted in the schedule. On page 3 of the schedule referred to as the stock transport fee and on page 4 de-sex of excluding of up to six months of paid after due date. I just wanted to note a typographical error with a legislative reference. It currently references Local Government Act 2009 section 972. That is correct. The subsection D is a typographical error and it should make reference to subsection A instead of the same section. This will be corrected as part of the final report that is published post formal and I hope you enjoyed this report. Frank Wilkie 03:48:15.485
Any questions Councillors? Jessica Phillips 03:48:17.445
I do have some questions please. Thank you. Just in relation to the cost recovery fee structure I'm just interested to know when was the last time an organisational review of how that works as far as cost recovery like does each department do it is it in both of you bring experience from external to that to is it common to see a review that's maybe more regular or my upload my question Margaret Gatt 03:48:50.270
The Chair I'm happy to take that question it is part it is of the normal yearly processes that each area administers their so for example in regulatory services or in community services a detailed review of those cases conducted. In terms of then a complete comprehensive detailed cost recovery exercise and it can happen in maybe one once a term or at a time that seemed appropriate but it is normal practice for each of those departments to administer those things to conduct a review of those things. And then if I sign it, some of the increases, decreases will satisfy. Jessica Phillips 03:49:42.905
Are you able to tell me when the last time the organisation did a full review? Margaret Gatt 03:49:49.140
I'll have to take a look. I thought so. Kessel, what was that? Amelia Lorentson 03:49:56.045
Terms of, and I've got page four in front of me, variances. So the report shows material and services. I mean.044 million over budget for the year to date. Is that correct? And can you just explain what's driving some of the key variables? Frank Wilkie 03:50:18.254
We're in Fees and Charges report, not in the monthly finance report. Where I think your question relates to. Brian Stockwell 03:50:27.020
Do you want us to stop them? Yeah, I'm going to move the recommendation, but I think after what the manager has told us we need to see. Have you got a see? There it is. Yes. That's what I was going to move. Frank Wilkie 03:50:39.744
Okay, move Councillor Stockwell. Do we have a seconder? Brian Stockwell 03:50:45.171
I'll be Councillor Finzel, Stockwell? No, this is just standard practice in terms of adopting these as early as possible so those people who are reliant on setting their own Fees and Charges have it before the actual results come in as far as the budget. Frank Wilkie 03:51:02.331
Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Other questions or comments? Jessica Phillips 03:51:06.818
Just a quick question and it's probably another one on notice but what I'd love to see is it might be hard but if I was a small business wanting to start up in the Noosa Shire like this pages yeah how would I quickly work out what costs Council would be like through these Fees and Charges what sort of from what I'd be looking at I don't know it's just something that I'm interested in finding out if there's a way to do that Margaret Gatt 03:51:38.085
Through the Chair Councillor Phillips I can um take that question on notice and have a discussion with my colleagues on the NT to consider how potentially we could assist members of the community who are looking to commence a business and see how they could access that information. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 03:52:01.138
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 03:52:03.018
In terms of an analysis, I'm just sort of interested when run through the Fees and Charges report, I sort of pull out just certain ones and the I'm asking question is which proposed fee increases will have the greatest impact on low residents, pensioners and those on fixed incomes, understanding that there is a cost of living crisis. And have we ever done an analysis in terms of impact on those most vulnerable? Margaret Gatt 03:52:41.021
Through the Chair, Councillor Lorentson, if I could ask for a little bit more of a clarification on that question. So that question is quite broad. All the Fees and Charges. If we could focus on potentially, say, some fees in regulatory services or fees in the community services, the relevant Director might be able to answer that question to a certain point, but no, as of today, we haven't done an analysis with that specific lens. Amelia Lorentson 03:53:16.634
So I will be specific in that case. In terms of volume cap registration fees, these are fees paid by ordinary residents. Actually older. So my question is, what's the proposed increase and has any consideration been given to holding registration fees steady this year given the broader cost of living context? Margaret Gatt 03:53:46.850
Richard, can I ask my colleague Richard, would you like to come to the time and of the answer to that question, is that okay? Richard MacGillivray 03:53:57.630
Thank you Councillor, that was really cheer. The changes to the Fees and Charges this year for particularly for animal registration have been minimal so we will continue our no fee requirement for the pensioners for microchipped dogs so there's no fee at all for pensioners and we'll maintain that for this year's Fees and Charges. For other animal owners there is a $4.50 increase for registration this year which is in line with essentially CPI so other than that we've maintained those fees sort of in line with CPI across the board particularly for animal registration. Frank Wilkie 03:54:44.314
Else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell do you wish to close? I'll put it to the vote. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you Acting Director gack and Zach. The next item is the Financial Performance Report. Again, we have financial services manager Zach and acting corporate services manager Director Margaret Gatt. Would you like to give us an overview, please? Happy to. Thank you to the Chair. I'll take a report as written. The matter report provides living amounts representing 92 of the financial year's actual data. Zach Morton 03:55:22.566
Commentary provided in the financial reports, there are no identified financial risks expected to negatively impact council's financial position as of the 30th of June, 2026. The May 2026 report provides a favourable net result variance to the budget of $13.5 million. This comprises of $4 million operating variance and $9.1 million from capital funding sources. The favourable position reflects timing of capital works and grants receipts, rather underlying performance changes. Operating revenue is tracking at $152.2 million, or 99.2% of the overall budget, with operating expenditure at $157 million, or 89% of the budget. Performance remains stable in line with the budget expectations. Main report sees a continuation and consistency of the performance trends in the monthly report. In doing so, we would like to draw specific attention to elements of the report. On the table at the top of page two there is analysis conducted of variances to both our revenue and expenses. The 4. Millennial operating variance to 3.2 million in relation to the general operating surplus with $1.2 million relating to our business activities. From waste, the positive variance in expenses primarily relates lower interest charges to the loans associated with landfill, lower waste living charges due to a lower tonnage volume, and a lower profit share expense related to the sale of recyclable renewals. Holiday parks exhibits both increases the revenue and expenditure. Is a result of higher occupancy rates across all three of the holiday parks, and consequently the impact of commissions related to higher revenue. Frank Wilkie 03:57:17.108
To provide detailed commentary as to the materials and services variance, in our April 2026 report, and which we're at a $1.5 million variance over budget. The May 2026 report sees a return of that to only a $1 million variance budget compared to its base. Tables are provided in the report as to capital, revenue and expenditure. There's no changes based on historic trends to the numbers reported in the report. Cash management and investment performance. Council's total cash holdings as of May 2026 were $142.5 million with $7 million held in trust. Zach Morton 03:58:01.450
The higher cash balances can be explained primarily driven by the re-profiling of council's capital works program. Council's investments continue to conform well against industry benchmarks. To reduce rate arrears, are $8.5 million as of May 2026 or represent 7.2% of the revenue base. This has improved from 7.8% in April with reduction in rates of 731,000 paid relating to arrears. These amounts are consistent with historic trends and the established semi-annual pattern following July and January rates periods. Frank Wilkie 03:58:40.940
The previous financial report we've had sections as questions taken on notice so we'll provide a verbal update to the one that was taken as part of the April, sorry May General Committee Meeting. Again questions may not be debated but hopefully you catch the intended intent taint of the question. Councillor Lorentson raised the question in regards to what was driving the reliance on current consultants and what areas do they support. In the May 2026 report there's a variance the budget of four hundred and twenty thousand dollars related to consultancy expenditure. This is primarily driven by a thousand dollars relating to an ICT maturity assessment and establishment of a project management office. And ninety seven thousand related to a health check of councils payroll and time sheet systems. Eighty one thousand relates to waste management support and services. And thirty two thousand dollars related to industrial relations support carried out throughout the year. Zach Morton 03:59:44.039
So in closing, Council remains in a strong and stable financial position as we reach the end of the financial year. The favourites favourable results are a reflection of timing and basal performance, and they're not structural in nature. As noted, there are no material risks that currently present which will impact our overall financial position at the end of the year. Thank you, and we'll be happy to take questions. You, Sir. Questions? Castle Williams. Amelia Lorentson 04:00:08.843
I think you answered my question in referencing a similar question I just asked in the last month's report. I have got a couple of other questions, so I'm going to start with in terms of emerging issues and risk. I just know that the report and we have to. Discussed this in workshops doesn't actually identify what call an emerging but significant risk. The commonwealth government's announced its intention to move potentially to a 50 / cost sharing. Disaster recovery and it's a substantial change. At the moment my understanding is that the commonwealth contributes 65 and Queensland contributes 35 and when I looked at the numbers on the report and put it into our Noosa context. We have received nearly 18.8 million dollars in disaster recovery grants this year alone against recovery program budget of 29.3 million. A shift to 50 / would be significant and the difference is going to have to be absorbed by some other state or by local governments. So can we quantify or do some scenario setting to actually identify what that potentially may mean to a Council our size? Again, in my opinion, it's a significant emerging risk that I think we probably need to unpack and understand in a bit of detail or we'd walk through the audit and risking it. Margaret Gatt 04:01:52.040
You, Councillor Gatt. Lawson. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson for the question this is a recent announcement, event, change, we haven't had yet the capacity to understand full implications immediate short-term and long term. It is a piece of work I need to do with SAC and our colleagues on ET to bring that back to you, either through a Council briefing or a workshop. In addition to that, we are still working on a long term financial plan strategy, which identifies, will identify a lot of, not a it will have scenario analysis, emerging threats and risks around our financial sustainability. So that particular strategy document is about 60 complete, but it's yet to be targeted with the executive leadership team. That they've been with the Council. Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 04:02:54.431
Question, thank you. Just in relation to operating operational budget, what impact does accelerating lower priority projects place on operational budget and how it is this proactively managed? And a follow up question to that is, how is this taken into account whole of life costings? Margaret Gatt 04:03:23.615
Project up Through the Chair, Councillor Phillips. Through so as you would be aware, we have a capital works project capital control group. We also have couple of works executive. We have a project, I won't get to answer your question, I'm just providing context, through the PID process and the evaluation through the relevant teams before it comes to the couple of works executive. Consideration of the impact on program, available cash or using grant funding as a way to fund a particular emergent couple of works initiative, necessary. When you're speaking about whole of life costing, it is considered at a, probably what I would say, a high level. In terms of then having it documented in kids, we do that, potentially not as consistently as could, we But a rule of thumb is a consideration that for every million dollars in capital, you can assume 100 to 200,000 in perpetuity for OPEX as a result. But that's, theoretical in terms of maintenance for that. But again, it would depend on the type of asset that we're talking about. Jessica Phillips 04:04:42.687
Okay, then a follow up question because obviously we don't all sit in capital works exec. Is it too much work to ask if it was included in the financial report each month? Is that, I'm happy for you to take it on notice, but I'm just thinking, could that be included Through the Chair, I'm sorry, can you clarify, what would you like included in the finance report? Like when, if we've got expenditure sitting there, I'd love to know how it could be more clear maybe when we it comes to this report. Maybe that it's included in the financial sections or like- I just feel like I don't get enough from this see but I- because I sit in capital works, I get a little bit more information from that, but that isn't for every Councillor. Does that make sense? Margaret Gatt 04:05:38.940
Yes, thank you, Councillor Phillips, Through the Chair. So, one supporter there is capital works update report that comes through from our infrastructure services area. They report on not only costs but on timeframes and delivery. So that report does come to the General Committee Meeting and to the Ordinary Meeting, but it's not within our finance report. It comes as a separate report. I'll are you asking for us to consider how we could incorporate some of that reporting from that report into the monthly finance report? Jessica Phillips 04:06:18.112
Yes, but I think I'm asking for lot of work, so maybe I'll just take it offline and then work out exactly what part I would like to see come to the monthly meeting. Frank Wilkie 04:06:26.890
So, this is where previous comments may have been made. Between infrastructure and finances, the consolidation of reporting, which the first step of that was bringing the crafts into the report. There is a second stage that we're looking to understand post 30 June around that they can be consolidated, consistency of language to the public as well because infrastructure and financial people are used to different jargon, so we would like to align that for consistency for the public to understand it and if you could provide some more details as to what we'd like to see and they can form part of the online project that we have with infrastructure to align that. Planned for post-30 June adoption and there were comments made as well through the budget process of all of our assets, management planning, what that looks like, so there's probably a couple problems I'll clarify later if there's still a question. Thanks. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 04:07:20.168
Just a question on capital expenditure, so at the end of May we've got capital expenditure exploiting commitments of 33.3 million or 41.2% of the annual budget, given that we're now halfway through June. What do we anticipate the year in position to SPEAKER_08 04:07:36.820
Be in terms of accrued commitments? Zach Morton 04:07:41.020
So Through the Chair, I'm happy to take that. So this is probably, if I can just provide some context as to the way that finance reports this information. Versus CW reports it in terms of the idea of actual spend which is what is typically the financial numbers and then actual plus commitments. So I believe in the graph, sorry, there is an insert from the Capital Works Executive presentation, which provides a graph in there, which is on page seven. Of the report. So on the capital expenditure section, there's a picture, a screenshot of the PowerPoint slide, which shows budget forecast versus actual expenditure. And under the notes, there's a section of the forecast to the end of the financial year is $40.6 million included. In that slide. It is something we are discussing with infrastructure, the idea of future forecast or detailing where that is specifically within the report. And that's a part of the process that I've just talked about. Karen Finzel 04:08:41.760
Thank you Through the Chair. On page 8 of 12, we're looking at we're investment summary to inform well against our benchmarks, but I'm interested in this going into the future around our investments, what we're investing in, and how those returns will be protected given the volatility and global unrest and things like that. So just interested in how we're protecting that. Thank you. Margaret Gatt 04:09:07.952
Through the Chair, thank you for the question, our investments are with Queensland Treasury Corporation. We look after local government public sector funds very prudently, so we meet the AAA, boren, sands rating. But what I can request is you would be made familiar that we do have an upcoming briefing with Queensland Treasury Corporation that will be briefing Councillors on our credit review outcome. I can request that they put some information into that presentation to explain how they made that decision. Our funds and what risk mitigation measures that they put and potentially how our funds have been affected by the middle east crisis that you're speaking about. Amelia Lorentson 04:10:00.760
Councillor Lorentson. Going back a little bit, so I'm referring to the Audit and Risk Committee recommendations that's listed in our report today and there's, wow, a ton of them. 22 reports and significant reports from internal um audit reports from the qao from, my gosh. Councillor Lorentson, we're talking about the Financial Performance Report. Okay, so I'll make this quick. So in terms of the risk that have been raised recently in the Audit and Risk Committee, can you give us a quick summary of the main risks and whether any of them could affect our finances or service delivery? Margaret Gatt 04:10:49.776
Through the Chair, Councillor Lorentson and you talking about the entire strategic risk register and how that affects our financial sustainability? Amelia Lorentson 04:11:00.700
I started in the audience committee meeting and there were quite a few issues that came out of the QAO briefing, the internal and the cyber reports. So I just want to really understand whether those issues are referenced in our financial report and identified and are there anything of great concern that keeps you awake at night? Frank Wilkie 04:11:29.151
Yes, could you describe the appropriate reporting channels for each, the audit and risk and perhaps the Financial Performance Report? I can make it general. Through the Chair. Margaret Gatt 04:11:42.568
Through the Audit and Risk Committee, as you were aware, Councillor Lorentson, when you attended as an observer, a review of the strategic risk register is part of the papers and what is spoken to. That currently undergoing a review and our appetite statement as well is being reviewed and that will be part of an upcoming briefing workshop with Councillors. That impacts through to our financial sustainability and our monthly finance report we don't expressly link the strategic risk register to our monthly finance to report. Considering that the first risk on our strategic risk register is financial sustainability, we closely monitor existing controls, future mitigation activities and residual risk ratings. We do that in preparation. Just as a customary practice in preparation for the audit risk meeting. So it's not expressly linked in through to this report, but it is addressed and monitored through that strategic risk register. Frank Wilkie 04:13:07.155
Tim zerlan? Second. By Councillor Lorentson. Finzel, do you wish to speak? Karen Finzel 04:13:13.713
I'd just like to thank the staff and for the continuous improvement we see in the report. Thank you very much. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 04:13:21.113
Who else wish to speak to the motion to vote? Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you very much for your work. Appreciated. Okay, there is no confidential session. The next Ordinary Meeting will be at Council chambers at 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin at 10am on Thursday 16th July 2026. Declare the meeting closed at 2:14pm. Thank you everybody for your attendance and contributions. Thank you Mr CEO. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
