Special Council Meeting - Wednesday 5 November 2025 @ 1.00 pm

Good afternoon everyone. I would like to begin this meeting by acknowledging the traditional custodians on the land of which we gathered today. Long before

this place was called Logan Central, it was the land of the Yugenbear and the Yagura speaking peoples. They have

shared this land with us for over 200 years and they have suffered for that sharing. I want to thank them for their

sharing. I want to thank them for their determination and resilience to pass on their traditions and cultures so that we could enjoy them today. And I pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging.

Welcome to the special council meeting of the 5th of November, 2025. I declare

this meeting open at 1:02 p.m. I would

like to advise meeting attendees that this meeting is being webcast and audio recorded. This special council meeting

recorded. This special council meeting has been called to consider funding and procuring an independent review of the flood modeling including included in the draft Logan plan. Councilors, for the

purposes of media being in the room today, a motion is now displayed on the screen to give approval for members of the media to record proceedings of today's meeting. Please note that should

today's meeting. Please note that should the meeting move into a closed session, members of the public and media will be asked to leave the public gallery until such time the meeting resumes in close session. Would someone like to move the

session. Would someone like to move the motion currently on the screen for me, please?

Thank you, councelor Bennon, seconded by councelor Murphy. All those in favor,

councelor Murphy. All those in favor, please raise your hand. That has been carried unanimously. Thank you,

carried unanimously. Thank you, councilors. I note that councelor Fraser

councilors. I note that councelor Fraser has requested a leave of absence for today. Um, we have no other leaves of

today. Um, we have no other leaves of absences recorded.

There is a motion on the screen explaining his leave of absence. Would

someone move that motion for me, please?

Thank you, Councelor Murphy. Seconded by

Councelor Hall. All those in favor, please raise your hand.

That motion has been carried unanimously.

I now refer to declarations of conflicts of interest. Do any councilors wish to

of interest. Do any councilors wish to declare any conflicts of interest against any items on today's agenda?

There being none, I'll now move to the elect turn to give the opening address.

We're here today because when I was elected as mayor, I committed to listening to the community. When I took the stage at Jima State School for that first town hall meeting, the room was

packed. It was hot. There wasn't an

packed. It was hot. There wasn't an empty seat in the house. People were

shoulder-to-shoulder at the back. It was

standing room only. The crowds spilled out into the dark where those who couldn't fit inside were listening as well. And I've been speaking to people

well. And I've been speaking to people before the event started and I could feel the tension was building. I knew it was going to be intense because people's

home is their castle. It's their most valuable asset. But I had never

valuable asset. But I had never experienced anything like this. For 3

hours, I heard anger and frustration as locals shared their stories. It was raw.

It was honest and I was listening.

The best feedback is the most direct feedback and I learned a lot that night.

A week before that meeting, I had hosted an online town hall with over 40,000 views and more than 900 comments. Many

of those questions from members of the community, but I knew more people wanted to share their story. And that's why I called a second town hall meeting in

Logan home. Over the last 10 weeks, I've

Logan home. Over the last 10 weeks, I've heard, read, and responded to thousands of people in letters, town hall meetings, shopping center pop-ups,

emails, social media, and planning scheme submissions. There have been some

scheme submissions. There have been some clear and recurring themes. Fear of

insurance spikes and property value loss. Anger about the loss of property

loss. Anger about the loss of property rights and uncertainty about the plans that people had for their forever home.

But overwhelmingly, people have told me they want an independent review of the flood maps. They asked for this because

flood maps. They asked for this because they do not trust the current mapping compared to their lived experience. They

are not convinced that it uses the correct data. They want to know if there

correct data. They want to know if there was any ground truthing. They are

skeptical that it is fit for purpose.

They don't think it's fair to rely on predictions of extreme future flood events like the one in 2000 or the PMF.

the the probable maximum flood for land use planning. But let me be very clear,

use planning. But let me be very clear, this is not a review of our land use policies. This is not a review of state

policies. This is not a review of state legislation or of the draft planning scheme or of state planning policies.

We're not seeking to make changes to those policies here today. This report

and the review that is asking us to consider is not a silver bullet, but it is a first step. What this report asks of councilors is to engage a suitably

qualified independent specialist consultant to undertake an additional review of the Logan and Albert Rivers flood study. Officers have recommended

flood study. Officers have recommended this particular flood study because it is the biggest. It affects the most prop more properties than any of the other studies in the draft Logan plan. From

that first town hall meeting in Jima, people have been calling for this review. But today councilors, we have a

review. But today councilors, we have a very important job to do because a review alone is not enough. It must be truly independent. While it will be a

truly independent. While it will be a technical review done by hydraulic engineers, it cannot simply be a tick and flick process.

The community will not accept a Clayton's review that is all show and no substance. Councilors, our community is

substance. Councilors, our community is relying on us to make sure this review is rigorous. And to that end, I've

is rigorous. And to that end, I've called for residents to give me feedback on the scope for this review, and they have responded. I've passed on those

have responded. I've passed on those suggestions to the staff and asked them to expand the scope based on feedback from the community.

I circulated that scope to you last night and I will table that amended scope later in this meeting for consideration. The two parts of the

consideration. The two parts of the flood mapping that community members struggle with the most are the one in 2000 annual flood event and the PMF.

These are such rare and extreme floods that we've never seen them in Queensland's recorded history. And we

know the reason that they are included in our draft Logan plan is because state planning policies require it. The amount

of water required for a PMF level flash flood in Winderoo Creek is 540 ms in 2 hours. I can't conceive of how much

hours. I can't conceive of how much water that is, how much rain that would take, and neither can any of our residents. So why would the state ask us

residents. So why would the state ask us to map that? It's because it was a recommendation of the Queensland Flood Commission of Inquiry.

30 people died due to flooding across Queensland in the summer of 2010 2011 where 75% of the state was impacted by flooding. The commission was independent

flooding. The commission was independent and thorough. It considered the

and thorough. It considered the following matters as they related to those floods. Preparation and planning

those floods. Preparation and planning by all levels of government, emergency services and the community. performance

of private insurers and meeting their claims responsibilities. All aspects of

claims responsibilities. All aspects of the response to those floods, particularly measures taken to inform the community and measures to protect life and property, both public and private. The management of the supply of

private. The management of the supply of essential services like power, water, and communications. The adequacy of

and communications. The adequacy of forecast and early warning systems especially for Toumba lock and the locker and Brisbane valleys. operational

plans for dams across the state, particularly Wyvern Home and Somerset and their release strategies and their suitability and all aspects of land use planning through local and regional planning systems to minimize

infrastructure and property impacts from flooding. And the state went on to

flooding. And the state went on to direct the commissioner to make recommendations which she considered appropriate feasible and cost-effective to to implement

the planning and preparation for future flood threats and risk. In particular,

the prevention of loss of life, the emergency response in natural disaster events, and any legislative changes needed to better protect life and

property in natural disasters.

But as I read those terms of reference, I realized that there was something the state didn't ask the commissioner to consider. And that was the social and

consider. And that was the social and financial impact of mapping extremely unlikely flood events. The stress and confusion that doing that doing doing so

would cause people, the damage to their well-being, and the hole that insurance premiums would burn in their pockets, all because of a theoretical flood event.

The commissioner did not foresee the compounding impacts of her recommendations on the people of Logan, but today we are faced with the unintended consequences of those recommendations.

Now, this review will not impact on the validity of people's submissions. All

submissions will be considered and responded to, but I don't think we can wait another 6 to 8 weeks to start this work, particularly when it's impacting so many properties in our city. I want

to get the ball rolling now because we know that things like procurement can cause delays and the review itself will take some time because the scope is quite detailed.

Thank you to all of the people who have submitted suggestions in relation to this scope. Members of public who have

this scope. Members of public who have done this have gone above and beyond any expectation that they've been asked to do before to help us do a better job.

Many of those many of those recommendations were outside the scope of what a flood study could include, but that feedback has been kept and I'll make sure it is used to inform future

decisions of council.

Now, the recommendation of this report is to use option one, which is a qualified consultant who has already done some of the work, some of the peerreview work on the existing flood

studies. But the feedback I've had from

studies. But the feedback I've had from residents is that they want an entirely fresh set of eyes for this work. and I

agree with them. With that in mind, I've prepared an alternate recommendation for council's consideration, which I will move as an amendment to the motion as part of the discussion and debate today.

I believe it is important to use a suitably qualified and independent specialist consultant who has not worked on any of these flood maps or studies as part of the draft logan plan process.

Now, if councilors support this recommendation, this re this review will go through the normal procurement process arms length from elected members as is appropriate to protect the independence of that process.

The community deserves to know if they can rely on this flood study and the models that come from it.

This review should give them that confidence, particularly as it should consider the compounding effects that each factor in the flood study has on

the next all the way out to the PMF and whether the margin for error at those extreme events is acceptable and appropriate to use the land use planning

and for insurance risk. I'm not

questioning the technical competence of the engineers who did the original report. They followed their scope. I'm

report. They followed their scope. I'm

questioning whether their assumptions should drive our planning policies when the probability of those flood events is so low that the numbers become meaningless for practical decision-making.

The goal of flood mapping should be to provide meaningful and practical information that keeps people and property safe. It should not be causing

property safe. It should not be causing alarm and giving insurance companies a green light to charge like wounded bulls based on theoretical extremes that may never happen. I support this review

never happen. I support this review because I've heard the concerns of the community and I want them to have confidence in this process. I support

this review because I believe it will help us and our advocacy to the state government and I know we have some work to do on the scope today and the recommendations that we will vote on.

It's not going to be an easy job because it's important but it's a start and it's what our community wants. I know they'll be watching, not just in how we vote

today, but in what we say and how we contribute. There are no second chances

contribute. There are no second chances on this. We're here to make decisions.

on this. We're here to make decisions.

Let's make them good ones. Thank you,

counselors. We'll now move to item 5.1.

I'd like to remind um members of the gallery that so that we can conduct the meeting and hear each other in our discussions and debate that you remain quiet and respectful throughout.

I now refer to item 5.1 which is the Logan and Albert Rivers flood study review and I invite the director of transport services Mr. Daryl Riley to speak to his report.

Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. Um so the report in front of council today talks to the opportunity to undertake a review of the Albert and Logan River flood studies. Um

the draft Logan plan has been open for nine weeks as submissions and actually closed at the end of October. Um during

that time, council received submissions um requesting that a further review of the flood studies commissioned by council that underpinned the flood risk

mapping for the draft logan plan be undertaken. Um there were nine sorry 11

undertaken. Um there were nine sorry 11 studies in total across the city that underpin. Um it is noted that each of

underpin. Um it is noted that each of the flood studies when they were completed had an independent peer review as part of their preparation. Um and

we've been using those flood studies um within council and with external parties for um the last couple of years. Um that

being said, the report in front of council today provides a mechanism for council to be able to undertake a further flood study um in line with

those um those requests.

The Albert and Logan River flood study is the largest of the flood studies that council commissioned to support

the Logan plan. Um it covers more properties than the other um items. So therefore was identified as being the most significant, most relevant for us

to review. Um the Albert and Logan flood

to review. Um the Albert and Logan flood study when prepared by the consultant um was required to comply with Australian standards such as Australian rainfall

and runoff. Um we requested an alignment

and runoff. Um we requested an alignment to the state planning policy at the time for that to be compliant. Um and

considered items such as the Queensland flood commission of inquiry in their preparation.

Um a review of the Albertton flood Logan flood study would look at the parameters, processes and methodologies that were actually used in preparing the flood study um and provide independent

advice on the suitability of that work to support the riskbased flood mapping in the draft Logan plan.

The review of the Logan and flood Logan sorry Albert and Logan flood study would not include the undertaking of further flood modeling for the catchment but would be a review of the work that has

been completed with advice. Um

the Logan and Albert flood study has been sorry I've already mentioned that um in completing the review of the flood study um it won't touch on matters of

policy. So there were matters of policy

policy. So there were matters of policy which were raised as part of the submissions with council. They will be considered separate to that. The work

that we're talking about is the engagement of a technical consultant in regards to flood modeling and reviewing the flood study that's prepared from

that. The report as provided

that. The report as provided um includes two options. Um we have looked to the market to see if there was an identifiable consultant which we

could use. We have referenced that as

could use. We have referenced that as option one within the report. We've also

included in there a reference to an option two which would be going to market for an expression of interest um

as outlined in that report. Um I will cease at that um as an outline of the report that's in front of you today.

>> Thank you councilors. Councelor Bradley

I was going to table the amended motion.

Are you okay for me to do that and then ask your question or would you like to ask your question first? Yep, that's

fine. You can proceed.

>> Thank you through the chair. Um, and

director Riley, thank you so much for the report. U, I just got a couple of

the report. U, I just got a couple of questions about it. Um, could you give us an indication how much a review would

cost rate payers of the city?

um our initial assessment and we haven't been to market and we haven't spoken to a consultant to have a definitive figure for this. Um indicatively we probably

for this. Um indicatively we probably would be thinking in the order of $40,000 for the review in the scope as tabled but I want to be really clear

that we haven't tested that with the market. We haven't finalized the scope

market. We haven't finalized the scope >> and adopted that yet.

>> Thank you. I respect that.

>> Um, for the benefit of the residents in the audience and people watching online, what is um, obviously there's been two

reviews done previously.

What is hoped that will happen from this review? What it will be the benefits

review? What it will be the benefits as outlined in the report? Um the

opportunity which is provided today is an opportunity for a further independent review which would align with the request that we received with the submissions.

>> Okay. So really it's just to align with what has been expressed and it may come up with the same result. Is that

correct?

>> The reviews only being driven by the request for that independent um and an expression of that back to the community.

>> Thank you.

Thank you, councelor Bradley. I'll now

move to table the updated attachment one, which is the proposed scope of independent flood model review as presented to the special council meeting on the 5th of November, 2025 be tabled.

It's a procedural motion. I do not need someone to second it. All those in favor, please raise your hand.

That has been carried.

>> Yes, that is that. Thank you. That was

what was emailed through to you um last night, counselors. Thank you. Um,

night, counselors. Thank you. Um,

now that the scope has been tabled, my intention is to work our way through that scope line by line. So, you can ask questions about what it means or make improvements as you see fit. Uh, unless

councilors have specific questions they want to ask generally before I move into the scope work. I'll move on to that now. Do any councilors wish to ask any

now. Do any councilors wish to ask any questions of the director before I proceed?

Councelor Wilcox and then councelor Hall. Councelor Wilcox, you may proceed.

Hall. Councelor Wilcox, you may proceed.

Thank you.

>> Please stand.

>> Sorry. Um, [clears throat] Director Riley, just one question. So, the review of the work that has been completed is what you've just said. What happens if they find errors? Will they then go back

and look at the flood mapping and review the flood mapping or are they just solely looking on a review of how they've actually done the flood flood mapping?

Um the report as tabled today is only the step to actually do the review of the mapping of sorry of the flood study.

The results of that report we will bring back to council and that will become a public document um at that point in time. At this point in time I would not

time. At this point in time I would not wish to speculate as to actions or outcomes that we would would come from that. Um when we've undertaken that we

that. Um when we've undertaken that we would then review that. Yep.

>> Councelor Hall.

>> So, I understand the need for a review to address the concerns of residents, but even if you have someone else, even if you have a specialist, even if you have an independent person, if the

methodology that you were using for the review is the same as the previous study that you did, wouldn't it be likely that you would just get a similar result to what you had before? like wouldn't be

wouldn't it be the case that you wouldn't have anything new? I mean there might be some peculiar peculiarities but overall you're basically going to get the same thing back because the

methodology defined by the people doing the review will still be the same as what it previously was.

>> I think the question is is this scope different to the original peer review?

The peer reviews that we've done in the past were open to look at all aspects of the study and to provide advice on anything which we thought was incorrect

or an anomaly anomaly in regards to that. The scope that we've outlined also

that. The scope that we've outlined also requests that review occur on the detail within that report. Um it is another set

of eyes looking over that study.

I'm concerned about investing into a study that's going to have the same results. So, uh, is council officers

results. So, uh, is council officers confident that we'll have a different result from an an external study or will it be the same?

>> No, we are not confident that there will be a different result. Um, we've engaged consultants in the past to do a review.

um and they reviewed the process which is in line with the guidelines which are set for us in regards to doing flood studies.

>> So to summize that the council officers believe that the result of this study will be the same as the one that they've done before.

>> I didn't say that. Um we've put it forward. The result of the review will

forward. The result of the review will be the result of the review.

>> Thank you.

Thank you, councelor Hall. I have

councelor Benon, Stemp and Lane and Murphy.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You've got to come in here with an open mind, right?

Otherwise, we can be a code of conduct breach if we don't have an open mind, which we all do. There's plenty of times I don't think things are a good idea.

I've learned quickly that if the community asking it, I work for them.

So, I don't think there's an issue with doing the study because the community clearly asks you for that and ask for that. So, I think the study has to be

that. So, I think the study has to be done. The only concern for me is whether

done. The only concern for me is whether it's option one or option two, whether it's someone that's done some work for council before or going under an EOI to get someone totally independent. So I

understand the risk for that is that at the moment you haven't identified anyone that could possibly do it and I think whether Mr. May you want to explain that or the staff that option two is what the community is going to want because

someone totally independent. I need to understand the community to understand really clearly on how short that's going to be. What's the chances of us finding

to be. What's the chances of us finding someone? The last thing I want to do is

someone? The last thing I want to do is what the community have asked us to do.

We go to someone, they say, "No, they've already done the review. It's they're

already they're already tarnished." And

that's one of the weaknesses you've got in the report. So, what chances are that the best you can answer is can we find someone totally independent, which is what the communities asked myself for

and the mayor.

>> Um, through you, Mr. Chair. Um the

expression of interest process for us would effectively be us going to market and actually asking for companies to come forward and explain to us the experience and capacity they have to do

that that work. Um it is a reasonably small market in which um flood modeling is completed. It's not general

is completed. It's not general engineering work. So it is quite

engineering work. So it is quite specialist. Um I don't know the

specialist. Um I don't know the likelihood. We can only ask the

likelihood. We can only ask the question. Um but it would be a a

question. Um but it would be a a publicly open process for people to be able to make a submission.

>> Thank you through the chair. Mr. Mayor,

is there a way that you can put a time limit on that to say look if this is if the councils want to go out independent providing the community that's what the community want? Is there a chance you

community want? Is there a chance you could put like a we can go to an EOI for four weeks if no one comes forward then we really come back and look at option one? I just feel if we in my in my

one? I just feel if we in my in my opinion if if I vote for option one today without testing to mark option two I've let people down because they're asking for purely a truly independent review. I understand the risk that you

review. I understand the risk that you mightn't find one but I think in my opinion unless we test that and try and find one we don't know but I mean I'm asking is there a way I know it's going to push things back when it comes to

this review but to me it's worth pushing it back to see if we can deliver what the community want.

Council's normal um practices in regards to an expression of interest, which would be in line with the the local government act, is that we would actually go out for an expression of

interest for a defined period and ask for submissions if that was something that council chose to do. Um if at the

end of that process we didn't have a successful consultant who can do the work, we would be bound to come back to council to close out on the resolution that was provided.

Thank you through the chair. I didn't

mean to drop that on you. It's just that I'm constantly thinking on the go here to try and get the right decision made.

But you know, if the recommendations don't go, that's something that I would I would suggest.

>> Thank you, Councelor Benon. Councelor

Stemp, Lane Murphy, Russell, Councelor Stemp.

>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple things I want to just get clarity of before we go any further. Um obviously

on attachment one it notes that Logan and Albert River flood study was delivered by a specialist hydraulic and hydra hydrarology consultant independently reviewed by another

consultant specializing in this field then independently reviewed by a third consultant before being published in 2023. So were any of these consultants

2023. So were any of these consultants completely independent of the original study?

Uh both of the consultants used were independent of the original company that did the original study.

>> Okay. And did they undertake a review of the items that we've noted in attachment one as part of those independent reviews?

>> Um yes, the request that we provided at that stage was an open review of the studies in their entirety.

>> Okay. And how long do we expect this review would take if we did make decision to have another review done?

Um there are two options within the report. Um those two options come with

report. Um those two options come with different time frames. Um option one talks to a direct appointment where

we're talking about an identified contract uh consultant. Um that would have a reasonably short period of time for us to engage with that consultant

around the scope and the works. um would

envisage that to be in the order of 2 to 3 weeks um if they are engaged off that our expectation but we would have to negotiate it with them that it's likely

to be in the six to 8 weeks for them to be able to do a review. Option two where we go to an expression of interest actually requires us preparing an expression of interest document going to

a public advertisement that being open for a period of time. Um then

negotiating with a successful consultant at the end of that and then the period of time for them to do that work. Um

that could be in the order of six months.

>> Okay. Thank you. And just finally, um, what approximately how many properties across Logan have been impacted by the changes from the Logan and Albert flood

study? Got an idea on like just an

study? Got an idea on like just an understanding of if this was reviewed like how many properties are we potentially could be impacted?

>> Don't sorry I'm not being clear.

>> I understand the question. I'm sorry. I

just don't know the answer to that off the cuff.

>> Okay, that's fine. I just thought I' I was just simply curious to see as to >> I could I could add it up if you want.

[laughter] >> Thank you.

>> Thank you, Councelor Stem. Councelor

Lang.

>> Thanks very much, Mr. Mayor. Um, so I've got a couple of questions. Uh I think for the feedback that I've been reading online um has been not so much that

people don't believe in the math that's going on with the studies. It's that

they don't believe in the modeling that was done of the topography and the surrounding areas. So for many people,

surrounding areas. So for many people, they don't understand how their properties have been mapped in a specific way and believe that there's inconsistencies with the the base um

topography or topographical modeling that we've actually got. When was the last time that that GIS or LAR mapping was reviewed and is what year? And are

we using that in this this current thing? Because we'll come up with the

thing? Because we'll come up with the same scenario if it's if it's old mapping.

Um thank you through Mr. Chair. Um to be able to support the um flood studies which we completed. We

undertook um new light survey in 2021.

Um so it is a um point in time. Um we

look to um bring that up to date at the time of when we actually did those studies. The studies take us quite some

studies. The studies take us quite some time to complete. So we are a fair way down the road from that now. Um, but

they will always be a point in time. So,

the information we used wasn't 10 years old. It wasn't going back to the early

old. It wasn't going back to the early 2000s or the likes. We actually did undertake a new um, LAR study to be able to have contemporary um, information at the time that we were doing the studies.

>> Thanks. Was that peer reviewed by anybody?

>> Um, I'm not sure that that was peer reviewed.

>> I think we should um, just have a look at that. As I said, um, in reading the

at that. As I said, um, in reading the online commentary, um, people were skeptical with the base model that we started with. It wasn't so much about

started with. It wasn't so much about the math, it was the base model. And I

think that taking those concerns and giving them assurance that 2021 uh, the mapping was redone and that it was peer reviewed and that, you know, independent

people have looked at this and and and and triggered this response, then that's something completely different. I don't

know that we've actually transmitted that to the community. And I think that that's a problem for them because they say not in my back. This didn't happen in my backyard. I have correspondents from people who said that, you know, the

they were told different things by hydraologists, by council over a range of years and they still believe in that regardless of whether or not we've done new mapping because we didn't point out

when the new mapping was done as in the um topography remapped and looked at.

We've had a lot of development that's gone in through the suburbs and overland flow is a major impact on that. Given

that this is a starting point for the review and for people to have confidence in it, I would imagine we should have confirmation that it's been peer reviewed before we send this off to an

independent person to then map off that that information. That would be a basic

that information. That would be a basic I would imagine we would start with and I've come into this with a really open mind, but I'm I'm hoping you'll have an answer for me.

Um the LAR work um undertaken for council is undertaken via our um surveying area and was undertaken by a consultant as well. So therefore looked at by council. Um we have detailed

specifications in regards to that work and do QA on the information which we actually um receive for that. The

underlying topography information that we use for the flood study is the same information that we use for other purposes in council. it wasn't solely for the flood studies themselves. So the

contour mapping which you would have likely seen on our internal GIS system and the likes is built from that same data set.

>> Again, I'm not hearing that it's been reviewed by someone independent.

Sorry, I don't mean to be combative, but I did want to put this point across. I

agree with you and that's why I asked for item four to be added to the scope.

Review of the topographical methodology supporting the modeling.

>> A review is great and I think that having that as a starting point is really important. Um

really important. Um my last question is is in transmitting information to residents um

people in my area um who put in submissions as a result of um the flood overlays that have gone into their area.

I went around and visited each person that contacted me personally and uh in some instances they don't understand how they sit above someone else in a street

opposite and they're on a medium density flood mapping while sorry they're in a high density flood mapping while someone else is in a medium density. They're

higher than them. They're not closest to the creek. There are so many different

the creek. There are so many different things that make them feel very uncomfortable with the process. So they

believe that the basic model that we start with is flawed. And I keep repeating myself, but that is the general vibe that's coming from community comments. It's coming from

community comments. It's coming from in-person comments, but mostly I'm getting my information or feedback that's been through social media. So

I'm struggling with this today. I've

said that.

>> Thank you, Councelor Lane. I have

councelor Murphy, councelor Russell, Councelor St Ledger, and then councelor Raben, and then councelor Hall, and then councelor Hermire.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Firstly, I'd like to say thanks for bringing this special meeting forward. I'm sure the community

meeting forward. I'm sure the community are very thankful that we could get this started and we don't have delay over that shutdown period. Um, for division 12, we're surrounded by both rivers and

we have multiple properties that go under businesses and lots of community assets. I'm happy to support this review

assets. I'm happy to support this review today, but I just wanted to ask um director um with this review there is a possibility that we will get the same

outcomes, maybe a a better defined outcome or even possibly an outcome where they'll say that we haven't gone far enough. Is that correct?

far enough. Is that correct?

I have no supporting information to suggest that we will get a different outcome in regards to the assessment. Um

the studies were complete. They were

peer- reviewviewed. We've been requested by the community to have another independent set of eyes look at that which we've brought forward in this report. But it hasn't doesn't have

report. But it hasn't doesn't have underpinning changed information that makes me believe that we will get a different outcome. So I I can't attest

different outcome. So I I can't attest to that.

>> Okay. So once we have that review back, then we take that information and we reook at the flood mapping from there with that further information.

>> That'll be a decision for council once you see the outcomes of the review.

>> Thank you. I just wanted to make it clear that there is a possibility with this review that we could get different outcomes whether it's better or worse or the same. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

the same. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councelor Murphy. Councelor

Russell.

>> Thank you, Mayor. Um, okay. Some of the questions that I had lined up have already been covered, but I still I might even revisit some of them, so

apologies in advance for that. Um, I'm,

as some have already mentioned, I'm I'm coming into this very open-minded and and unsure of exactly how I intend to vote today. And that's that's because

vote today. And that's that's because we're finding ourselves uh between wanting to do what the community wants of us uh and and what's best for the

community and then at the same time of of doing what's best for the for the entire city by making a decision that um that that makes sense and that that fits

all of the information provided. Um

where I'm finding that difficult is that um I'm actually yet to see any of the community consultation responses and my understanding is that today this meeting

today which I learned about five five days ago sorry um is a [clears throat]

response is response to um to what we've seen on Facebook. Am I am I wrong on this or is it do we have more

information that I've not seen yet?

>> Um I think it would be reasonable to say that there's been um interactions with council some of those you've mentioned but there have been submissions to council as well. Um I understand your

question in regards to um those submissions will have a due course to play with council and a lot of those will include policy related matters

which are not actually about the flood modeling themselves. Um I think the

modeling themselves. Um I think the mayor mentioned earlier a desire given the time frame to actually do a review on a flood study is considerable.

um that there was an opportunity if council so wished to be able to progress that sooner rather than having it I guess wait for the consideration of the rest of the information in those

submissions.

>> Okay. So I'm still I'm still finding that the the the assump I feel like we're making decision on it on some assumptions today. Um, which like I I I

assumptions today. Um, which like I I I believe in those assumptions but in good faith but they they are some assumptions based on you know on Facebook is a is a

really a really confusing space to be when sometimes you can get some you know a sense from the go from the from the uh

the community sorry but sometimes sometimes the the noisiest might make things look um more like the community's sentiment

than it necessarily is. Um

my I'm a bit confused a bit I'm also I'm also wondering that if we are unsure of any kind of a cost moving forward on

either of these uh options. I don't know how to vote today on on a blank check.

I'm I'm concerned about that as well.

Is there any [laughter] I don't know that I can necessarily get a response to that. That's more a comment.

>> Um I I understand the comment. I don't

have further information that I'm able to provide. It will require us engaging

to provide. It will require us engaging with the market to understand that >> on that then would it be possible?

I I'm concerned that we're potentially um putting the the cart before the horse by being in this room today having this conversation. Is it at all possible for

conversation. Is it at all possible for that to be investigated and for uh the feedback from the community to be provided before

before the council be asked to make these decisions today?

Or is that is is it necessary that this needs to occur today rather than after we found out how much it might cost to have these studies reviewed

and also how much the uh the the sentiment from the community, the genuine sentiment of the community from the consultation that was done, not just the you know the guts of

it from Facebook.

>> The you have an ability to constrain how much money is spent if your concern is a blank check. So you could put that the

blank check. So you could put that the recommendation. You could put a limit

recommendation. You could put a limit and say if it goes beyond that limit, we expect you to come back to us and and ask um the it is far beyond Facebook.

The the strongest feedback I got was from the two town hall meetings. That's

people who I haven't heard from since on Facebook. So um Facebook can be an echo

Facebook. So um Facebook can be an echo chamber and it is often the squeakiest wheel that speaks. You don't hear the silent majority.

>> If you're in that room in Jim Bumba, you would want a independent review. You

they were very very clear on it. Not

just the people who spoke, the people who spoke to me afterwards or beforehand that and those other silent the silent people who didn't even get to speak on the floor of that meeting. They just

came to me and said, "Please, please check this work." Um, but I hear you on the financial concerns like what happens if it's a $20 million review and they just go and procure it. I don't think they would do that in good faith, but we

could definitely put a constraint on them to say if it goes above $50,000, you want I want you to come back to council for a decision on what that exact number is and why it costs that much. to your point.

much. to your point.

>> Thank you, Mayor. And I know that I've taken up um quite a bit of time here, but I've just got one more thing to um to cover is that I how how much fa I mean, we're kind of

going into this not knowing really what's what will come out of this, but how much faith do we have that this will resolve the concerns of the community?

The concern like I I have been following the Facebook groups pretty closely as well, as I'm sure everybody has, but I mean is Okay. I'm I'm concerned about the use of

Okay. I'm I'm concerned about the use of the term uh independence of this study being of of this review being independent. I think that it's giving a

independent. I think that it's giving a um an unfair um idea into the minds of people that this has not been an independent process

up until this point. So could I just clarify that the the previous studies they've not been conducted by council, have they? they've been independently

have they? they've been independently conducted and also reviewed already.

>> Um the previous studies were undertaken by consultants external to council um with expertise in that area and then we have engaged independent companies so

unrelated companies to then do the peer review on the works that were were undertaken in the first situation. Yes.

In terms of your question, the report which comes back will be the report that comes back and it will be made publicly available. The extent to

how the community receives that it will be an independent report which they will be able to read.

>> So I'm just going to correct the director. Logan City Council did some of

director. Logan City Council did some of the peer reviews. Many of the companies that did peer reviews also did studies.

So when I show the community the table which provided to me by the staff that shows that a company that did a review that did a study then reviewed somebody else's work who did a different part of the study they do not see that as

independent because it's from a group that are already working on the field and their concern is is that they're tick and flick reviews. I'm sure they're not, but

flick reviews. I'm sure they're not, but that concern is valid because the optics of me checking your work and you checking council sent Ledger's work and council

sent Ledger checking my work does not feel like it's independent. It may well be and that may be standard practice in a small industry, but that's not the feeling the community gets. And I think you've probably seen that on social

media. I've seen it in correspondents to

media. I've seen it in correspondents to me. I've seen it at meetings and

me. I've seen it at meetings and standups. And that is what people are

standups. And that is what people are concerned about, which is why I'm supportive of option two because even though the option one consultant hasn't done any studies, they've still done some of the reviews already. So they're

still in the business of the work. So to

say that they're all completely independent from each other when they've got relationships because they've already checked each other's work, I don't agree with that.

>> Okay. I mean I I don't know where we draw a line between in between uh you know I I understand that the community's

perception is important but at some point somewhere we have to draw a line of of what is reality and what is what what people are choosing to believe. I I

think we need to I'm probably putting myself in a lot of trouble right right now, but I think we need to draw a line somewhere where we

say there is reality and and there is um where people on social media are very angry and and scared and are saying things that are not reality. I'm just

saying that I think anyway I think I've taken up enough time but I have a yeah I have I have a lot of concerns about us jumping so quickly into this process.

>> Thank you councelor Russell. I have

councelor St. Ledger Raven Hall heroire and Bradley.

>> Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um, in regards to an independent review, are we able to have a mechanism in the EOI to see who will actually be working on that should

someone be successful in it? We've

spoken about this being quite a tight field. So, um I know from my own lived

field. So, um I know from my own lived experience working in the trade, particularly if you take the facilities management trade, if you're a trades person and you're looking after a certain facilities and they may change

to a different supplier, a lot of the time that technician will turn up next day at work in a different shirt. So,

they're technically working for another company. So is there a mechanism that we

company. So is there a mechanism that we can make sure we put in place to ensure whoever's doing this is genuinely independent, not just somebody that's transferred sideways from one

organization to another.

>> There is through the recommendation that you choose to vote on when you come to the motion that you put forward. Um the

proposed recommendation has something that speaks specifically to that, but you could make it harder if you wanted to. When we got to that point,

to. When we got to that point, >> I just think it it just adds a little bit of value there for to provide that.

Like we said, we've we've heard loud and clear and um from being out there and talking to residents, they they want an independent review and it sounds like

that's going to be um quite difficult possibly from uh the information we've been supplied. But if we can work hard

been supplied. But if we can work hard enough to get it, we just want to make sure that when we get down to those the nitty-gritty that we're making sure the actual individuals working on that are

somebody that hasn't um been involved from the start. Uh a question for Daryl.

Does this review will this take into consideration uh the creek mapping um the dam mapping? It's it's quite it's proved um particularly throughout division 4 that it has a large impact on

a lot of our residents.

>> So the review was proposed is on the Logan sorry Albat and Logan flood study which is the biggest flood study which we have. um it won't look specifically

we have. um it won't look specifically at the other 10 studies which are smaller in in size and nature. However,

the methodology used on the major study is the same methodology which was used for the other studies as well. So um

there will be some applicability to the outcome that we receive on this in terms of the other studies as well. So, it's

more of a review into the meth methodology rather than the actual maps themselves. Is that correct?

themselves. Is that correct?

>> It's certainly a review into the methodology um the procedures and the parameters that were actually used um just for consistency of that and to

provide guidance to council. Yes,

>> thank you.

>> Thank you, councelor San Ledger. I put

myself down because um multiple counselors I think councelor Wilox and councelor Murphy asked around would what is the difference between this review and I think councelor Hall. What is the difference between this review and

previous reviews? Um, as Daryl said, the

previous reviews? Um, as Daryl said, the previous reviews were open reviews. So,

it's an open field. Check it completely, find what you can, come back to us and tell us if there's any issues. Um, this

review has very specific bounds, um, which is we'll get to when we speak to the scope, but in particular, they're concerns that the community has raised that they have doubt around. That's has

there been any ground truthing? Have

they actually gone out to anyone's property and checked that this stuff is real? that was not specifically asked in

real? that was not specifically asked in those open reviews. Though they may make up part of that review, it's not a focus. So, it may have been overlooked

focus. So, it may have been overlooked or it may not have been seen as important because again they're technical peer reviews of um a report to confirm its accuracy. It may not go into

the detail that matters to everyday people in Logan. Um the other one that was particularly focused is around that compounding effects of error bounds in the PMF. So, the PMF is the level of

the PMF. So, the PMF is the level of mapping that people are most concerned about. it impacts the most people in the

about. it impacts the most people in the city. And as you stack the margin of

city. And as you stack the margin of error that goes into a flood model that then goes into um climate change that can then go into the weather events that would contribute to the PMF. The the

margin for error gets wider and wider and while that's acceptable in modeling terms, it's not something that was ever articulated to me and I haven't been able to find it in those flood studies.

So having an expert look at that and say this is how much error there could be by the time we get to that level of mapping would probably answer a lot of the questions the community has around why

is the PMF so extreme and it's because there's a stacking sort of uh impact on all the different maths that is being done until you get to that extreme and

very unlikely event and I think that is the difference of this study that it looks specifically to the area that is causing some of the most concern not all of the concern turns to councelor St.

Ledger's point that creek work will be part of the policy work that we consider at another time. Um but I think that this work which will take some time to do to councelor Russell's point um we

could wait 6 months that's how how long it could be before all of the um submissions are considered and then start another potentially six monthlong process to do it and in the meantime people have the same flood maps and have

the same insurance concerns and have all the fear that is running in the community. Um, so that's um that's why I

community. Um, so that's um that's why I think it's it's uh important to do it now um and can feed into the work that we do later on when we're ready to do that work rather than delaying the

process. Um

process. Um is that true Darl that the previous reviews are open reviews and this one is very specific in its scope.

>> Um so there was a specification that we would have used to say what we wanted to look at. Um we would have also done

look at. Um we would have also done those as milestone reviews. So there

would have been steps through that process not only um at the end but on the way through those as well. Um it

>> is but nothing was excluded um in that process. We didn't constrain what they

process. We didn't constrain what they looked at. No.

looked at. No.

>> So they were open and broad. So they

could have found these things but they weren't focused on these issues because they were it was an open review rather than focusing on specific concerns like the ones that are up on the screen now.

We didn't have specific concerns that we raised in regards to the to the work unless there was something that was evident to us, but there was a process as I said in a milestone arrangement to work through that.

>> Thank you. Appreciate that. Um, Council

Hall, Jeremiah Bradley Russell.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through the chair.

In my experience, um, from what I've heard from my residents is the community wants us to use what we know really, not what we

predict, which is kind of running in contrast to what we've been asked to do in terms of our uh, planning scheme.

[snorts] Now the include the inclusion of the climate change and predictive mapping the PMF within our planning scheme was imposed

on council by the former Labor state government. Okay. And we've got a new

government. Okay. And we've got a new state government uh where we've I'm yet to hear exactly

what their position is on the PMF and how they feel on it. And we've been talking about one in 2,000

um events, one in 2,000 likely events.

Uh today I want everyone here to have a very open mind because I'm going to go into something that you need to have an open mind about.

I believe that anything that would fall within the PMF or anything that would fall into a case of a one in 20,000 year event would be considered legally as an

act of God. Throughout

the English-speaking legal world, natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, floods are known as acts of God. Acts are God's acts of God are

God. Acts are God's acts of God are circumstances and events that are outside anyone's control and cannot be foreseen or guarded against. Acts of God may provide a defense or an exception to

civil liability. For example, where a

civil liability. For example, where a person is unable to perform their obligations under a contract because of an act of God. In Australian law, an act of God is an unforeseeable event caused

by natural forces beyond human control such as a flood or an earthquake and can serve as defense in tort law or be included in a force majour clause in

contracts. These clauses which define a

contracts. These clauses which define a list of specific events allow for the suspension or termination of cont contractual obligations when performance becomes impossible due to the event of

likely natural disaster, acts of government or war. Now this might seem like a radical concept to some but we

actually have a force majour in our own standard terms and condition and conditions. Uh so if you look at item 12

conditions. Uh so if you look at item 12 in Logan City Council's terms and conditions we have a force majour if

either party hall this is not relevant to the scheme to the flood study. If you

can sharpen it up, we understand the point you're making around force majour and acts of God.

>> Please bring it back to be relevant to the flood study.

>> Well, I believe it is because the we're the anything that would be a one in 2,000 event would be so extreme, so as forceful that would be considered as an

act of God. And you cannot predict an act of God. There's no way to predict it. So I I believe the methodology in

it. So I I believe the methodology in itself is flawed. Now, we had a a former Labor government, okay, that wanted the PMF to be included in the planning

schemes for councils, and now we have a new government. I would like to know

new government. I would like to know what the current state government's position is on the PMF before we start doing studies or reviews because if their opinion on it is completely

different, then we're just going to have to do the study all over again under a new requirement from the current state government. Councelor Hall, we aren't

government. Councelor Hall, we aren't able to get that information from them in this meeting.

>> We we can ask we can actually we can actually put >> not as part of this special council meeting. So if you want to do that, we

meeting. So if you want to do that, we can as a separate action outside of the meeting. This meeting is to consider

meeting. This meeting is to consider this flood study.

>> Mr. Mayor, what I want to know is does doing this external study get us any closer to actually doing that with the state government?

>> In my opinion, it does, but the technical experts will have a different opinion.

Well, I'd like to know from the technical expert. I'd like to know from

technical expert. I'd like to know from this from the CEO.

>> Well, I think they're two separate things. One's a technical study which

things. One's a technical study which will give council some information. Um

that will give you information around that particular fund study. The policy

question and the the policy of state government will be a question you'd have to ask of the state government. They're

two disconnected um matters. the having

more information with which to go to state government may give you more leverage uh against a state government position but um that's speculation on our behalf. Um

this this is really really only about the technical study itself and whe the council wants to avail itself of additional independent review as it proceeds down this pathway towards an

adoption of a Logan planning scheme.

I'm for this like I'm I'm for anything we can do to advance to progress to a better uh a better uh study for our residents but I would like to see this

as forming a component of going back to the state government because they have the power right now to change this completely. They they could stop this

completely. They they could stop this whole meeting today if they wanted to >> and they could change the the methodology in which our uh flood

mapping is included in our planning scheme. They have the power to do that.

scheme. They have the power to do that.

Council Hall. Um I believe that this study will assist in that advocacy to the state particularly around scope

number uh 10 which speaks specifically to the challenges around the error bounds on PMFS. Um I also believe that

scope number nine which is the fit for purpose for using it for land use planning will help. irrelevant of what the outcome is. An explicit answer on these questions is something that I can use as the mayor to go to the premier

and deputy premier and say this is what an independent review focused on these matters has given us. Will you consider this independent advice in changing your position on what we must include in our

planning scheme? In closing, I'd like to

planning scheme? In closing, I'd like to say sometimes rules are put through to council uh by state government and quite often

the local counselors are almost like a buffer for the for the heat and the the flashback from residents for these rules. But I think residents need to

rules. But I think residents need to understand that where did these things originally where did they originally uh conceptually came from? Okay, that's

what you have to ask because there are people in power at the moment that can change some of these rules. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Councelor Hall. Councelor

Hermire.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My perspective is that a review is good, but action is better. When I look back at the context

better. When I look back at the context of why council's in the position that it's in right now, there's a few key moments that come to mind, and it all

started in my perspective back in 2022.

And since those votes and TLPIs, I've consistently pointed out my concerns with this flood mapping. I hosted

several mobile offices in my community before submissions closed last month.

And what was made very clear to me is that the current flood mapping is not based in current reality. It's not based on current elevations and it's hurting a lot of people. [clears throat]

Now going forward, instead of looking back, going forward, how do we fix this?

I think a review is a step in that direction. But what will really change

direction. But what will really change it is action. Now what even is the flood mapping when you look into the technical detail? It's an overlay to a town plan

detail? It's an overlay to a town plan and council has positions on town plans.

There was a flood map in the 2015 town plan and council had a position to support that. There were flood maps and

support that. There were flood maps and TLPIs and council had a position to support that. I opposed. My question is

support that. I opposed. My question is when will be the next vote that will come to councilors as to what council's position is on a flood map? I understand

that we'll get this review done if it's passed today. The council officers will

passed today. The council officers will consider the submissions that were put in during the town plan process last month. They're going to consider all of

month. They're going to consider all of this information, come back to council sometime next year with this new town plan that will include an overlay with a flood map. when will that be put to

flood map. when will that be put to councilors to vote as to whether or not council supports that new flood map?

>> So, um there's there's a there's a couple of elements to that. So, when

when will there be another discussion uh on uh the planning scheme? Uh that'll be as early as December of this year. Um

but it won't be with the benefit of the full analysis of all of the submissions.

that won't occur until for second quarter of the next year given the large numbers of submissions that have occurred and so you won't be adopting a planning scheme until after

you've fully considered all of those submissions which would be later in the year. So there's there's a couple of

year. So there's there's a couple of different time frames depending on which one you're thinking about as to when council will get to deal with either submissions planning scheme or an an

initial review. So, as the CEO of Logan

initial review. So, as the CEO of Logan Council, you're expecting that sometime in the next financial year, so after June next year, there'll be a vote as to

whether or not council agrees to a new town plan. And in that town plan, there

town plan. And in that town plan, there will be an overlay that has a flood map.

And that's the opportunity to see as to whether or not that new flood map is different than the one that we have right now. So yes, in the next next

right now. So yes, in the next next calendar year there'll be a vote on the Logan planning scheme with the writer on depending on the the detail in the submissions. We haven't reviewed the

submissions. We haven't reviewed the submissions. So if there's something in

submissions. So if there's something in there which is unforeseen, it may fall into the following year. Um but at this stage 2026, >> I I hope it doesn't fall into the

following year. Um, I do think that this

following year. Um, I do think that this review is a step in the direction of making the situation better, but we need to do a lot more and I hope that we do

it as soon as possible. The current

expectation is the vote that really matters will be late next year. I hope

we can get it as early as possible to make the situation better with this flood mapping because what's happening right now isn't good enough and it needs to change.

>> Thank you, Council Harmon, Councelor Bradley, Russell, and then Jackson.

Thank you through the mayor. Um chair,

uh my question is to the CEO. Um really

the first I sort of knew about all this was when um the mayor posted on his social media that he had had called for a special council meeting. Um and in the

meeting code there are guidelines for for how a meeting is called. I'm just

curious if there is a direction from the mayor to yourself to call this meeting.

>> Uh there's multiple ways that the mayor um raised it with me and we agreed that it was in the public interest to have it given the level of interest around the flood mapping and the requests for review.

>> Okay. So my second question is to director Riley um in relation to your report and thank you so much again for presenting that. Um was there any

presenting that. Um was there any political involvement in that report writing at all?

>> Um the report was written by myself. Um

and the scope was developed between myself and the manager of RIP in regards to the content.

>> Okay. So no meetings were held before then about the report at all.

>> Um we have had briefing meetings and I've spoken to councilors in regards to the content of the report. councilors

did you say >> I have spoken to some counselors in regards to the fact that we will be bringing a report but they have not been discussions in regards to input to the content of the report they have been counselor

>> they have been counselors asking questions that I've responded to >> okay but not all counselors >> I did not give a briefing to any specific counselors >> thank you

>> thank you councelor Bradley councelor Russell Jackson and then Bennon >> thank you mayor So um I've just while listening to

everybody else's questions I've come up with two further questions. Um I just wanted and this just things to clarify.

So is there any reason to believe that either of the options we're being asked to vote on today will change the behavior of insurance companies?

>> Um it's very hypothetical. I'm not sure we could provide a reasonable answer to that. Councelor,

that. Councelor, >> thank you. Um I think we need to stop pretending that that will happen like you know if whether we go ahead with

this or not today. Um I think it's unlikely that our our action today will actually change insurance companies behavior. Council does not have that

behavior. Council does not have that much power. Um my second question is is

much power. Um my second question is is is this proposed study promised to ground truth the individual homes of

people who are concerned because I know that's one of the concerns that's been raised a lot by the community that um they're saying you know we we we don't believe in you know

this computer program we want people to come out to our homes.

The proposal that's put forth for the review is a forever review of the study.

It's not an infield investigation of specific individual concerns of individual residents. Um it's looking at

individual residents. Um it's looking at the study at a whole of catchment level.

So um the Albert and Logan catchment takes up a very significant portion of our local government area. Um we're

looking at a catchment level um response around the appropriateness of those aspects. Um it is not aimed at going

aspects. Um it is not aimed at going down to individual property investigations though.

>> Thank you. I just wanted to make that really clear for um community who's watching that that's not what we're voting on today. Appreciate your answer.

>> Thank you councelor Russell, councelor Jackson, councelor Benon, councelor St.

Ledger and then I'll move into the scope.

>> Thank you [snorts] and councelor Wilcox.

Just question on uh the open versus specific criteria um of the review.

Would I be correct in understanding that an open review would take a broad view of things and that by being specific on these items that we're going to vote on

would enable the review to go deeper on those issues uh into more detail or more specificity?

Thank you.

I think a better description would be that it ensures that we get a response on those items um rather than an open review would have the peer reviewer open

to look at all aspects of the report and report back what they thought was relevant and appropriate. Um I think the requests or the items which have been outlined which have been driven to some

extent by information which has come from the public as being specific that they would like comments in regards to those those aspects. So by including that in the scope ensures that that is

an area which would be responded to as part of the work.

Sorry. Would they would we be asking them to by focusing on these areas asking them to inspect them at a deeper

or other level than an open review would?

>> I don't think I can answer the questions. Sorry. The reality is that

questions. Sorry. The reality is that they had full ability to to look at those aspects and look at them in detail in the original review. Um I can't comment to the extent that they did that

specifically. Um what it does do is

specifically. Um what it does do is ensure that the matters that we've that would be included in the scope would be matters that would have a have a um a commentary within a report that's

provided.

>> Thank you. Councelor Jackson, can I lean in a little bit on that? Did the

original peer review speak to whether or not AI or Monteol analysis was used or pilot or experimental methodologies were used in the original reports?

>> No, we would not have asked that question.

>> But if so, you didn't get that answer because you didn't ask it. So, but if we ask that question, they will provide a response to that, won't they?

>> That is our expectation.

>> So, there is a stunning example of the difference between open field because obviously if something's not there, you're not going to comment on it. But

if we're concerned that it might be there, they will provide a response to that and then we can give confidence to the community who are concerned about that methodology around whether or not it was used.

Councelor Benon, councelor St. Leisure,

then councelor Wilcox.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Last chop because I know we got to go through all that yet. Um I'm the most affected by long

yet. Um I'm the most affected by long shot going by council's data. I'm double

the closest division. So as much as we've all got mutual respect here and we all have the same man of respect for each other, we're all one vote. I'm

hoping I got a bit of weight in what I'm saying. My community want the review and

saying. My community want the review and I'm not I don't I don't go on the Facebook groups. I told the starter of

Facebook groups. I told the starter of those groups I'm not going to go on it cuz I knew what it was going to turn into. But if anyone wanted to ring me

into. But if anyone wanted to ring me up, send me an email. They had a good idea. I'd welcome it. I spent an hour

idea. I'd welcome it. I spent an hour and a half of a wonderful lady Shelley the other day who had great ideas. I

went to a house and seen her. I don't

listen to the commentary and the name calling. If you want to call me a name,

calling. If you want to call me a name, just give me a ring. I'll come read and call me a name in the face. So I don't care about Facebook. I've spoke to I've been dealing with this and you can ask Bri that unfortunately has to work for

me. I've dealt with this since 2022, not

me. I've dealt with this since 2022, not since the did you remember town hall meeting. I knew that was going to blow

meeting. I knew that was going to blow up and it did. I've getting three to four phone calls every week since 2022.

So the points I have is I don't waffle on is my community want to review. They

want to review as independent as possible. And further to the council

possible. And further to the council hero and councelor Hall's points, I do hope we can bring a conversation forward in December on what we can go and ask the state government because my community don't believe in any of it.

They want eventbased data. They don't

want to look about a future modeling for future residents that might not come on rain that might happen because all it's done is affect the people that already live here. So that the points are they

live here. So that the points are they want the review as independent as possible to get the review and then I'm hoping in December in the committee whether that's in council stamps or mine

that we can go we can have a discussion of what questions we can take to the state government through the mayor or through whoever to say would you consider this so you're dead right we need action you know what I mean voting

at the end of next year I'm guessing is on the full planning scheme nothing stopping us getting this down pat because I feel sorry for David Hansen director Hansen who's got brilliant planning scheme that's been overshadowed

by this. I'd hate to be that pull bugger

by this. I'd hate to be that pull bugger up there. So, they're my points there to

up there. So, they're my points there to keep it that want to review independent as possible and let's see what we can ask the state government and I'd like to have that discussion in December so my residents can go through Christmas with

a bit of peace of mind knowing what this council's going to which way they're heading. So, that's all I've got, Mr.

heading. So, that's all I've got, Mr. Mayor.

>> Thank you, councelor Bennon, councelor St. Ledger and then councelor Wilcox.

St. Ledger and then councelor Wilcox.

>> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. probably echo a lot of uh councelor Bennon's comments there.

I think the biggest thing particularly for the community that I represent is that our flood modeling is severely impacting existing long-term residents in it in what they perceive as a

negative way.

This is step one as far as I I see this is our first step that we can do. We've

got thousands of submissions to go through and then once we get to December we can start on getting that work to go to state to make to seeing what sort of

changes we can implement to ensure that our plan which is the flood modeling is a part of that Logan plan that it protects future residents but doesn't

impact our long-standing existing residents. And I think that's something

residents. And I think that's something we got to look at that this is step one.

we can get on the front foot. Um, from

someone that's come from the private sector into this sector and um, any department I deal with in council has now said when I say when they tell me it'd be a quick turnaround, not as quick

as you'd like. Um, I've grown to start to accept that, but we'll continue to push to make sure that we can get that action sooner rather than later. But I

do agree the community want an independent review. If we can get that

independent review. If we can get that happening as the first step and then continue working hard for them on the additional steps after that.

Thank you, Councelor St. Ledger.

Councelor Wilcox, >> thank you so much. Um, sorry for the second chop. I just have uh two more

second chop. I just have uh two more questions. Um, people have told us they

questions. Um, people have told us they want a review. I've heard that uh I was loud loud and clear at Jim Bumba and everywhere else I've gone. Um, and

whilst I believe the independent study needs to get done, what I was disappointed to understand is that it's only looking at the Albert and Logan. So

again, I'm wondering when the review is done, if it finds anomalies and errors and it comes back to council, then do we make further decisions about what to do

with the [clears throat] review and if those that review can then do other reviews on the other studies that were done? Is that correct?

done? Is that correct?

>> Yes. Unless I'm Yeah. Yes. It's a

decision of council, but yes.

>> Okay, great. My only other option uh my only other question is and I agree like I would prefer option two to have a full independent study. I'm also concerned

independent study. I'm also concerned that it may take six months. I'm also

concerned that we're very close to Christmas and shut down putting out an EOI and all that sort of stuff. My only

other suggestion moving [clears throat] forward would be can we actually engage both options? Put the go with option one

both options? Put the go with option one have option two as well. put them both together in a report so that we actually have two independent studies and actually let's see if they're both

different or they're both going to be the same. It would actually be

the same. It would actually be interesting to actually see what the differences would be if they're both saying they're independent studies. It's

my new thought.

>> You're welcome to make whatever recommendations that the majority of counselors will support. Um, I imagine there'll be questions around cost and and questions around use of resources, but if that's what counselors decide to

do, there's nothing to prevent you from doing that. I did ask around could you

doing that. I did ask around could you have option one as a fallback? So, if

option two fails, they could automatically go to option one because they didn't find anything in the market. The challenges with that is

the market. The challenges with that is do you want is the reason you found nothing because your scope is too specific or is there another problem that we don't know and they just go straight to the next step without coming

back to council. Um but it is something you could entertain as well. You could

consider that option too.

Thank you councilors for the the questions and debate. We'll move into consideration of the scope. I'll move

through the scope one line at a time and seek any questions or objections to the scope. If there are no questions or

scope. If there are no questions or objections, I'll take that line item is accepted and move to the next one. Um

the I was trying to keep scope out of answers but a lot of your questions were relevant to the scope so we brought it in a little bit but hopefully that'll speed up the next process. Um so line

item scope item one is the consistency of methods applied with national design flood estimation guidelines for the Australian rainfall and runoff and industry standard documents such as ARR

project 15 two-dimensional modeling guidelines. Does anyone have any

guidelines. Does anyone have any objections or questions?

Councelor Russell.

>> Thank you, Mayor. Where did this recommendation come from?

>> Daryl.

[snorts] >> Okay.

Um the recommendation um one is effectively a review to ensure that the um study itself is compliant with those requirements that are upon us under

standards proposed through Australian rainfall and runoff which is effectively the Australian standard that we'd need to comply with um and advice around um

those items like the Queland Commission of Inquiry um state planning policy but effectively to give some guidance in regards to the fact that the study is actually relevant and compliant with

where it needs to be.

>> Thank you. Is that does that differ from how any of the previous studies or reviews? So, this isn't an additional

reviews? So, this isn't an additional action. This is this is just

action. This is this is just >> I would describe this as a standard review question that you put in all reviews to make sure that they consider the modeling in line with the guidelines. Like it's

guidelines. Like it's >> okay. the opening salvo if you like that

>> okay. the opening salvo if you like that says do a review of the model in the in line with the ARR.

>> Okay. So just to save me from standing up 11 more times.

>> Do you want me to keep commenting on that and asking Daryl at the same time?

>> Is that possible to find that out?

Because I I'd love to know whether how much of this is >> so you want to know. Yeah. If it's Daryl or community basically is what you're seeking. Yep. I can I can give you that

seeking. Yep. I can I can give you that easy. And sometimes it's a mixture of

easy. And sometimes it's a mixture of both. some because Daryl included

both. some because Daryl included community suggestions in his original recommend in his original scope. Um if

there are no further questions on that or objections, I'll move to number two which is the hydraulic modeling approach including software and model schematization, model resolution, model

boundary type, key model um parameters and calibration methodology. This is a DARL um scope item. No input from committee on this one. Council Lane,

>> thanks Mr. Mayor. So these are the exact things that I raised in my concerns item two, three, and four. So I'll group them together if you don't mind because um

the hydraulic modeling approach um again the peer review finding out when the peer review actually happened of the the base model that we're actually looking for this review to go off because we're going to come up with the same answers.

The math is the same. It doesn't change.

It's it's the model that they use that they start with that will change the outcomes. The second thing is is it says

outcomes. The second thing is is it says confirm process of catchment walkover supporting modeling. Is that previous

supporting modeling. Is that previous officers doing the walk over of land or is that a new set of people required to walk over to make sure that the lamb matches their modeling?

>> That's just checking how much they did.

>> Sorry, >> that's just checking how much was done as part of the previous study.

>> So it's not requiring them to actually go and >> Yes. This isn't a new This isn't a new

>> Yes. This isn't a new This isn't a new flood study. This is understand that.

flood study. This is understand that.

But again, without actually walking the land, how can you tell whether or not a model is correct or whether they did a specific percentage of it and how much of it was on flat land versus um

highland versus overland flow with, you know, um creeks and tributaries, dry beds. I mean, all of this comes into it.

beds. I mean, all of this comes into it.

I just think we're going down a a big slope. And the item three is review of

slope. And the item three is review of the top topographic methodology supporting the modeling.

This is a community request.

>> Okay.

>> So to speak specifically to so interestingly two is entirely Daryl's um like standard engineer review processes but many of the questions that community members asked were answered by having

that in there because they were concerned about the model and the bounds and whether or not it was used properly.

So while they didn't specifically use that language, a lot of their questions in layman's terms pointed to that scope item. And again, we're not reviewing the

item. And again, we're not reviewing the base model with which we're starting.

So, we're starting from the same level.

We're going to get the same outcome and we're not reviewing that that starting point. That's a

point. That's a >> if you I hear you, councelor Lane, and if you wanted to do that, that would be a different flood study, which we which we could vote for if that's what you wanted to do, but it's not what the review we couldn't do it in this meeting

because this meeting is for um the confirmation of a review. But um you could definitely do a flood study or another sweep of LAR or a whole host of other things in different council

meetings that fed into policy and gave you different data sets. Are there any other questions on number two?

Number three was from community councelor Russell. Um and specifically

councelor Russell. Um and specifically because they don't no one's ever seen direct quote a person doing a walkover in the real check. I know that they're

mentioned in the existing flood study, but not how many were done and what extent they were done to. This will give that information. The reason why I

that information. The reason why I thought it was valuable to have this is because if it's very very low, that's a good reason to say we want to do another one. We want you to do much more of

one. We want you to do much more of that. But if it's very very high, to

that. But if it's very very high, to your point, doing more won't help.

You'll get the same outcome. So this why um the community asked for it because they want confirmation. I think it's valuable because it tells you how much actual ground truthing was done.

Are there any more questions on number three?

Number four is review of the topographical methodology and supporting the model modeling. This one comes straight from community. This is concern around what LAR was used, how old it was, was it done effectively. This will

the LAR is done separately by the surveying team. So it's not really part

surveying team. So it's not really part of the flood study, but it informs the flood study. And this goes to that

flood study. And this goes to that concern around the confidence of the data that was being used and was that data appropriate. This is what this is

data appropriate. This is what this is aiming to identify, isn't it?

Daryl and I'll take councelor Bradley.

>> It is certainly asking the consultant to review that information which was incorporated into the study and to provide us advice in regards to that.

Yes, >> councelor Bradley >> thank you through the chair. Um C uh call you council sorry director Riley um is this the bit where you said about in

2021 >> that was done >> so that data is set it won't be changed

>> the LAR was undertaken in 2021 it is fed this process and others of council um but it is asking for commentary from the modeling agent the modeling consultant that we would engage around their

understanding of Thank you, councelor Bradley. So, to be clear, none of these will change the data in the existing flood study. This

is checking what was done and it may to I think it was councelor um Wilcox's and councelor Murphy's point. It may

identify errors that we or issues that we want done better if we were to redo a flood study, but that's it won't change anything through this process. Do are

there any other questions on number four?

>> Councelor Jackson, >> how often do we do a lighter scan. Is it a five-yearly thing?

scan. Is it a five-yearly thing?

>> Um, I think it's typically driven by requirements for purposes like flood studies or when we um start to see significant changes in say the contouring that we're seeing on our

citywide um mapping that we see significant development occur and we start to see that information not representing a an appropriate view of that. So it's not on a defined um

that. So it's not on a defined um recurrence interval, but we do it reasonably regularly.

>> Um I think you mentioned before when you were describing it that uh when we say we did it, it was a contractor that did it. Um that last check um being the

it. Um that last check um being the fastest growing city uh in the area. Um

changing topography I'd imagine is something that is happening at at a rate. Is it worth looking at a

rate. Is it worth looking at a regularity to uh topography checks? Next

>> um is certainly something that the council consider um I guess separate to this undertaking. Once again, it's a

this undertaking. Once again, it's a it's a financial burden versus currency of information.

>> Good question, but yes, out of scope. Um

yeah, councelor Jeremiah, >> thank you. Um, when it comes to the contours of different areas in our city, the elevations of Logan Reserve and

Chambers Flat and Parkridge are significantly different than they were 5 years ago. When I was first elected, I

years ago. When I was first elected, I printed out a map of Division 8. And the

map contained all of the waterways and the roads in Division 8. I still have that map. It's all dusty in my office

that map. It's all dusty in my office and it is almost unrecognizable because the contours, the elevations, the infrastructure has changed

significantly. Now this scope item four

significantly. Now this scope item four states that as a part of this uh investigative review, it will include quote a review of the topographic

methodology supporting the modeling.

Does that review include recommendations that this independent uh consultant would provide as to whether or not our uh elevation data should be updated more

regularly for the growth fronts in our area? I know there's one estate, it's on

area? I know there's one estate, it's on Logan Reserve Road. It's called the Houseian Estate and it's a beautiful area where um where people go and

purchase a a plot of land there and their properties have been affected by this new flood mapping and when they look at it, they see a uh the elevation

data of the field that was there before.

It hasn't factored in the fact that land has been built up as a part of the development. So they're really concerned

development. So they're really concerned about that. I don't think it's fair.

about that. I don't think it's fair.

Will this review include recommendations from an independent consultant as to how council can make it better when we go to approve a new flood map in the future?

>> Um I would not expect that to be a response from the consultant. The

consultant will be a modeling consultant who would obviously like to have the most current data at all times. Um the

study which was undertaken for this work occurred very closely around the same time as the LAR which we actually collected. I know we're looking back now

collected. I know we're looking back now and seeing that data from where we are at this point in time. But given that the flood studies that we actually did at the time closer to that period as

well, there is a a line in the sand for that. the frequency in which that type

that. the frequency in which that type of data is collected really is a matter for council to consider and something that we could be considered outside of this process. Um it's not a matter for I

this process. Um it's not a matter for I guess a technical expert doing flood modeling to to be providing that advice to us.

>> Okay, that that makes sense and it reminds me back to uh what another counselor said about the the uh term independent. Um just because something's

independent. Um just because something's independent doesn't mean it's right and this council shouldn't delegate our critical thinking skills to any consultant because at the end of the day

councilors are responsible for what they vote on. So I think with the future

vote on. So I think with the future flood map um that will be voted on as a part of the new town plan uh we should factor in more uh up to-date and

realistic contour information um because our city is growing so fast and the developments that are growing our city tend to be approved by council itself.

>> Thank you councelor Hermire. Any other

comments on scope item four?

Scope item five is that the key input data sources being bometry survey sources and currency structure data and land use data. Um that is a DARL

scope item. Um though noting that some

scope item. Um though noting that some inquiries from the community have been covered by what this would do. Do you

want to comment on it Daryl or you happy to leave it at that? um just to in inform that it it typically is um reviewing information around what we know in the river below the water line.

Um so that we um effectively have a the topography in those sorts of spaces, what we actually included within that process. Um and then looking at some of

process. Um and then looking at some of the structures that were included within the modeling as well just so that they provide comment on that.

>> Are there any question?

>> Are there any questions or objections to number five?

Number six is that key design inputs and resultant design flows being design rainfall and temporal patterns, rainfall runoff losses, ground roughness, major structures, river discharge, tidal or

storm boundaries and coincidental event and coincident events. This is a combination of DARL and community. The

specific addition from community is river discharge which was added after a number of requests around making sure that we include the storage capacity and modeling around the river mouth um which

the those were emailed. These aren't

from socials either or from people who've written to me um with that feedback. Um the term rivermouth isn't

feedback. Um the term rivermouth isn't one that a a technical expert appreciates because it's a place rather than a a happening. So river discharge is the appropriate language for it which is why it doesn't say rivermouth. Are

there any That's how it was explained to me when I'm like, why doesn't it say Rivermouth? That's what the community

Rivermouth? That's what the community wants to hear. Um, so this is Does anyone have any questions or objections to number six?

No. Number seven is the flood frequency anal analysis statistical analysis of historic events and comparison with the model representation of historical events. This is a combined DARL and

events. This is a combined DARL and community one. Many many people are

community one. Many many people are concerned with the accuracy of the historic models, particularly 2022 where they have a very fresh lived memory of exactly where the model went. Um the

team has been responding to those concerns. Um but it those responses

concerns. Um but it those responses aren't giving people the the peace of mind. So they they would like this to be

mind. So they they would like this to be a specific focus of any review that's done. But Daryl already had it as a

done. But Daryl already had it as a suggestion for the same reason. He's

received a lot of that feedback.

>> Any questions or objections to number seven?

There being none, number eight is consistency of application of climate change methods with the ARR. This is

community.

It considers climate change and whether or not we've done it properly. That's

what Yeah, [snorts] that's not Daryl's language, but that's how I described it.

Are there any questions or concerns with number eight?

Number nine is commentary on fitness for purpose of resulting design flood levels for application and land use planning and development control. This is

community.

They want to make sure that if we're using this data to control what they do on their land, is it fit for purpose and should it be applied in that way? This

is probably one of the two most critical questions of this scope in my opinion.

Daryl might disagree with me.

Are there any questions? Councelor

Bannon.

Will this address, Mr. Mayor, will this address some of the commentary around that we're going to reszone it and then change and develop it later to be a land grab?

>> I don't think so. D's probably best to respond to it, but it essentially says if you've got this data, is it and you know what the error bounds are, which comes later, is it applicable to what

we're using it for? Should we be using it for land use control given that we only control especially in the PMF and the one in 2000? There's only two controls we apply and that's for things that mostly don't impact the majority of

the community. It's hospitals, its power

the community. It's hospitals, its power stations, its age care facilities. So is

it appropriate and applicable? Is it fit for purpose to put into a planning scheme? But Daryl, did you want to add

scheme? But Daryl, did you want to add to that? um the consultant that we

to that? um the consultant that we engage wouldn't be a land a planner that would provide comment in regards to reszoning of land and things of that nature. That's um something beyond I

nature. That's um something beyond I guess the technical remitt of a a modeler that we'd see for modeling.

Yeah.

>> Are there any other questions on number nine? Council Lane.

nine? Council Lane.

So, if the person doing the review isn't in design or the planning um has those qualifications, why would that be in the list? I'm sorry, I've kind of lost the

list? I'm sorry, I've kind of lost the argument there a bit.

>> Sorry, the the comment I was trying to make is that the consultant that we would engage to review the flood plane um the flood study needs to be somebody who has a specialist capability in that

regard. They're not a they're not a land

regard. They're not a they're not a land use planner. So, they wouldn't provide

use planner. So, they wouldn't provide comment on zoning areas within council's planning scheme because that's not their area of expertise.

>> But they could provide a comment on the fitness for purpose of the resulting flood levels for application of land use and design despite not being a planner.

I think that's what you were trying to get at, wasn't it? Council Lane, but can they comment on this if they're not a planner?

>> Mr. May my husband does um he makes um factories that do detonator charges.

It's very specific industry and I imagine hydrarology and whatever other names you want to do um do exactly that as well. I don't understand why we now

as well. I don't understand why we now have something in there that's asking someone to comment on something that they're either not qualified in. And to

find one group or one company that's qualified in all of them, we've probably already used them. So they won't be that independent, will they?

I'll let Daryl respond to that one.

>> Thank you.

>> Sorry. The to elaborate on that further, the intent of the question is for them to comment on the fit for purposeness of the flood study um as a base as a feed

into that land planning component. It's

not to comment on our land planning activities. But again, why would we have

activities. But again, why would we have someone who doesn't isn't across that comment and add further commentary into an argument that's already quite convoluted. I don't understand the

convoluted. I don't understand the purpose of 0.9, but regardless, thank you for letting me raise my concerns.

>> Thank you, Council. Are there any other questions on number nine?

>> Council Hall, >> I just don't know how it's possible to include it.

>> Sorry.

I just don't know how it's possible to include it. They're going to provide

include it. They're going to provide commentary on the fitness fitness fit for purpose resulting design flight levels for applications and land use

planning and development control. So

unless you have a person who's specifically in that field of knowing um land use planning and development control, it'd be impossible to do that.

they would have to employ a an exterior consultant to do it, which would then flow out the um your your control of it.

So, I don't I don't I actually don't think you can include that in this to to have it as as part of this investigation. Darl,

investigation. Darl, >> I think it's probably looking at it the other way round to to ask the specialists, do they have any perception that the outputs of the study as they

stand that they would have a concern about them being used in a land use planning setting. So I don't think it's

planning setting. So I don't think it's asking about the land use planning component of it. I think it's asking the question for them around the study

itself. do they see any um issues in

itself. do they see any um issues in regards to the study ultimately flowing on to to that activity to some extent it's it is reasonably broad for from

that perspective and and a bit of an I guess an open option for them to be able to identify anything that they perceive would be an issue

>> so should there be a something a clause after after it within scope of Um, >> yeah, sorry. There's just no way to put it in.

>> The challenge is is you're essentially asking someone who makes widgets, can my widget be used for this? Can the widget you're making for me be used in this machine? That's what we're asking in

machine? That's what we're asking in this case. And while they may not be a

this case. And while they may not be a specialist in that machine, they can tell you if the widget is fit for that purpose. Does that make sense?

purpose. Does that make sense?

>> Okay. But I I think the answer will be I don't know.

>> And if that's the answer, fair enough.

But I it's D actually put like that's community led, but Daryl put together that language to try and get a a meaningful

answer out of them as best as possible.

Any further questions on number nine?

Number 10 is determine and advise on the study's probable maximum flood frequency and the probable maximum flood error bounds, including any potential compounding effects. This is community

compounding effects. This is community led.

>> Council Wilcox.

>> Director Daryl, could you please just explain that one in layman's terms, please?

>> Okay. Um, so the PMF is the probable maximum flood. So effectively it is a um

maximum flood. So effectively it is a um process which determines the probably worst case scenario in terms of a

catchment both from a rainfall but in terms of the um extent which a flood plane could be could be impacted. So if

you think of the PMF think of it as the the extreme or the extent of the flood plane. So effectively saying in an

plane. So effectively saying in an absolute worst case scenario that's as far as we would actually get. So that

process to calculate that in a general sense doesn't usually include an annual exceedence probability. So an AE which

exceedence probability. So an AE which is effectively your return interval. So

when we talk about a 1% a um being that there's a 1% chance any in any given year that we would see an event that large um at the moment we don't have an

indication of what that frequency would be for the PMF. So we're actually asking the consultant to um approximate that information for us so we actually have

an idea about how um infrequent a PMF would be likely to occur just to have some better information in respect to that. Um and then to um talk to us

that. Um and then to um talk to us around the whatever error bounds might actually sit within that. So what um degree of accuracy do they perceive the

PMF has in regards to the whole of the overall catchment?

>> The one thing I don't understand are there what is an actual error bound?

>> It's a plus or minus expectation on the level of accuracy >> does the margin for error. So, it's how wide are they willing to accept it to be a good calculation given the margin of

error? And to help you with your line of

error? And to help you with your line of questioning, because I had a similar one when I first saw it. So, Darl, is the margin of error on a 1% AP event smaller

than the PMF?

>> Yes, much >> but they're also calculated in different ways. So, to get an understanding of

ways. So, to get an understanding of what that might be on the PMF is is what we're really requesting. And so Darl, as as you calculate a more and more rare event, does the error bound get bigger?

Like the margin of error gets wider because it becomes more and more difficult to accurately predict such a rare event.

>> There is pot. Yes, that is our expectation. But what I would like is

expectation. But what I would like is for a consultant to be able to maybe give us some advice on that.

>> So he doesn't know because he can't do the maths. I can't do the maths. But

the maths. I can't do the maths. But

this is something they can do. Um,

understanding what that looks like. Is

it this much margin for error? Is it

this much? um I think is incredibly valuable for the community to know because they're the especially people who are only in the PMF um they're the ones who are being told that your property will be impacted. How much room

for error is that in that estimation is what this question is essentially asking if if it can be calculated and how many compounding effects do you get on that?

like if you add climate change, if you add a cyclone, if you add solar flares, like what gets added onto that to create the worst possible cataclysmic event um and how much does that change your

margin for error as well. So it's trying to understand a very unique I think that's a fair word unique type of modeling um so that then you can make decisions based on how you want to use

that modeling once you know the error bounds on it.

Does that make sense? I asked about 20 minutes worth of questions on this subject when I first saw the word error bound.

>> It's just that it's so hypothetical and out there. That's all.

out there. That's all.

>> And I suspect that's what they'll tell us with some numbers to back it up, but I don't know cuz I'm not a FOD modeler.

Does anyone else have any questions on number 10?

Council Hall, >> I don't know. I feel I feel like >> Sorry.

I feel like the variance for a for a PMF event is too great to to even be to be measured. I I

measured. I I you're you know it's a it's a predictive thing. It's it's like rolling a one in

thing. It's it's like rolling a one in one in uh 2,000 sided dice and saying this is you know likely going to happen.

I I don't even think you can predict the variance on it. Um I I don't know. I I

maybe the question should be um is the PMF uh error bounds appropriate in this case?

>> Um councelor Ben would like to respond and then I I'll ask Daryl to >> Thank you, Chair. hopefully that the the flood review comes back and says that there is too big an error bound that it's unusable and then we can use that

to go to the state government and say we shouldn't have the PMF. Would that be >> that's exactly the intention of what I think nine and 10 are the two most important because they talk specifically

to the remoteness of the PMF and the accuracy of the PMF. Um, sorry.

>> Um, the that's why I think they're important for advocacy specifically because that's something we can explain to the state and to residents. Um, and I think it helps it'll help them in their decision- making about whether or not they feel it's appropriate to keep the

PMF in state planning policies. But

Darl, did you want to address councelor Hall's >> I was only going to make the comment which was to your statement where you've indicated that it is extremely unlikely.

I guess it really is just ask asking them are they able to put some qualification to that for us.

>> Understood. Um yeah if that's the case I believe it should be in.

>> Thank you councelor Hall. Any other

questions or objections number 10 and number 11 commentary on whether the flood study was completed using AI Monte Carlo analysis or pilot/experimental methodologies. Now Daryl assures me they

methodologies. Now Daryl assures me they weren't. In fact if he had used it would

weren't. In fact if he had used it would be industryleading and he'd be bragging about it. But it would be good to have

about it. But it would be good to have an opinion, an independent opinion on that um to confirm it beyond all

reasonable doubt. Um Councelor Russell,

reasonable doubt. Um Councelor Russell, >> thank you, Mayor. um to be able to not be able to just ask the people who um

who did the original study and not get an answer from this is actually like for us including this to be able to ask for another uh review is essentially

accusing the people who did the original study of um >> yeah is is of yeah convoluting the whole

process. I don't know that we're there.

process. I don't know that we're there.

I mean, I think maybe there might be some people in the community that are there, but I really if we're at the point where we actually are asking um asking someone, hey, can you please

come and check if we were lied to in this study, then we've probably gone too far.

>> The I don't think anyone's in this room is saying that a consultant lied. And

ironically using Monte Carlo analysis is a compliment because it's a very complex piece of software to use. So in engineer land it's a good thing but in community land they're concerned that it might not

be a good thing because it's machine learning instead of people driing.

So and I would say that about 40% of the emails I get from residents have this concern in it.

>> So that's why I've added it to say to Daryl, could we consider this? He said

it'd be a pretty easy answer, but very happy to include it to give that confidence and certainty around that.

>> Okay. Well, that's that's the argument I'm making is it should be a pretty easy answer is that is that it can just be asked of the people who have originally done these. Um, yeah, if we need to to

done these. Um, yeah, if we need to to get this triple checked because we we don't believe we actually don't believe the original, then yeah, I think it's I think this is getting a little bit silly

to be honest.

Darl We we have provided advice which has been provided I guess to community members who have then um suggested that

our advice is not correct. Um the

inclusion in here is purely to have an independent um consultant confirm the advice that we've provided is correct.

>> And it'll be as simple as asking them if they used it and it'll be obvious that they didn't use it if they didn't.

>> Correct.

>> Yes.

>> Yeah. like it's not a big part of the scope, it's just a peace of mind part of the scope because they'll get asked so many times by community about it or they just assume the whole basis of their

concern for the re for the entire flood map is because they're worried about experimental methodologies and AI being used instead of computational and procedural um methodologies that have

been relied upon for for decades for flood modeling.

>> Sorry, can I respond? So, I I can appreciate that with some of like with some of these questions, it's it's asking to have things have things triple

checked, but I'm just wondering if I I don't know how to how to how to explain it in um better terms, but um

like is is there not a methodology provided with the original studies?

Like surely surely something as simple as this could be checked in that >> as officers we have already responded to the question.

>> Okay.

>> The inclusion in here is just to have an independent consultant confirm the same advice.

>> Okay. Can I just say I am incredibly sorry that this is even being entertained.

>> Council for the chair. So, is this is this really asking uh whoever completes a study whether or not they used AI

technology in the process of their study review? So, they're not asking um

review? So, they're not asking um they're they're basically just asking if any of the results you used AI to uh get

the findings. Okay? And so, this doesn't

the findings. Okay? And so, this doesn't actually stop someone doing the study to use AI. They would just have to say

use AI. They would just have to say whether or not they did. Okay. All

right. Because I I I do have somewhat of an issue with um AI being used to study something that some people may

consider an act of God. Um because that can entirely not be predicted by AI in some faiths.

>> Thank you. We've had the act of God.

>> Perhaps there should be some commentary from a faith leader in terms of the relevance of whether or not it should be used.

>> Thank you. Council Hall. Um we've

reached the end of the scope. The um

councilors, I will now move that the proposed scope on the screen becomes there'll be a motion on the screen. I'll

let that pop up. Oh, sorry. Council St.

>> Sorry, Mr. Mayor. I just had one more that I'd like to talk about if I could because I I just we could probably if there was anything additional. Um so, as part of this review, will the reviewer

provide feedback on sensitivity analysis i.e. how different inputs parameters

i.e. how different inputs parameters affect outputs as be as I'd like to better understand the critical parameters or inputs that have a major

impact on the residual flood levels.

>> Um as part of the review the it would be expected that the review company would look at the the process which the original company used for the assessment. Um there will have been some

assessment. Um there will have been some degree of sensitivity analysis done by the original component uh the original company to actually do that. So they

would review that process. The

consultant that we would engage as part of this review would not however do sensitivity an analysis. Um sensitivity

analysis actually requires running a model and actually being in that space.

Um the review we're doing is a review of the process and the procedures and the um parameters around that and not actually doing modeling in their own right.

And is that information that you can provide for sorry is there information you can provide which I'd just like to understand what the critical elements are like of of that if if you could provide that based on what the modeling

that's been done it's just something that I would be valuable >> so there's twofold to that um where we're talking about the parameters which were within the the scope as it is um we

would expect a response back from the consultant in regards to those parameters and the appropriateness of those um The flood studies which we've actually done uh in the past are

actually all online and can actually be seen. So there is reference to those

seen. So there is reference to those things within those reports too.

>> The critical elements. Okay. All right.

Perfect. Searching.

>> Thank you councelor SM. Councelor Wilcox

then St. Ledger.

>> Thanks. Um just sitting here going through it. I did have a couple of more

through it. I did have a couple of more questions. Apologies. Um, with reference

questions. Apologies. Um, with reference to 3 and 6, is there a way that we can include some ground truthing in it so that when they're doing the review, they

actually go and speak to residents?

Um, the review is actually of the study that was completed. So, it's actually going through what has actually been completed. Um, so it's not a um ground

completed. Um, so it's not a um ground truthing for a future or current modeling piece of work. So, it's going to be a a response to to what's been

done and the appropriateness of that.

>> Okay. Um, sorry. And then number six, does that include it says title storm surge boundaries. Is that like a title?

surge boundaries. Is that like a title?

Did will they do a title analysis?

Because I know council Murphy with the tides when she gets both rivers made, that's when there's huge issues down there. Will it look at that as well?

there. Will it look at that as well?

>> I'm through Mr. Chair. It will look at the title and the storm surge boundaries that we utilized in the study and review those. Yes. All right. Last point. Is

those. Yes. All right. Last point. Is

there a way that we can add a point um about what the base model was? Because I

agree. I think there might be discrepancies in there. That's my that's my opinion. Can we add a point about

my opinion. Can we add a point about anything about the base model and how it was used and if it was appropriate?

Because I don't know that that's reflected in any of those 11 points.

um the a review of the topographic information is the effectively the ground level that was used in the um overall survey. So we're asking them to

overall survey. So we're asking them to come back and talk to the methodology that was used for that and and provide commentary.

>> Thank you councelor Wilcox. Councelor

St. Ledger.

>> Thank you Mr. Mayor. I know this has been mentioned before, but just want to confirm once this review comes back, the entire review will be made public for the community.

>> Yes. And you could add that to the recommendation if you wanted to make it abundantly clear, but it's not in the recommendation currently because they would bring a review back to us and then publish it on council's Logan Plan

website, I'm assuming, but on council's website.

Councilors, there is a motion on the screen to accept the updated attachment one, which is what you've just been working your way through as the proposed scope of independent flood model review

as table to the meeting be adopted for as attachment one to replace the old attachment one essentially. Um I'm happy to move that motion. Would someone

>> you can >> is this um >> microphone.

>> Is this actually voting on recommendation? No, this is voting to

recommendation? No, this is voting to put the scope into the recommendation.

So, it becomes the scope. At the moment, there's an old scope that doesn't include, I think from memory, it's item three, four, and parts of six. Um, this

would make that the new scope. So, what

you've just done would become the scope.

At the moment, it's just a proposed scope that you've been working on as a table document. This will move it into

table document. This will move it into the report as the the scope which will be known as the amended scope from from now on. Updated attachment one is what it'll be called from now on.

Councelor Russell and then councelor Jackson.

>> Does propo does does voting in favor of this being um included as the scope does that presuppose favor of the vote in any way?

>> No.

>> All right. Thank you.

>> Two separate votes. Councelor Jackson.

>> Thank you. Would anyone else like to ask any more questions before I put it to the vote? All those in favor, please

the vote? All those in favor, please raise your hand.

One two three four.

That has been carried. Councelor

Bradley, how do you vote?

>> I'll abstain. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Councelor Bradley.

Councilors, let my computer wake back up because it went to sleep while we were doing the work.

We now I will now move the motion for um the actual flood study itself. Noting my

intention is to amend this motion once it has been moved and seconded. Um the

motion on the screen is the one that was in your report. Um the so I'll move that motion. Would someone like to second

motion. Would someone like to second that motion? Thank you councelor Bannon.

that motion? Thank you councelor Bannon.

Now that motion has been moved, I would like to propose an amendment to that motion which would be displayed on the screen. Now, this amendment has been

screen. Now, this amendment has been developed in consultation with um Daryl and with the city solicitor to confirm that it is an amended motion, not a completely new motion.

It is that one, council undertake an expression of interest to engage a suitably qualified independent specialist consultant to undertake an additional review of the Logan and Albert Rivers flood study. Two, the

council requires the consultant not to have worked on in any form the flood studies that's supporting the draft logan plan such independence mo um

clause on this one specifically councelor St.

Yeah, we able to >> stand up.

>> We able to put something in that motion in regards to what I spoke about earlier to making sure the individual working on that hasn't stepped sideways to an organization that hasn't been involved in it.

>> Is that the >> That's what he's talking about. He's

trying to clarify further because that says the consultant which is the company. Is that correct, Darl?

company. Is that correct, Darl?

So you're asking >> the concern is that the consultant which may be the company may have the the actual individuals working on that could have been part of a different consulting

firm previously.

>> Just uh the individual that's working for the consultant.

>> Could you put >> you can so through the chair so you can do that. I was just listening to Megan's

do that. I was just listening to Megan's commentary if you want to say something on that Darl.

>> Um the commentary would be around it is a reasonably small industry. Um, and if we

put a criteria that said that they couldn't have had an employee that came from another consultant in that field, um, I'm worried that we will effectively

preclude everybody within the field because there's only going to be a limited number of employers. Um, I

understand your concern in regards to it not being the primary that the the primary engineer that worked in the original firm shouldn't now by default

ended up being the primary person who's in a subsequent consulting firm that we engaged to review the work that he undertook previously or she. Um, I I

understand that but it would need to be fairly clear around that.

So you're proposing that if we were to try to achieve what council St. Ledger

is looking for, it would have to be through saying where's the effect that council requires the consultant and their primary engineer to not have worked in on in any form of the flood studies

the dry fl.

>> Okay. Would you be comfortable with that?

>> Stand up.

>> Yeah. Yeah, I just think if we can take as many measures as possible to ensure that it's as truly independent as we can possibly get it, I think that's been the message loud and clear from the

community. So, um if we can ensure that

community. So, um if we can ensure that it is going to be quite difficult by how narrow the field is, but uh you don't ask, you don't get >> and the challenge may be is that it comes back to you as not being able to

find anyone because there like it is too small a field. Um or it may be an overseas um and it may be an overseas consultant that costs more. That could be the other

side effect of that. But um I'll test each one one at a time. So people

comfortable with one. Uh so two as the the primary reviewer to not have wor any of the form of the flood studies on the d supporting the draft plan. Have you

got a question?

No, it's okay. It's okay.

>> It is worded strangely, but it is a technical one. Putting some comments in.

technical one. Putting some comments in.

I would like to defend the uh the professionalism of the the meeting cler to say that she did not propose she did not write the the words [snorts] of the recommendation. She put them in as they

recommendation. She put them in as they were provided to her.

>> There we go. worked on in any form the flood study supporting the draft location plan. Are councilors

location plan. Are councilors comfortable in having that there?

Councelor Hall through the chair. Should it not say something along the lines of um not had any prior work with either

local Australian or local state government, considering that a lot of this >> we literally won't get anyone. Well, if

if you put it if you put it out internationally, you could get someone that has never worked in either state or local government.

>> Thank you. Megan's reminding me of I asked a similar question. Um the

challenge is there's different internet different standards overseas to what there would be here. while they could bring themselves up to speed on that standard to councelor Russell's concern they would charge us for all of that work to bring themselves up to speed and

then they're not necessarily experts on that. So if that's something you want to

that. So if that's something you want to pursue, counselor, like I'm in counselor's hands. If that's what you

counselor's hands. If that's what you want, I just feel the more finite that you make it, the less likely you are to get an outcome, which means it comes back to us and potentially to council Wilcox's suggestion, you end up back at

option one anyway because they're the only people available to do the work and they're not as independent as you might have otherwise wanted. Yeah, I'm just concerned about any um any bias that

might be held in from prior working prior experience.

Um they may have a preset bias towards um how this planning work is set out which may impact their their actual result.

I'm just feeling that perhaps we could we could make it a uh a national >> Can I just get Daryl to respond to the idea of bias in maths because it's

mostly a mathematical review?

Like is bias a risk is my main question.

Like independence is important. So

that's a fresh set of bias which is what the community's communicated. But you're

saying you don't want anyone from Queensland just about cuz flood models will generally either work for councils or for state governments.

>> Um >> I I think that's probably my first comment would be if we exclude consultants that have worked for either the Commonwealth government, the state government or local government. Um the

field we're talking about which is flood studies, the work that they do is predominantly for those employers. we

will end up precluding everybody in Australia because there's not a large private industry that's out there actually engaging to do significant flood studies of the type we're actually

talking about. They really are functions

talking about. They really are functions of government because they're around trying to protect community and being able to to work through that process. So

it would become particularly difficult if we did that. um if we do go overseas as a requirement that they can't be an Australian company then that thing then

comes with it trying to actually find a consultant that we bring up to speed either that or potentially they have an employee who has worked in Australia

before who has that level of knowledge but then we're back really in a semantics position around the company's foreign but the capabil ities here. The

other aspect that's tied to it is um because it is in Queensland, we do have to have somebody who is an RPQ to actually look at this as well. So there

must be a registered pract practitioner in engineering in Queensland um because you need to be in that have that qualification to be able to actually

provide engineering advice here.

>> Thank you.

>> Uh Kathleen, >> thanks very much. Just a quick question.

So, in looking for someone to do this, um, have we considered those that have done Ipsswitch, Morton Bay, or Sunshine Coasts? Are they already out of the

Coasts? Are they already out of the equation because they've been part of our process, or are there so few that we can only pick one? Maybe.

>> Um, we will engage, I expect, with our counterparts in those areas to see if we can identify consultants that they've

used. Yep. Um, to to encourage that. Um

used. Yep. Um, to to encourage that. Um

certainly if we're going to the market and looking for people that we haven't used before, then that that would certainly be an avenue for us to at least try and explore or increase our our opportunity to have people that we

haven't engaged with. Yes.

>> So councelor satisfied with the independence of the consultant and the primary reviewer having not worked on anything to do with our flood studies?

Thank you. Um number three is that council appoint the consultant following the expression of interest in line with council standard procurement processes.

Are there any concerns around that? No.

Four that the engagement of the consultant be undertaken in accordance with option one. Option two in attachment two which is to go out to an expression of interest. So it's being very very clear that it's pointing to

the report. Is there any concerns around

the report. Is there any concerns around that or objections or questions?

And five, that the proposed scope of review be undertaken in accordance with the amended um independent flood model review as tabled and adopted to this meeting which replaces attachment one to this report. That's what says what you

this report. That's what says what you just made the attachment is what we're using. Um from listening [clears throat]

using. Um from listening [clears throat] to the room, the only other um consideration you might want to give is a reporting back function. Councelor

Stemp, >> thank you Mr. Mayor. The two questions I have is one around the costs because we've been given an estimate of 40,000 which um I know what consultants cost

based on what we get done throughout council. So I guess my concern is if we

council. So I guess my concern is if we go out there and it's going to cost us 300,000 I think we would be nice to know but I don't know how we script that in.

I don't know. And the other consideration is if we don't find anybody what happens then no one will take on that list of requirements what do we do then? That's my two questions.

So for cost, we could either put a bound like a limit on it for what you are comfortable to go to before they before the staff have to come back to us for another decision. Um for the failure

another decision. Um for the failure outcome of the EOI not getting any suitable applicants, you could either let the officers come back to you, which is what they'll have to do if they can't complete a council recommendation.

they'll have to come back to a future meeting. Or you could specify something

meeting. Or you could specify something like what councelor Wilcox's referring to that if we can't find a suitable consultant via option two, use option one, which is to engage someone who

hasn't done any of the studies but has done some of the reviews.

>> So my thought is that they come back to us if they can't find anyone suitable. I

think that would be what I would like to see in terms of the costs. I mean I don't know what other councils think in terms of what they would be happy to spend on something like this. Um

>> um the the CA said up to $100,000 and that was where my head was at which gives a a reasonable variation on um

contingency I should say on what Daryl's initial prediction was without going like to the stratosphere of 23 $400,000.

So councilors I'll just test that would sorry councelor Russell >> thank you um before we jump into into this uh this next part can I ask why is

there no third option that no review is necessary >> if this fails then that's what you'll vote on >> okay >> so ultimately as per normal process test this amendment if the amendment fails I

test the original motion if that fails we note the report nothing happens Can I please just um re ask the question why is there no option provided? Like

why is it not an option that this is like I guess what I'm asking is is there just a given that this review is necessary

or is this just an assumption that the review is necessary?

>> Um through you Mr. chair, the report is provided really is just indicating that there is an opportunity to do a review if council should choose to do so. Um,

that is in council's councelor's hands.

>> Okay. Can I be very specific on this then? In your opinion, Daryl, is is a

then? In your opinion, Daryl, is is a review necessary?

like has there been some failure in the process that has required led us to this point or is this a response to >> I mean I'm happy to take that one because it's a difficult one.

>> Thank you.

>> So um we wouldn't have put up um the original cycle we had a reasonable confidence in the work that was done.

There has been a range of questions and has been some questions other specific questions other than what was specifically put in the original studies and so this obviously the opportunity to add those things in. So whether it's

necessary is a value judgment which the council will have to make as it goes forward on its process for trying to put in place a planning scheme.

>> Thank you. I think I think I'd worded it poorly when I said is it necessary. I

think what I really meant to say is is there is there a reasonable concern in the previous work that had been done that has led us to to this point? And I

asked that because here we are, you know, sitting in in front of the community potentially um with two options and both of them are

saying to have a review. That's my

concern and so that's why I asked the question.

>> Do you want me to answer? I know what his answer is. They were fine with the original review.

>> Question.

>> Yeah. There was a question at the start was like is there a reason why you didn't want the original like the original review wasn't enough. That was

fundamentally the beginning and he had a bit of preamble afterwards. Yeah. So

>> to to answer the question, council officers have not identified a requirement to do the review. We've not

found an item that means we need to do that. We're aware of those

that. We're aware of those representations that have been made from the community and we bought a report to provide council an opportunity to consider that.

Can >> council Bennett.

>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The fact we've having a special meeting proves beyond a doubt how important this is to have because we've got this from community consultation and not off social media. I

have over 8,000 people. Well,

>> can I >> What's the point of order, Councelor Russell?

>> There was there was just an assumption made that that this has been already determined in the >> Let it finish. What's your point of order?

>> I I I I got the impression that there was an assumption then made that the um that the community consultation has led us to to this outcome. And I don't believe

that that's the case.

So, it's not a point of order under the meeting code though.

>> Okay. Apologies.

>> Well, you're more than welcome to raise it. I appreciate it. It's not a point of

it. I appreciate it. It's not a point of order under the meeting code. Carry on.

Council B. I think your concern is around assuming incorrect information. I

think that's your concern. So, please

take those concerns on board as you continue.

>> Oh, of course, Mr. Mayor. The community

consult talking about is a numerous calls and uh meetings that you've had then and I've had with the community and this was one of the main concerns they've had. So that's that's why I

they've had. So that's that's why I think if this wasn't important I don't believe and I didn't you bring this forward I wasn't here if it wasn't important you wouldn't have bring this forward and put the special comm special committee meeting up if it wasn't

important as for the cost you know council with different funding spent $50 million on one road in Chambers flat this affects more people in my community than the road does so and if if if it comes to that and I have to ask the

officers is local infrastructure money from my division somewhere I can contribute to this because this is more than important for the people in my division Like all I'm getting asked about is that and it's not a competition with anyone

here, but I'm other than you, I've probably dealt with this more than anyone because that's all I've done.

I've worked on it hard. I've had more meetings with the officers. You know

that this is what people are asking me to have and I'm wrapped in the section one that you put in. My community is screaming for it. If it's a cost issue

on a scale of a billion dollars, if this if this building say yes, local infrastructure money can help towards that, I'll put because it's the community's money, the local infrastructure money for my division.

This affects my division more than anyone. I'll happily do what they're

anyone. I'll happily do what they're asking me to do and put money towards my community want this to happen. They need

it to happen.

>> Thank you, Councelor Bennon. Councelor

Wilcox, I don't think funding is the like finding a source of funding is the concern, but thank you for your offer.

Uh, Councelor Wilcox, >> thank you. I'd be happy to add a point in there um to put it up to $100,000 >> for the scope for the engagement.

>> Can I just hold you up on price?

>> Yep.

>> Have you got another point other than price? Because I'll come back to price.

price? Because I'll come back to price.

>> And the only other point I was going to say is because of the because Christmas is coming, these companies will in inevitably have shutdowns. Can we give

you till February March to engage a consultant so that we get the right consultant >> or just the time frame within the normal procurement process which does take into account

>> like end of year shutdown I assume because we procure things this time of year all the time.

>> Y >> is that right? So, I'll just speak to so the two questions that councelor Stemp asked before we went um to some sidebars was um what do we do in case of not

finding someone um and councelor Stemp your proposal was that it'd be brought a decision come back to council that would happen by default but did you want to explicitly put a recommendation a clause that addresses that or you happy to

accept that they'll bring it back >> if that's by default that's fine >> great on cost um and I'll look to counselors who have worked in any kind of contracting industry. If I tell you

the budget that I've got, I guarantee you that the price comes in just under that budget. So, putting a hard like a

that budget. So, putting a hard like a fixed limit on that budget, it could be problematic. Um that there's probably a

problematic. Um that there's probably a mechanism where they could just come back with the price to us to confirm that we're satisfied with that. But that

will have some delays unless I cause a special council meeting just for that purpose, which doesn't seem a good use of the special council meeting.

>> Um through you, uh Mr. Mayor, we we've got an idea about the sort of ballpark you're looking at. And if it was wildly outside that we'd come back.

>> So they've specified 40 grand today. So

is that where we'll is that our ballpark?

>> I hope so.

>> I think the officers have heard what you've discussed. [snorts] That's what I

you've discussed. [snorts] That's what I would It's up to you what you want to do. You can you can put a fixed number

do. You can you can put a fixed number in there. It's totally up to you.

in there. It's totally up to you.

>> I'm just concerned, like I said. I mean,

I know what consultants can cost. So I

just I don't want to suddenly find they've spent $300,000 on it and we're not aware. That's my concern. So I just

not aware. That's my concern. So I just wanted to >> So is there a mechanism for your report back to council that doesn't require meeting?

>> Um we could we we can circulate the information. Um this wouldn't be a

information. Um this wouldn't be a decisionable because you're not in a council meeting, but we can circulate the information what the what the price ultimately was. If that was and if that

ultimately was. If that was and if that was the case and we felt the price was outlandish, then we could call a special council meeting or put a late report into a committee or council in order to

call that in so to speak.

>> Uh potentially it's a difficult position because you're in a procurement process, right? So it's it's not easy. Look,

right? So it's it's not easy. Look,

we've heard what you think the general budget is and if you know rather than putting it explicitly in a council resolution, we we'll work to it.

Council Venon, >> I don't know if I have to say, Mr. Mayor, but um the the financial effect this has had on the community far outweighs the 100 to20 grand that we're talking about. So, if

we're talking on scale of money of $1.27 billion budget and the financial hardship, I could add up some insurance costs that added more to what we're talking about.

>> Yes. And loss of property value and other things where this starts a process that lets us advocate to change that. I

I hear you, councelor Lane.

>> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Item six should be that the full report be released to the public upon return to council. That's

not in the recommendation.

>> I'm happy to add that. I think we preempted that. That might be a request

preempted that. That might be a request of councilors. So, I've get the meetings

of councilors. So, I've get the meetings team to type it in very quickly. It's

not there at the moment. Have it added as clause six >> as the mover of the motion. Yep.

I know thinking I am thinking two steps ahead, but leading on from councelor Lane's suggestion, I think it would also be good if a copy of the report be forwarded to the state government for consideration.

>> I'm happy to do that. I don't need a council recommendation to do that. I I

assure you that the report will be a subject of discussions with the premier and deputy premier like that they are they know that this special council meeting is being held. I wrote to the

deputy premier to inform him um and the reason why it was being held and that I would give him an update upon its completion. So they vary across this

completion. So they vary across this because as you rightly pointed out earlier they have a lot of control over what we can and can't do with our future planning scheme and while that's not relevant to this special council meeting it will be relevant to our future

decisions.

>> Thank you.

>> I've just got to wait for number six to pop up. That's okay.

pop up. That's okay.

So, I'll go through process while Ashley goes through the um the clause.

So, if this motion fails, we'll test the original motion. If that motion fails,

original motion. If that motion fails, um we'll note the report, which is no action.

So, if you're if you do not support any kind of review, then vote for nothing until the noting of the report comes up.

If you are satisfied with this as it stands, vote for this. If you think there's further amendments that be could be made, tell me now. Um the because I'll test that again afterwards. Like if

you think option one is actually the better option, then by all means, let me know. But my intention is to test this

know. But my intention is to test this motion once clause six is in it, then test the original motion, then test the receiving of the report.

>> Sorry. So,

>> thank you, Councelor Lane. Appreciate

you.

>> Sorry. So, we're moving to uh approve your amendments and then there will be a separate vote on whether or not we agree with the motion put forward.

>> Correct. We'll vote on the clarification.

>> Thank you. The amendment will become the motion, then we'll vote on the motion.

Um there is the clause six as suggested by councelor Lane that the report of the independent consultant be presented to council and made publicly available. Um

I've got Benon and Okay, St. Ledger, do

you have a question or you wanting to second it? Now, really quick, I know it

second it? Now, really quick, I know it will be the full report, but can we put that the full report will be made available just to ensure that um the community is well aware of that?

>> Yep. Thank you. Happy to make that explicit.

Councilors, are there any further suggestions or amendments?

You wanted it to be a fully bound report. Councelor Hermine, did I hear

report. Councelor Hermine, did I hear that?

>> I I was just commenting we've already delegated this authority to the CEO.

It's not a necessary amendment, but I appreciate the sentiment and I think it's good to include it. Um, but the CEO already has this power. We don't need to be voting on it.

>> I I thank you for the clarification. Um,

I've moved the the motion on the screen.

Councelor Benon has seconded. This

motion is to accept the amendment and if this motion is passed, the amendment will become the the motion. We will vote on the motion.

Clear as mud. Moved and seconded by Mayor Raven and Councelor Bennon. All

those in favor, please raise your hand.

That has been carried. I'll go around the room so you can declare your vote.

Councelor Bradley, >> abstain.

>> Councelor Lane, >> four.

>> Councelor uh Russell, >> abstain.

>> Councelor St. Ledger,

>> four.

>> Councelor Jackson, >> four. Councelor Hall,

>> four. Councelor Hall, >> four.

>> Councelor Jeremiah, four.

>> Councelor Bennon, Councelor Stem, >> four.

>> Councelor Wilcox, >> four.

>> Councelor Murphy, >> four.

>> And I was four. Um, councilors, that motion has been carried. That amendment

motion has been carried and now becomes the motion that will be placed on the screen for you to consider.

>> Yes, council Bradley.

>> At what point can we talk to this?

>> Once I move it, you could speak to it >> or once it's moved and seconded, you could speak to the motion. Um, council,

I would like to move the motion on the screen. Councelor Bennett would like to

screen. Councelor Bennett would like to second the motion. I now open the floor for debate. Councelor Bradley, did you

for debate. Councelor Bradley, did you want to speak to the motion? Actually, I

will put it in my >> Thank you. Did any other counselors wish to speak to the motion?

>> There being none, I put the motion to the vote. All those in favor, please

the vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand.

The motion has been carried. I'll go

around the room so you can declare your vote. Councelor Bradley.

vote. Councelor Bradley.

>> Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I

wish to abstain today and I wish to give a reason why if I could. Informing my

position, I have thor thoroughly reviewed all available information and views, including the confidential recording from discussions held on the

15th of October. I've also reviewed the legal advice provided, which remains confidential and not publicly accessible. In conclusion, I continue to

accessible. In conclusion, I continue to hold serious reservations regarding the genuine value this proposal offers to the community. Based on the evidence

the community. Based on the evidence currently available to me and my direct observations, plus the answers given today, I believe today's review is smoke

and mirrors for political optics distracting from the possible.

>> You can't use argument in a reason.

You're making an argument, not explaining a reason.

>> I'm giving my reason.

>> If you're going to use a reason that is disrespectful to the chamber, then I'm going to have to make call you out of order. So, please refrain your comments

order. So, please refrain your comments to the facts rather than your opinions when you're explaining your reasons. I

will give my um reasoning for distracting from the possibly inaccurate data and is unlikely to deliver the outcomes

many in our community are hoping for.

Instead, it appears poised to result in significant costs and delays without clear measurable benefits. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Councelor Bradley. Councelor

Lane, can you turn your microphone off, please? Councelor Bradley.

please? Councelor Bradley.

>> Thanks very much, Mr. Mayor. I abstain

from the vote today and I'd like to provide a reason.

>> Yes, you may proceed.

>> I listen to the debate today. I listen

to the ideas and I respect um and each of the people that raised them. I think

that people are referencing their personal lived experiences as acceptable modeling rather than predictive modeling. I asked the question about the

modeling. I asked the question about the base model from which we're starting from and this review does not reassess that. It actually just says whether or

that. It actually just says whether or not um we should proceed using the same base model. Um it asks them whether the

base model. Um it asks them whether the methodology used was correct. It doesn't

actually review the starting base that we that we're meant to start from. I

don't think that this review will change the outcome for the people in in the divisions that are that are calling out for this. I think if they don't have a

for this. I think if they don't have a view that predictive modeling is correct and instead lift experience is the preferred method that we're ever going

to come to a good outcome for them. So I

see this as probably not something that's in our best interest. Thank you.

best interest. Thank you.

>> Thank you councelor Lane. Council

Russell.

>> Thank you mayor. Um I also abstain.

Today's options have presupposed that this review is a solution to the city's situation and I've been on this journey with the community along with my other

councelor colleagues. Um my position is

councelor colleagues. Um my position is no reflection that I don't hear the community and empathize with those who are concerned and scared.

Uncertainty is a scary place to be and that's where our community is right now.

Um I'll not be voting in favor um today because um I've not yet viewed the community consultations outcome which I believe is relevant and without knowing

costs associated I just can't I can't vote in favor of this today.

>> Councelor St. Ledger

>> four. Councelor Jackson

>> four. Councelor Hall

>> four.

>> Councelor Hermayer >> four. Councelor Bennon

>> four. Councelor Bennon >> four.

>> Councelor Stemp >> four. Councelor Wilcox

>> four. Councelor Wilcox >> four.

>> Councelor Murphy >> four.

>> Councelor Raven is four. That motion has been carried. Thank you. Councilors,

been carried. Thank you. Councilors,

there being no general business or late reports in or there's no there's no late reports and there is no general business in special council meetings, I declare

the meeting closed at 3:24 p.m. Thank

you very much for your participation.