►
Description
00:00 Meeting Commences, Attendance/Apologies, Leave of Absence, Confirmation of Minutes, Conflict of Interest Declarations, Committee Forward Planning Schedule 5.1, Reports 6.2
03:00 Report 6.1
21:00 Closed Session Report 7.1
1:35:00 Open Session
1:57:00 Closed Session Report 7.2
2:46:00 Open Session, General Business
A
Welcome
you
all
here
today
for
the
829th
round
of
council
and
of
course
today
we
have
the
lifestyle
and
Community
committee
meeting
getting
at
9am
or
three
past
nine,
followed
a
little
bit
later
in
the
day
by
transport
and
infrastructure.
Yeah.
Looking
forward
to
this
double
header
today,
working
on
with
the
the
business
of
running
the
city
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
our
director
good.
A
A
Oh
yeah
classic
yeah
classic
so
so
these
start
items
are
for
the
rising
star
items.
Yeah
NY,
councilors
I've
received
no
apologies
director
any
provided
to
us.
No
no
leaves
of
absence
we'll
deal
with
confirmation
of
minutes,
perhaps
as
a
starred
item.
Unless
there
are
any
questions
concerning
the
earlier
minutes.
No
item
5.1
everyone
happy
dealing
with
that.
As
a
start
item
I'd
like
to
unstar
6.1
for
a
bit
of
a
change
recommendation
there.
A
Well,
if
you'll
accept
my
my
Amendment
Happy
Days
6.2
counts
as
any
questions
on
the
local
Aero
Works
program,
editions
schedule.
No
we'll
keep
that
as
a
start
item
7.1,
currumbin,
Eco,
Parkland
I.
Think
that
warrants
a
little
bit
of
debate
so
we'll
maintain
that
as
an
unstart
item,
Federation
War,
Coastal,
Reserve,
landscape
concept,
plan
I.
Think.
Definitely,
let's
skip
that
as
an
unsight
item.
Just
before
we
move
the
start
items
counselors
were
there
any
items
of
General
business
that
you
intended
to
table?
No
I've
got
nothing
today,
all
right,
happy
days.
All
right.
A
A
B
I'll
start
by
way
of
Preamble
before
I
hand
over
to
Joe
through
you,
chair
and
counselors.
So
this
is
really
in
response
to
the
ability
or
the
inability
we
currently
have
to
quickly
clear
away
Vehicles,
which
are
parked
in
areas
of
No
Stopping,
acknowledging
councilor
Caldwell's
leadership
in
pointing
Us
in
the
right
direction
to
have
these
areas
of
the
city
where
there's
high
traffic
areas
at
peak
times,
particularly
and
we've
had
numerous
times,
complaints
from
the
public
about
Vehicles,
which
are
parked
in
those
areas.
B
So
not,
unlike
other
major
cities,
we're
looking
to
furnish
ourselves
now
with
the
ability.
Should
we
come
across
the
vehicle
in
those
areas
to
quickly
remove
it
as
soon
as
we
have
notification
of
that,
we're
looking
to
immediately
remove
it,
so
we
can
clear
the
way
ready
for
traffic
to
flow.
So
that's
the
substance
of
what
is
before
us
today.
Have
you
got
anything
else
that
you'd
like
to
add
to
that
Joe.
C
A
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions
which
might
foreshadow
a
bit
of
an
addition
to
the
recommendation
just
want
to
sketch
out
a
hypothetical
scenario
in
many
places
across
the
city.
We
have
regulated
parking,
so
sometimes
we
have
a
gazetted
area,
so
a
traffic
Management
Area
other
times.
We
have
signage,
and
my
sense
is
that
we
often
install
these
signs
and
adopt
these
regulations
in
order
to
encourage
turnover
of
spaces
so
they're,
typically
in
areas
where
there
is
huge
demand
and
we
try
to
create
a
little
bit
of
equity.
A
There
are
some
high
profile
areas
I'm
going
to
talk
about
broadbeach.
For
example,
councilor
young
mentioned
the
new
broadbeach
Cultural
Center,
there's
a
similar
spot,
that's
fairly
foreshore,
for
example,
another
area
where
sometimes
abandoned
vehicles
unlawfully
parked
vehicles
are
allowed
to
occupy
a
space
for
up
to
two
weeks
before
Council
takes
action.
Now
I
understand
that
that
is
that
two-week
period
exists
or
is
defined
in
an
internal
policy
or
procedure
of
ours,
and
it's
our
way
of
satisfying
a
test
under
legislation
to
provide
the
owner
of
the
vehicle
or
for
us
to
take
steps.
A
Reasonable
steps
to
contact
the
owner
of
the
vehicle
asking
them
to
take
corrective
action
I.E
to
remove
their
their
car
from
this
high
demand.
Space
could
I
ask
what
would
be
required
for
us
to
reduce
that
two-week
window
so
that
if
there
is
a
vehicle
occupying
a
space
where
we
would
like
to
encourage
turnover,
what's
preventing
us
from
reducing
that
two-week
window
to
say,
48
hours
after
having
taken
a
reasonable
step
to
contact
the
owner.
C
Yes,
chair,
you're,
quite
correct:
we
do
have
an
internal
process
in
place
which
allows
14
days
for
the
owner
of
the
vehicle
to
be
identified
and
to
remove
the
vehicle
from
that
space.
It
is
an
internal
process,
so
we
can
reduce
that
time
frame
down.
That
is.
That
is
something
that
we
can
do.
It
is
not
legislative
and
keeping
in
mind
that
we
only
remove
abandoned
vehicles
that
are
unregistered
as
well,
so
they
are
unregistered
Vehicles.
We
do
not
remove
registered
Vehicles.
A
A
So
I
mean
counts,
as
my
my
view
is
to
treat
abandoned
vehicles
in
regulated
parking
areas
very
harshly,
because
they're
not
registered
they're,
effectively,
uninsured
and
in
high
profile
spaces.
They
can
be
quite
an
eyesore
and
if
an
internal
policy
allows
us
to
deal
with,
those
I'd
definitely
be
supporting.
A
It
could
I
just
I'm
just
going
to
open
up
a
little
bit
of
a
discussion
around
the
appetite
for
dealing
with
vehicles
that
have
overstayed
for
like
a
week
in
one
of
these
high
profile
areas
dealing
with
them
in
the
same
way
we
wouldn't
and
no
stopping
or
clearway
situation.
Is
it
a
bit
of
overreach?
Do
you
feel
I'm
going
to
go
left
to
right,
so
councilman
Jones.
E
So
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
this,
having
the
ability
to
do
with
that.
The
only
challenge
that
we
have
is
I
know
at
least
one
vehicle
where
somebody
is
occupying
it.
You
know,
so
we've
got
that
I'm
going
to
say
that
delicate
balance
between
removing
a
vehicle
through
clearly
the
obvious
reasons
and
then
the
fact
that
there's
a
party
choosing
to
to
live
in
it
as
well.
So
we
just
need
to
be
careful,
I
think.
D
A
F
Well,
I
think
what
you're
proposing
is
obviously
in
a
non-travel
line,
type
scenario,
which
I
think
we
all
find
frustrating
that
people
overstay
and
use
those
spots
as
effectively
storage
for
vehicles
knowing
full
well
that
there's
not
really
much
of
a
disincentive
for
them.
So
if
there
wasn't
a
disincentive
to
doing
the
wrong
thing
in
some
of
those
areas,
I
think
it
would
be
a
useful
tool
for
us
to
have.
A
D
Thanks
chair
I
just
wanted
to
ask
I
recall
when
I
was
first
a
member
of
council.
There
was
a
sign
at
every
entry
to
the
city,
identifying
a
two-hour
parking
limit
across
the
city,
I
recall
that
they
were
removed
and
I
think
it
was
a
state
direction
that
we
couldn't
have
that
two-hour
time
limit
across
the
city.
Is
that
correct.
B
D
It
did
allow
at
the
time
us
to
issue
infringements,
and
it
was
two
hours
and
I
think
it
changed
with
the
ability
for
people
to
park,
Caravans
and
trailers.
And
what
have
you
on
street
as
well
and
of
course
now
they
get
left
there
for
days
and
days,
and
we've
already
had
that
conversation.
But
I
just
wondered
if
it
was
estate
directive
that
caused
us
to
remove
those
signs.
G
Council
location,
sorry,
yeah
I,
don't
recall
either
it
was
a
state
Direction,
but
I
think
I
believe
it
was,
though,
and
I
believe
it
was,
and
I
could
be
wrong,
but
I
believe
it
was
because
of
it
impacting
just
generally
people
parking
in
any
Street
on
the
roads.
So
if
you're,
you
know
any
Resident
as
such
parking
up,
because
it
was
the
whole
city
basically
for
two
hours
but
counselor
Gates
is
right.
G
C
G
A
H
H
The
lady
was
living
in
one
vehicle,
but
certainly
told
our
officers
that
she
was
not
homeless.
She
was
just
there
because
there
was
some
dispute
going
on
about
her
house
and
she
refused
and
we
weak
did
not
have
the
ability
to
tow
any
of
those
Vehicles
so
I'm,
hoping
that
this
will
cover
that
sort
of
thing
as
well,
because
it
it
you
know
the
officer
said
well,
we
just
can't
die.
We
can.
H
A
Yeah
and
look
I
think
we've
all
had
a
situation
where
somebody's
storing
a
vehicle
on
the
road
and
it's
cheaper
for
them
to
to
park
their
vehicle
and
cop.
The
fine
once
then
actually
put
the
vehicle
into
storage
and
that
sucks,
because
we
can't
issue
a
fine
on
the
second
day
or
third
day
or
fourth
day
right.
Council
Taylor.
I
Thank
you
and
I
think
in
relation
to
what
you're,
just
saying
and
I
think
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
come
to
to
tighten
it
up.
Our
challenges
is
that
if
someone
gets
a
fine
in
any
of
these
areas
for
overstaying,
the
parking,
my
understanding
is,
we
can't
find
them
again
and
we
can't
do
anything
with
them.
They
can
just
sit
there
as
long
as
possible
if
it's
a
registered
vehicle.
I
So
if
we
have
got
the
ability
to
tighten
those
the
policy
up,
that
we
stop
the
ability
for
someone
to
be
able
to
stay
there
as
long
as
they
like
and
get
one
fine,
that's
important
and
touching
on
councilor,
Gates
or
general
conversation
in
relation
traffic
areas.
We
do
have
them
through
the
city
and
if
you
go
into
a
certain
area,
it
could
be
two.
I
It
could
be
three,
but
we
do
have
the
signage
as
you
come
into
areas
notifying
people
that
you
have
got
a
timed
area
that
you're
moving
into,
but
that
will
vary
depending
on
each
of
the
areas
you're
moving
into,
but
I'm
really
supportive
of
tightening
up
the
ability
of
giving
power
to
our
offices,
because
I
feel
like
their
their
hands,
are
tied.
When
they've
got
a
situation
of
someone
over
parking,
yeah.
I
Yes-
and
it's
really
important
as
we're
growing
as
a
city
that
these
visitors
Park
is,
are
there
for
our
visitors
when
we
come
in,
so
we've
got
to
disencourage
Residents
from
leaving
their
second
third
car
out
in
the
street
and
the
trailers
as
well.
So
we've
got
the
powers
to
have
a
timed
Zone
in
the
city
which
works
well.
The
challenge
is:
if
someone
wants
to
just
ignore
it,
get
one
fine
I
feel
we
don't
have
the
power
so
tighten
it
up
would
really
help
awesome.
J
B
Through
the
chair,
we've
been
through
this
NT
and
I,
it's
actually
because
of
the
local
control
roads
and
we
have
the
ability
only
to
have
what's
called
No
Stopping,
which
is
essentially
the
same
function
as
a
clear
way,
no
stopping
between
certain
house.
So
in
all
senses
of
the
term.
It
is
consistent
with
a
clear
way.
A
F
I,
don't
think
there'll
be
any
debate
required
because
I
think
there'll
be
unanimous
support
for
what
is
a
very
sensible
step
for
us
as
a
city
to
take,
and
that
is
that
we
need
to
be
able
to
manage
our
roadways
effectively,
and
this
is
quite
simple
but
I
believe
will
be
effective.
One
of
the
best
road
projects
we've
seen
in
the
last
few
years
has
been
the
extra
Lane
being
added
on
Marine
parade
through
Southport
Northbound.
F
It
is
extremely
effective
by
adding
that
using
that
extra
bitumen,
so
if
we
can,
from
time
to
time
utilize
existing
Road
pavement
to
carry
moving
traffic,
particularly
in
peak
hours,
that
is
actually
a
sensible
intervention
for
us
to
take
in
order
to
provide
better
traffic
flows
so
that
people
can
get
home
faster
and
safer
to
their
homes.
So
I
fully
support
this,
because
it's
been
dragging
on
for
too
long
as
a
city
that
we
haven't
been
able
to
take.
F
A
That
lovable
scam
Cedar
of
Ravina
doesn't
exist
anymore,
regrettably
classic
it
was
it
all
right,
counselors
having
to
put
that
to
invite
all
those
in
favor
all
those
against
that's
carried
and
Council
animal.
Perhaps
who
can
count
on
your
support
at
full
Council?
No,
it's
good
good
work.
There
all
right
councils.
We
have
two
closed
session
items
remaining.
One
concerns
the
crumb
and
Eco
Parkland,
which
is
also
called
a
borrow
pit,
because
we
have
to
borrow
so
much
money
for
it.
A
Council
is
a
closed
session
item.
I
think
it's
appropriate
that
we
do
move
into
close
because
of
the
potential
Financial
impacts
there.
There
are
a
statement
of
reasons
on
the
screen.
That's
moved
by
councilor
O'neill
do
I
have
a
secondary
councilor
Gates
I'll
put
that
to
a
vote,
all
those
in
favor,
all
those
against
that
is
carried,
and
if
we
could
turn
off
the
live
streaming.
A
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
A
A
A
That
is
carried
welcome
back
viewers
having
considered
some
confidential
information
in
closed
session.
We've
now
returned
to
open
and
have
a
changed
recommendation
for
the
consideration
of
the
committee.
It
deals
with
the
matter
in
four
parts.
Council
Caldwell
proposes
to
move
that
it
will
be
seconded
by
councilor
Gates,
before
opening
debate.
I'd
just
like
to
flag
that
councilor
O'neill
has
foreshadowed
the
city
officer
recommendation
which
will
become
the
motion.
Should
this
fall
over
Council
Caldwell.
F
F
I
have
no
particular
problem,
that's
entirely
within
their
ability
to
do
that,
and
there
is
certainly
a
body
of
evidence
that
parts
of
this
site
have
strong
environmental
values.
What
I
don't
want
to
see
is
that
the
local
government
Authority
is
the
one
that
bears
the
financial
burden
of
delivering
on
the
state's
ambition
and
a
state
decision,
and
perhaps
a
state
election
commitment
when
we
had
no
role
in
making
that
decision
in
the
first
place.
F
But
there
was
a
very
clear
statement
made
that
that
our
support
for
the
master
planning
process
was
predicated
on
the
state
government
commuting
to
the
to
fund
the
entirety
of
the
capital
cost
to
deliver
the
master
plan
and
its
ongoing
maintenance.
Now
I
just
think
we
need
to
tread
carefully
so
that
we
don't
accidentally
stumble
into
a
significant
financial
and
delivery
burden
for
the
right
players
of
this
city
in
delivering
on
a
state
government
ambition
to
provide
an
embellished,
Parkland
and
Nature
Reserve
in
this
area.
F
We
are
I,
am
sure
very
happy
to
partner
with
them
in
delivering
maintenance,
because
I'm
sure
it
would
be
argued
that
we
are
best
place
to
deliver
that
both
in
terms
of
our
location
and
our
skill
set
with
namu.
But
I
really
don't
want
that
burden
to
now
fall
on
the
right.
Paths
of
this
city
and
I
feel
it's
proper
that
the
state
government
should
stump
up
for
the
commitment
that
they
had
previously
made.
F
L
Thank
you,
Council
of
Austin
look
I
can't
support
the
motion
in
its
current
form
and
the
substance
of
that
opposition.
Really
just
is
that
the
first
part
of
four
and
the
omission
of
the
officer's
recommendation
three,
whilst
I
can't
speak
to
that,
because
it's
only
the
motion
on
the
table
I
think
that
the
the
wording
in
this
motion,
unfortunately,
you
know,
doesn't
isn't
collaborative
in
tone
at
all.
In
fact,
it
really
is,
as
Council
Corporal
has
spelled
out.
L
You
know
a
statement
of
opposition
to
some
sort
of
election
activity
that
occurred
and
and
frankly,
I.
Think.
The
substance
of
this
matter
is
that
there
is
a
natural
area
it
has
been
acquired
by
the
state
and
our
role
is
to
offer
some
insight
as
current
participants
in
the
master
planning
process
as
to
how
it
might
best
be
managed.
L
D
We
recognize
that
the
officers
of
namu
are
highly
skilled
and
perhaps
best
place
to
to
manage
land.
They
do
a
wonderful
job
and
I.
Guess
it's
clear
in
the
confidential
briefing
that
we
have
that
they
have
expressed
an
appetite
for
this
land
which
maybe
has
encouraged
the
state
to
try
and
hand
it
over
to
us.
D
H
Thanks
chair
and
I
do
acknowledge
that
that
the
recommendation
by
officers
and
the
motion
put
forward
here
by
Council
called
aren't
that
different,
really
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
but
I
think
the
recommendation
from
officers
places
us
as
a
council
in
a
good
position
to
negotiate
with
the
state
government
and
I.
Think
that
that's
where
we
need
to
be
the
community
expectations
of
an
Echo
Park
land
on
this
site
are
certainly
great.
There's
been
a
lot
of
publicity
from
the
state
government
around
this.
H
Given
the
circumstances,
but
I
think
that
we
are,
the
council
is
best
placed
to
to
maintain
this.
This
piece
of
land,
especially
for
southern
Gold
Coast
residents,
but
also
for
visitors
to
our
area
as
well.
I
think
it's
a
be
a
fantastic
draw
card
if
managed,
properly
and
I.
Think
that
that
council
could
do
that.
So
I'll
be
putting
that
the
motion
forward
if
this
motion
doesn't
get
up.
Thank
you.
A
I
think
all
of
us
are
highly
supportive
of
this
particular
area.
As
far
as
the
high
quality
and
high
value
nature
conservation
areas
concerned
being
protected
and
preserved,
and
we
all
hope
and
expect
that
it
will
be
City
officers
carrying
out
that
work
because
they
are
amongst
the
best,
if
not
the
best,
at
what
they
do
and
given
their
connection
to
the
Landers
as
Gold
Coasters
we'd
expect
them
to
perform
much
better
than
say,
departmental
staff.
A
My
concern,
though,
is
that
we
are
in
the
midst
of
a
booming
population
that
has
put
so
much
of
our
infrastructure
under
pressure
and
that
infrastructure
is
not
just
the
storm
water
under
the
under
the
roads
or
the
roads
themselves.
It's
also
our
parks
and
open
space,
and
when
we
go
through
the
process
of
prioritizing
our
investment
in
open
space
and
that
estate,
we
take
a
very,
very,
very
objective
approach
to
that.
A
We
look
at
where
the
need
is
and
we
slot
those
projects
into
our
local
government
infrastructure
plan,
just
as
Council
Gates
mentioned,
and
this
site
does
not
appear
in
our
local
government
infrastructure
plan
mark
one
and
I
certainly
don't
believe
that
it
appears
in
our
local
government
infrastructure
plan
version
two
at
all.
So
if
we
are
to
spend
a
dollar
on
infrastructure,
green
infrastructure,
soft
infrastructure,
I
would
say
we
need
to
be
spending
that
dollar,
where
it
meets
the
burden
of
growth,
and
this
does
not
meet
the
burden
of
growth.
A
Don't
think
the
state
government
has
any
right
to
take
any
particular
offense
that
we're
merely
asking
them
to
honor
their
election
commitment
at
worst,
we're
merely
asking
them,
but
treating
them
in
the
same
way
that
they've
treated
us
and
I
don't
see
that
as
being
necessarily
A
Bad
Thing.
The
state
government,
in
this
case
I
believe,
has
written
a
check
that
their
Department
can't
cash
and
I
really
worry
about
the
impulse
that
it
might
put
onto
rate
payers,
not
just
in
terms
of
The
Upfront
cost.
A
But
if
we
were
to
take
on
these
assets
and
at
the
end
of
some
years
take
on
maintenance,
we
might
have
these
contributed
assets
sitting
on
our
balance
sheet,
which
might
have
ultimately
very
high
renewal
costs,
potentially
assets
that
are
coming
to
the
end
of
their
useful
life.
So
it's
not
just
the
maintenance.
A
If
we,
if
we
want
to
limit
the
exposure
to
the
ratepayer
for
the
future
costs
involved
in
the
state,
Frolic
I'd
urge
you
to
support
this
because
part
four
does
what
the
foreshadow
does
not,
and
that
is
require
a
contract
to
be
established
between
the
council
and
the
state
government
for
the
long-term
management
of
the
precinct.
It's
my
contribution
in
the
affirmative,
councilor
lakasha.
Did
you
want
to
speak
against.
G
I
do
and
I
don't
but
I
suppose
I'm
more
do
than
don't
in
speaking
against,
because
I
think
as
counselor
O'neill
said,
I
think
generally
we're
all
pretty
much
on
the
same
page
here
in
the
sense
that
we're
just
splitting
ears
over
words,
Mr
chair.
You
just
actually
mentioned
that
the
foreshadowed
motion
doesn't
address
this,
but
there
was
talk
about
tweaking
the
foreshadowed
and
obviously
we
can
only
go
so
far
with
that.
I
would
be
supportive
of
the
foreshadowed
if
it
actually
spoke
about
that.
G
We
only
continue
with
a
seed
at
the
table
if
no
I'm
just
sorry
yeah
a
seat
at
the
table
on
the
understanding
that
the
state
government
commits
to
the
funding
I.
It's
just
that
wording
a
bit
like
counselor
toza.
That
saying
we
take.
No
further
action
almost
seems
like
we
don't
want
a
seat
at
the
table
and
I
think
we
do
provided
that
the
state
government
is
actually
going
to
to
pay
for
it.
G
G
D
F
D
That
Council
looks
forward
to
participating
in
the
master
planning
process
once
the
state
government
commits
to
the
entirety
of
capital
cost
to
deliver
the
master
plan.
It's
just
the
same.
We're
we're
just
replacing
that
Council
takes
no
further
part
with
that.
Council
looks
forward
to
participating
in
and
then
we
change
once
yeah.
D
G
L
Question
is:
would
yeah
we
obviously
going
through
a
very
kind
of
loose
Amendment
slash
adjustment
process
here,
which
is
fine?
Is
there?
Is
there
any
reason
why
we
wouldn't
just
include
item
three
in
the
office's
recommendation,
because
then
I
could
support
them?
We
could
have
a
unanimous
recommendation
so
item
three
in
the
previous
office's
recommendation
is
now
you
know
implied.
A
So
I'm
going
to
give
us
all
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
this.
No
everyone,
fine,
okay,
so
we
have
a
foreshadowed
recommendation,
which
is
the
city
officer
recommendation.
What
I
propose
doing
now
is
to
invite
Council
Caldwell
to
clock.
You
don't
need
to
close.
Did
you
have
a
further
question
on
this
on
this
motion?.
L
I
can't
talk
about
the
elements
because
they're,
confidential
and
I
don't
want
to
compromise
the
non-disclosure
agreements
that
have
been
strapped
between
Council
on
the
state,
but
I
can't
support
the
the
motion
in
its
current
form,
because
the
elements
in
5.4
which
are
outlined
in
item
three
of
the
offices
recommendation
do
not
form
part
of
the
recommendation
before
us.
I
have
no
objection
to
four,
which
is
the
substance
of
the
change.
I
actually
am
fully
supportive
of
it,
but
the
officer's
recommendation
captured
the
elements
in
5.4
the
confidential
item.
A
D
F
Well,
look
I'm,
similarly
modded
to
councilor
Gates,
but
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
bullet
point
two
in
5.4
is
missing
a
critical
element
of
what
I
think
we
would
be
requiring
bullet
point.
One
has
a
limitation
in
line
three
about
potentially
what
our
Target
negotiating
position
is
so
I
I
just
think,
as
is.
A
All
right,
let's
test
the
room,
did
you
wish
to
close
Council
Caldwell,
all
right
so
councils?
We
have
a
motion
before
us.
That's
a
changed
recommendation.
Should
this
fail,
then
we
will
move
to
the
city
officer.
Recommendation
importantly,
just
to
remind
everyone,
the
the
key
difference
here
between
the
change
recommendation
and
the
officer
recommendation
is
that
it
calls
for
the
establishment
of
that
long-term
funding
agreement
to
support
the
maintenance
obligation
of
the
facility,
Post
delivery,
perhaps
in
perpetuity,
but
will
also
provide
us
cover
in
terms
of
that
renewal
cost,
which
I
think
is
important.
A
So
counselors
I'll
put
that
to
a
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
the
Caldwell
Gates
proposal,
it's
councilor,
Gates,
councilor,
Caldwell,
councilor,
Ryan,
Belden,
lumson,
councilor,
Castro,
councilor
Boston.
All
those
against
councilor,
toza
and
councilor
O'neill
motion
is
carried.
Council
is
obviously
there's
a
lot
of
time
between
now
and
full
Council
and
director.
If
you
wouldn't
mind,
perhaps
circulating
that
agreement.
That
said
between
now
and
full
Council
that
might
furnish
councilors
with
more
information
and
maybe
there's
a
different
outcome.
But
that's
the
committee
position
today
thanks
thanks
for
that
councilors.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Welcome
back
viewers:
we've
had
an
opportunity
today
to
consider
council's
approach
to
the
further
embellishment
and
investment
in
the
spit
master
plan
and
partnership
with
the
state
government.
We
have
a
motion
that
will
be
moved
by
myself
and
seconded
by
councilor
toza
and
while
it
is
a
closed
session
item,
there
is
something
that
you
can
take
from
the
recommendation.
A
That
is
what
it's
proposed
is
some
investment
in
the
Federation
walk,
Coastal
Reserve,
key
Precinct
of
the
spit
master
plan,
and
the
city
has
an
intense
interest
in
making
sure
that
the
recreational
and
environmental
opportunities
associated
with
that
Precinct
are
maximized.
We
also
want
to
minimize
the
potential
impost
on
the
ratepayer,
and
we
do
so
simply
by
noting
that
this
is
ultimately
state
government
master
plan,
state
government
commitment
and
a
state
government
interest
that
will
allow
them
to
develop
a
Ocean
Park,
the
first
of
its
kind
in
Australia.
A
We
will
make
some
investments
into
the
project
by
way
of
our
local
government
infrastructure
plan
and,
again,
that's
highlighted
in
the
recommendations.
But,
ultimately,
we're
here
to
guide
and
massage
the
decisions
of
the
state
government
to
make
sure
that
we
get
the
very
best
possible
result
out
of
the
plan
that
we
have
not
much
more
can
be
said
at
this
stage.
It
is
a
closed
item,
but
I
hope
that
in
the
fullness
of
time
the
CEO
may
take
steps
to
make
some
parts
non-confidential.
A
So
the
community
can
better
understand
how
this
Precinct
will
unfold
and
develop
for
their
benefit
and
benefit
of
those
generations
to
follow
counselors.
Were
there
any
speakers
against
no
I'll
put
that
to
a
vote,
all
those
in
favor,
all
those
against
that
is
carried
councilors.
There
are
no
General
business
items
happy
to
close
the
meeting
at
11
50..
Thank
you.