Agenda of Finance Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance Committee Meeting

Page 7

15/11/2016

REPORT TITLE: Grants and Benefits Listing as at 30 September 2016

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Acting Director Financial Services

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide a listing of the grants and benefits provided by the Council for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 September 2016 as requested by the then Parks and Customer Services Committee.

2. Report Summary

2.1. At its meeting on 12 February 2015, the then Parks and Customer Services Committee requested that a quarterly report be provided for the information of the then Finance and Corporate Services Committee outlining all grants and benefits provided by Council Committees and Council.

2.2. A report is attached being for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 September 2016.

2.3. It is proposed that the Committee note the listing of grants and benefits provided for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 September 2016 and that these are required, pursuant to Section 77 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act), to be included in the annual report of Council.

3. Recommendation

That the Finance Committee receive and note the information contained in the report titled “Grants and Benefits Listing as at 30 September 2016”.

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting on 12 February 2015, the then Parks and Customer Services Committee resolved that:

4.1.1. A quarterly report be provided for the information of the [then] Finance and Corporate Services Committee outlining all grants and benefits approved by Council Committees and Council.

4.2. At its meeting on 19 May 2015, the Finance Committee resolved that:

4.2.1. Details of all grants and benefits provided under Section 77 of the Local Government Act 1993 be listed on the City of Hobart’s website.

4.3. A report outlining the grants and benefits provided for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 September 2016 is attached – refer Attachment A.

4.4. Pursuant to Section 77 of the LG Act, the details of any grant made or benefit provided will be included in the annual report of the Council.

4.5. The listing of grants and benefits marked as Attachment A, has been prepared in accordance with the Council policy titled Grants and Benefits Disclosure – refer Attachment B.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Committee note the grants and benefits listing as at 30 September 2016.

5.2. It is also proposed that the Committee note that the grants and benefits listed are required to be included in the annual report of the Council and will be listed on the City of Hobart’s website.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Grants and benefits are provided to organisations which undertake activities and programs that strongly align with the Council’s Strategic Framework – Hobart 2025, the City of Hobart Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 as well as other relevant City of Hobart strategies.

6.2. The linkage between the City’s grants and benefits provided and the City of Hobart Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 is referenced in Attachment A.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. All grants and benefits provided as at 30 September 2016 were funded from the 2016/2017 budget estimates.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The Council provides grants and benefits within the requirements of Section 77 of the LG Act as follows:

8.1.1. Grants and benefits

8.1.2. (1) A council may make a grant or provide a pecuniary benefit or a non-pecuniary benefit that is not a legal entitlement to any person, other than a councillor, for any purpose it considers appropriate.

(1A) A benefit provided under subsection (1) may include –
(a)     in-kind assistance; and
(b)     fully or partially reduced fees, rates or charges; and
(c)     remission of rates or charges under Part 9 (rates and
        charges)

8.1.3. (2) The details of any grant made or benefit provided are to be included in the annual report of the council.

8.2. Section 72 of the LG Act requires Council to produce an Annual Report with Section 77 of the LG Act providing an additional requirement where individual particulars of each grant or benefit given by the Council must be recorded in the Annual Report.

8.3. Section 207 of the LG Act provides for the remitting of all or part of any fee or charge paid or payable.

8.4. Section 129 of the LG Act provides for the remitting of rates.

9. Delegation

9.1. This report is provided to the Finance Committee for information.

As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.

Lara MacDonell

Acting Director Financial Services

Date: 10 November 2016

File Reference: F16/122263; 25-2-1

Attachment a: Grants and Benefit Listing as at 30 September 2016 ⇩

Attachment b: Council Policy - Grants and Benefits Disclosure ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance Committee Meeting

Page 19

15/11/2016

REPORT TITLE: Financial Report as at 30 September 2016

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Finance

Acting Director Financial Services

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to present Council’s Financial Report for the period ending 30 September 2016, to seek approval for changes to the 2016/2017 Estimates (budget), and to recommend the purpose to which the 2015/2016 operating result in excess of the budgeted surplus should be applied.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The Financial Report for the period ending 30 September 2016 is presented for consideration. It shows that both revenues and expenses are currently favourable when compared to budget, and forecasts the following financial outcomes for 2016/2017:

2.1.1. An underlying surplus of $3.68M;

2.1.2. A closing cash balance of around $23M; and

2.1.3. The achievement of targets set for all of the Council’s eight financial sustainability indicators.

2.2. The Council remains in a strong, sustainable financial position.

2.3. It is proposed the 2015/2016 operating surplus in excess of the original budgeted surplus, be allocated to the projects detailed in Section 5.4 below.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council approve the changes to the 2016/2017 Estimates listed in tables 4, 5, 7 and 9 of Attachment A, the financial impacts of which are to increase the underlying surplus by $1.20M, and to decrease the cash balance by $1.06M.

2. The Council approve the allocation of the $0.674M 2015/2016 operating surplus to costs associated with the City Hall restoration at $0.13M and $0.544M for projects included in the 10 Year Capital Works Program.

4. Background

4.1. The Financial Report as at 30 September 2016 is provided at Attachment A. The Financial Report provides details of:

4.1.1. The Council’s financial position as at 30 September 2016;

4.1.2. The result of operations for the first three months of the 2016/2017 financial year;

4.1.3. Forecasts for 30 June 2017; and

4.1.4. Progress towards the achievement of the Council’s financial sustainability outcomes.

4.2. In accordance with the Council’s decision on item 9 at its meeting on 20 June 2016, the Council approved the carry-forward of unspent operating grants which resulted in the forecast underlying surplus for 2015/2016 reducing by $0.16M, from $2.48M to $2.32M.

4.3. At its meeting of 21 September 2015, the Council resolved its annual review of the September quarter financial report (this report) to consider the prior year operating result – its size, whether it is cash backed, and what, if anything, to allocate it to, with preference given to infrastructure projects – refer Section 5.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The Financial Report seeks to have the 2016/2017 estimates (budget) amended to take account of expected differences from budget at 30 June 2017 (permanent variances).

5.2. It is proposed that the Council approve changes to the 2016/2017 Estimates as set out in tables 4, 5, 7 and 9 of Attachment A.

5.3. The 2015/2016 Operating Result was $3.079M, being $0.674M better than the original budget. As the original budgeted surplus is inherent within the long term financial plan, it is only the excess over that figure that represents a ‘windfall’.

5.4. It is recommended the Council apply this surplus to the following projects:

· City Hall Restoration Costs –

At its meeting of 22 February 2016, the Council resolved for a brief report to be provided that details the model used for Brisbane City Hall restoration works. An additional $0.13M is sought from operational savings to undertake this report.

· King Street –

Regent Street to Grosvenor Street Reconstruction Project $0.2M.

· Casino Foreshore Balustrade and Concrete Seawall Repair project –

$0.2M.

· Hill Street –

Lansdowne Intersection $0.1M project.

· The balance of the windfall from 2015/2016 operating surplus be attributed to the 10 year capital works program.

5.5. This proposal will impact the 2016/2017 operating result by $0.13M.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

Goal 5 – Governance is applicable in considering this report, particularly

Strategic 5.1 objective:

“The organisation is relevant to the community and provides good governance and transparent decision-making”.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The proposed changes to the Estimates will result in net expenditure increasing (and the forecast cash balance decreasing) by $1.06M.

7.1.2. The decrease in the forecast cash balance is due to an increase of both operating and capital expenditure.

7.1.3. The final cash balance may differ from the current forecast for the following reasons:

7.1.3.1. Current budget variances which are assumed to be timing variances (and therefore forecasts have not been amended) may prove to be permanent variances,

7.1.3.2. Further variances could arise during the remainder of the year, and

7.1.3.3. Capital expenditure could be higher or lower than forecast.

7.2. Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.2.1. The impact of the proposed changes to the Estimates is to increase the forecast underlying surplus by $1.20M (from $2.48M to $3.68M).

7.2.2. The improvement in the forecast underlying surplus is mainly due to the Myer payment offset by the inclusion of the 2015/2016 carry forwards and higher than expected defined benefit superannuation scheme costs.

7.2.3. Whilst an underlying surplus of $3.68M is currently forecast for 2015/2016, both revenues and expenses are currently favourable when compared to budget. If this position continues, the final result will exceed the current forecast.

7.2.4. The final operating result may differ from the current forecast for the following reasons:

7.2.4.1. Current budget variances which are assumed to be timing variances (and therefore forecasts have not been amended) may prove to be permanent variances; and

7.2.4.2. Further variances could arise during the remainder of the year.

7.3. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.3.1. The impact on future years’ underlying surpluses is difficult to estimate reliably because some changes may be ongoing, whilst others may not.

7.4. Asset Related Implications

7.4.1. No significant asset related implications are anticipated.

7.5. Financial Sustainability Indicators

7.5.1. Targets set for all of the Council’s eight financial sustainability indicators are expected to be achieved in 2016/2017.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Not Applicable.

9. Delegation

9.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Peter Jenkins

Manager Finance

Lara MacDonell

Acting Director Financial Services

Date: 10 November 2016

File Reference: F16/124919; 21-1-1

Attachment a: Financial Report Ending September 2016 ⇩

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance Committee Meeting

Page 49

15/11/2016

REPORT TITLE: Remissions and General Assistance Available to Ratepayers

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Acting Director Financial Services

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide information reviewing the remissions and general assistance available for ratepayer demographics within the City’s population, including the adequacy of the State Government’s pensioner remission scheme as requested by Council at its meeting on 24 October 2016.

1.2. Knowledge of assistance available to the City’s ratepayers provides broad community benefit.

2. Report Summary

2.1. At its meeting on 24 October 2016 the Council resolved that a report be provided reviewing remissions and general assistance available for ratepayer demographics within the City’s population, including the adequacy of the State Government’s pensioner remission scheme.

2.2. The Council currently provides a range of assistance to ratepayers in need of assistance or support, including payment arrangements, rate postponements, rates exemptions and rate remissions.

2.3. The State Government provides a pensioner rates remission scheme to eligible pensioners under the Local Government (Rates and Charges Remissions) Act 1991. It also provides over 90 concessions and discounts to Tasmanians in need of assistance and support.

2.4. This report reviews the different types of assistance and support available to all ratepayers in the Hobart municipal area.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council write to the State Government seeking a review of the adequacy of the defined maximum annual amount of payments made under the Local Government (Rates and Charges Remissions) Act 1991.

2. The Council review the applicability of the $10 council funded pensioner concession as part of the 2017/2018 budget preparation.

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting on 24 October 2016 Council resolved the following:

4.1.1. The Council adopt the City of Hobart Rates and Charges policy marked as Attachment A to item 6.2 of the Open Finance Committee agenda of 18 October 2016.

4.1.2. The General Manager be authorised to finalise the City of Hobart Rates and Charges policy and arrange for it to be made available to the public in paper format from the Council’s Customer Service Centre and in an electronic format from the Council’s website.

4.1.3. A further report be provided reviewing remissions and general assistance available for ratepayer demographics within the City’s population, including the adequacy of the State Government’s pensioner remission scheme.

4.2. The City of Hobart Rates and Charges Policy has been finalised and made available from Council’s website and in print from the Customer Service Centre. This report addresses the Council resolution at Section 4.1.3 above.

4.3. The Council currently provides a range of assistance to any / all ratepayers (ratepayer demographics) in need of assistance or support, including payment arrangements, rate postponements, rates exemptions and rate remissions. These are described in detail below and can be summarised as follows:

Concession Type	Eligibility Criteria	Concession	Ratepayer Demographic
Hardship Payment Arrangement	Any ratepayer in financial hardship	Temporary reduced payments or payments spread over longer time periods	All
Rate Postponement	Outlined in Council Policy – Attach A	50% annual rates postponed for the lifetime of the applicant or until sale of property takes place. Interest rate of 5% payable on principle only.	Pensioners
General Rate exemption	Outlined in section 87 of LG Act – Attach B	100% rebate of General Rate	Prescribed land types
Fire Service Rate exemption	Outlined in section 78 of Fire Services Act 1979 - Attach D	100% rebate of Fire Service Rate	Prescribed property types
Remission of Storm water Removal Service Rate	Property does not receive a storm water service from Council	100% remission of Storm water Service Rate	500 properties in rural / remote areas
Remission of Waste Management Service Charge	Property does not receive a standard garbage collection service from Council	100% remission of Waste Management Service Charge and Landfill Rehabilitation Service Charge	1000 properties – mainly vacant land
Natural Gas Rebate	For natural gas appliances purchased as a part of a household connecting to the natural gas network	$250 per annum	All
Native Vegetation Rebate	Discounted rates for private properties where areas of native vegetation with significant biodiversity values are formally and voluntarily protected	$6.04 per hectare with a minimum rebate of $60.40 per property, maximum rebate of $604 per property	All
State Government Pensioner Remission	Determined by Department of Treasury and Finance	30% off annual rates capped at $292 if also a TasWater customer of $430 if not (2016/17 figures) 20% off Fire Service Rate (no cap)	Pensioners
Council Pensioner Remission	Pensioners eligible for the State Government pensioner remission above plus self funded retirees	$10	Pensioners (including self funded retirees)

Hardship Payment Arrangements

4.4. Under Council Policy Collection of Rates Arrears, in response to approaches by ratepayers who have difficulty in meeting scheduled payments, suitable arrangement for payments are considered and entered into.

4.5. Council’s Rates Officers work with ratepayers to manage arrears, particularly in times of financial hardship.

4.6. Rates Officers are also aware of general assistance available from the State Government to help Tasmanians with the cost of living.

Rate Postponements

4.7. Pursuant to Section 125 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) a ratepayer may apply to the council for a postponement of payment of rates on the ground of hardship.

4.8. Section 126 of the LG Act states that the conditions of postponement are as follows:

4.8.1. (1) A council may grant a postponement of the payment of rates for a specified period if satisfied that such payment would cause hardship.

4.8.2. (2) A council may grant a postponement of payment of rates –

4.8.2.1. (a) on the condition that the ratepayer pay interest on the amount of rates postponed at a rate fixed by the council; and

4.8.2.2. (b) on any other condition the council determines.

4.8.3. (3) Interest fixed under subsection (2)(a) is not to exceed the prescribed percentage as calculated in section 128(2).

4.9. The Council has adopted a policy on Rate Postponements – refer Attachment A.

4.10. Council’s policy on rate postponements has traditionally been linked to older Australians who qualify for the pensioner remission on specified conditions and on the condition that:

4.10.1. (i) The amount to be postponed in any year to be the amount requested by the applicant but not exceeding 50% of the amount payable in that year.

4.10.2. (ii) The period of postponement to be for the lifetime of the applicant or, should the property be sold during the applicant’s lifetime, until the sale takes place, whereupon the amount will be due and payable.

4.10.3. (iii) An interest rate of 5% shall be payable on the amount subject to postponement, and be payable on the same terms as the amount deferred, namely death or sale of the property, and interest be charged on the principle only.

4.11. Postponed rates as at 30 June 2016 totalled $90,653.

Rate Exemptions

4.12. Section 87 of the LG Act sets out the exemptions from [effectively] General Rates – refer Attachment B.

4.13. The exemptions within S87 of the LG Act are generally read as being limited to circumstances where there is a public benefit, rather than circumstances where there is purely a commercial or private benefit.

4.14. In April 2015 the Council approved a new policy, Rates Exemption – Charitable Purposes, that outlines the Council’s approach to assessing whether land falls within the charitable exemption of Section 87(1)(d) of the LG Act – refer Attachment C.

4.15. Section 78 of the Fire Services Act 1979 permits the exemption of the Fire Service Rate in certain circumstances – refer Attachment D. It should be noted that the City of Hobart collects the Fire Service Rate on behalf of the Tasmanian Government and passes it onto the Tasmania Fire Service.

Rate Remissions

4.16. Rate remissions are generally provided for under Section 129 of the LG Act, which states that:

(1) A ratepayer may apply to the council for remission of all or part of any rates paid or payable by the ratepayer or any penalty imposed or interest charged under section 128.

(2) An application is to be –

(a) made in writing; and

(b) lodged with the general manager.

(3) A council, by absolute majority, may grant a remission of all or part of any rates, penalty or interest paid or payable by the ratepayer.

(4) A council, by absolute majority, may grant a remission of any rates, penalty or interest paid or payable by a class of ratepayers.

(5) The general manager is to keep a record of the details of any remission granted under this section.

4.17. The Council has delegated to the General Manager the power to consider rate remission requests up to $2,000. Rate remission requests over $2,000 are considered by the Council.

4.18. The Council currently provides the following rate remissions to eligible ratepayers:

4.18.1. Remission of the Storm water Removal Service Rate and/or Waste Management Service Charge under Council Policy Rate Remissions – Service Rates/Charges, which states that pursuant to Section 129 of the LG Act, a property shall only receive a remission of the storm water and/or waste management service charge in the event that:

4.18.1.1. The property does not receive and is not capable of receiving a standard garbage collection service or a storm water service from the Council whatsoever; and

4.18.1.2. Even if the property were capable of receiving such a service, any request to Council for such a service would be denied.

4.18.2. 500 properties currently receive the storm water removal service rate remission and approximately 1000 properties receive a waste management service charge remission, which includes vacant land and council owned properties.

4.18.3. E. Kalis Properties Pty Ltd receives a remission of rates under a Development Assistance Deed for the redevelopment of the former Myer site.

4.18.4. Sultan Holdings Pty Ltd receives a remission of rates under a Development Agreement for the Argyle Street Carpark Redevelopment project.

4.18.5. Natural gas rebate. Forty properties received a $250 rebate in 2015/2016, which was deducted from the rates levied on the property.

4.18.6. Rate rebate for native vegetation protection. Council offers rates rebates for landowners who voluntarily protect native vegetation with significant conservation values. The annual rates rebate is $6.04 per hectare with a minimum rebate of $60.40 per property and a maximum rebate of $604 per property. A small number of properties currently receive this rebate.

Rate Remission Policies

4.19. The LG Act is silent on the grounds for a remission of rates or the grounds for a decision by the Council to grant a remission. Rate remission requests are considered on a case by case basis, by examining the relevant facts of the matter and making decisions pursuant to the City of Hobart Rates and Charges Policy.

4.20. Most Tasmanian Councils do not have a separate policy regarding S129 of the LG Act, rather councils include a policy statement in their general rates and charges policy that ratepayers can apply for a rates remission under Section 129 of the LG Act and how to do so, as prescribed under that part. This is the City of Hobart’s approach.

4.21. The Launceston City Council (LCC) is an exception. LCC has adopted a policy position to explain its approach to rating exemptions and remissions for charitable organisations – refer Attachment E.

State Government Pensioner Rate Remission Scheme

4.22. Pensioners eligible for assistance under the Local Government (Rates and Charges Remission) Act 1991 may receive a rates remission. Eligibility of a pensioner remission and eligibility criteria is determined by the State Government – Department of Treasury and Finance.

4.23. In order to be eligible for the pensioner remission the applicant must be liable to pay the rates on the property that they occupy as their principal place of residence as at 1 July of the financial year to which the rates relate.

4.24. Pursuant to Section 120 of the LG Act, the owner is taken to be liable for the rates of a property. Ownership is normally determined by reference to the title of the property to which the rates relate. In the example of an independent living unit resident, they would not be the owner of the independent unit and hence not liable for the rates of the property.

4.25. However, under Section 120(2) of the LG Act, the occupier of the land may, with the written consent of the owner, decide to accept liability for the payment of the rates. In these cases, the occupier must provide a copy of the written agreement to notify the council’s General Manager in accordance with Section 120(3) of the LG Act.

4.26. A pensioner remission is available to pensioners who hold one of three types of cards issued by either Centrelink of Department of Veterans Affairs:

4.26.1. Pensioner Concession Card – issued by Centrelink and Department of Veterans Affairs

4.26.2. Centrelink Health Care Card

4.26.3. Repatriation Health Card – i.e. ‘Gold Card’ endorsed Total or Permanent Injury (TPI) or War Widow/Widower DVA.

4.27. An Australian Government Seniors Health Card does not qualify the holder for a rates remission.

4.28. Eligible pensioners are entitled to:

4.28.1. A 30% remission of their rates up to a maximum limit. For 2016/2017 this was $292 for those pensioners also a customer of TasWater and $430 for pensioners not a customer of TasWater. This is reimbursed to Council by the State Government.

4.28.2. A 20% remission off the Fire Service Rate pursuant to section 95 of the Fire Service Act 1979. There are no maximum limits. This is reimbursed to Council by the State Fire Commission.

4.29. There is a limit of one remission per year per pensioner household. A pensioner who is a multiple property holder is not entitled, to receive more than one remission per year.

4.30. The State Government allow retrospective claims for the prior year to be paid to eligible pensioners.

4.31. Council currently funds a $10 remission to all pensioners including holders of the Seniors Health Card who don’t qualify for the State Government pensioner remission.

4.32. Approximately 12.5% of all ratepayers in the Hobart municipal area receive a pensioner rates remission at a cost of $1.1M per annum funded by the State Government.

4.33. 13.3% of all ratepayers in the Hobart municipal area receive the Council $10 rates remission, which includes self funded retirees not otherwise eligible for the State Government pensioner rates remission, at a cost of $31,830 to the Council as at 30 June 2016.

General Assistance

4.34. The Tasmanian Government offers a wide range of discounts and concessions to eligible Tasmanians on a wide range of services such as housing, transport, electricity, water and sewerage, heating, education, event attendance, entries to national parks and health services to assist those experiencing hardship and in need of support in the community.

4.35. The State Government produce a Guide detailing over 90 concessions available to eligible persons in Tasmania. The 2016-17 Tasmanian Government Discounts and Concession Guide is attached – refer Attachment F.

Adequacy of the Pensioner Remission

4.36. It is difficult to determine the adequacy of the State Government pensioner remission scheme. Taking the approach of comparing the assistance provided by other councils to that provided by the City of Hobart is also difficult because the legislative environment in which councils in other states / territories and outside of Australia vary to that of Tasmania. Councils’ funding models also vary with some councils relying more heavily on rates, rather than grants, than others.

4.37. In 2016-2017 it will cost the State Government $16.736M to fund the pensioner rates remission scheme. The State Government’s Forward Estimates show this increasing to $17.166M in 2017-18, $17,607M in 2018-19 and $18.060M in 2019-20.

4.38. Funding constraints and a need for concessions to other groups are likely reasons the pensioner remission scheme is capped at a maximum remission as outlined in section 4.40 below.

4.39. However, it should be noted that the maximum remission is indexed annually to ensure that rate relief increase in line with inflation.

4.40. The 30% remission is capped at either $292 or $430 for 2016/17 varying depending whether you are a customer of TasWater or not. Most of the City’s pensioners are a customer of TasWater. All of the City’s eligible pensioners receive the maximum capped remission. The 20% remission of the Fire Service Rate isn’t capped and all eligible pensioners receive the 20% remission off the Fire Service Rate.

4.41. For an average residential ratepayer (with an AAV of $20,441 and an annual rates bill of $2,218.50) who is also a customer of TasWater the pensioner rates remission equals $354.74 off the annual rates bill, which includes the $10 council concession.

4.42. Because all of the City’s eligible pensioners are on the maximum cap, ratepayers with an AAV less than the average residential ratepayer and hence an annual rates bill less than $2,218.50 also receive $302 off their annual rates plus the 20% off the Fire Service Rate.

4.43. The $10 Council funded pensioner remission, which is also provided to holders of the Seniors Health Card (eligible self funded retirees) who don’t qualify for the State Government pensioner remission has been at the same level of $10 for more than 20 years.

4.44. The $10 Council pensioner rates concession is approved by Council annually and the cost to Council is approximately $30,000 per annum.

4.45. In the absence of State Government rates support the benefit to eligible self funded retirees from Council’s concession is $10.

4.46. Rates are a form of tax as outlined in Section 86A(1) of the LG Act, which states that:

4.47. In …. making decisions concerning the making of rates, Council has taken into account the following pursuant to section 86A(1) of the LG Act:

4.47.1. (a) rates constitute taxation for the purposes of local government, rather than a fee for a service; and

4.47.2. (b) the value of rateable land is an indicator of the capacity of the ratepayer in respect of that land to pay rates.

4.48. Council rates are based on property values and are therefore a property tax. Generally the Act expects that the higher the value of the property the higher the rates to be paid.

4.49. The LG Act therefore contemplates that the amount of rates you pay will be determined by the value of your property. It is therefore arguable that rates, being a tax system, should be used, as an example, to provide welfare support to individual owners or groups of owners. Particularly in the context that any support provided to an individual owner or group of owners is paid for by every other ratepayer in the form of increased rates. Albeit the effect will vary dependent upon the quantum of rate remission provided.

4.50. Therefore, providing rate remissions on the grounds of financial hardship may not lead to a desirable outcome for the City and the City has other means to provide support to ratepayers who find themselves in financial hardship.

4.51. There is, however, a community benefit in providing assistance through rating relief to certain organisations where a benefit to the community can be established. Usually, these types of organisations are covered by rate exemption provisions under Section 87 of the LG Act.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Committee note the remissions and general assistance available to ratepayers within the Hobart municipal area.

5.2. Given the difficulty of assessing the adequacy of the State Government pensioner remission scheme, it is proposed that Council write to the State Government seeking a review of the adequacy of the defined maximum annual amount of payments made under the Local Government (Rates and Charges Remissions) Act 1991. It is noted that the amount is indexed each year to keep in line with inflation.

5.3. Given that the Council funded pensioner concession has remained at $10 for some years, it is proposed that the applicability of this concession is reviewed as part of the 2017/2018 budget preparation.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This report relates to Council’s Rates and Charges Policies, including:

6.1.1. Collection of Rates Arrears.

6.1.2. Rates Exemption – Charitable Purposes.

6.1.3. Rate Postponements.

6.1.4. Rate Remissions – Services Rates-Charges.

6.1.5. Rates Remissions.

6.2. This report also relates to the City of Hobart Rates and Charges Policy, which outlines Council’s policy position on rate rebates, rate remissions and payments as outlined in Section 4 above.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There are no financial implications arising from this report as this report has been provided for information purposes and rates have already been levied for 2016/2017.

7.1.2. However, rate remissions granted in 2016/2017 would be unfunded and would decrease Council’s budgeted operating surplus for 2016/2017.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Any increase in the pensioner concession provided by Council would need to be funded from budget estimates in the year provided and future years if Council resolved to do so.

7.2.2. There would be no impact on future years’ financial result from any increase in rate remissions as Council will simply set the budget for the amount of rates it needs to raise. However, granting a remission to some ratepayers means that other ratepayers will need to pay more in rates, effectively subsidising the remission, albeit the effect will be minor for individual ratepayers.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. Not applicable.

7.4. It should be noted that the City’s rates arrears are, by industry standards, very low. As at 30 June 2016 gross rates outstanding expressed as a percentage of annual rate revenue was 1.20%, the lowest figure since 30 June 2010 (which was the lowest figure for at least 20 years). The 2014/15 state average was 4.0%.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. These have been considered elsewhere in the report.

9. Delegation

9.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Lara MacDonell

Acting Director Financial Services

Date: 10 November 2016

File Reference: F16/125850; 22-2-1

Attachment a: Council Policy Rate Postponements ⇩

Attachment b: Section 87 - Local Government Act 1993 ⇩

Attachment c: Council Policy Rates Exemption - Charitable Purposes ⇩

Attachment d: Section 78 - Fire Service Act 1979 ⇩

Attachment e: Launceston City Council Policy Rate Remissions and Rebates ⇩

Attachment f: Tasmanian Government Concessions Guide 2016-17 ⇩

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance Committee Meeting

Page 153

15/11/2016

REPORT TITLE: City Parking Requirements 2016

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Group Manager Parking Operations

Acting Director Financial Services

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Finance Committee with statistical information in relation to the use of parking spaces in the City during the 2015/2016 financial year and to provide information as to future parking requirements.

2. Report Summary

2.1. Parking survey data collected for the 2015/2016 financial year indicates a stabilisation in the availability of short term parking both in the car parks and on street. Overall, council short term car park usage has increased, however, this increase is spread across the operating times resulting in parking availability at the peak times of the day.

2.2. Parking meter usage numbers have also remained stable. Locating a parking meter space in the central block of Hobart still remains challenging, with an average of only two metered spaces available at any time during the peak period of the day. The new 15 minute parking zone in Liverpool Street is also well utilised with an average peak period usage of 84%. Compliance in this area is quite good, resulting in regular turn-over of vehicles.

2.3. Once motorists move out, a one-block radius metered space availability increases. The average occupancy rate for the 2014/2015 financial year was 71%. The current occupation rate has increased to 73%, however, this still equates to better than one in five spaces being vacant.

2.4. The major areas of concern in previous years were Salamanca Place and Salamanca Square. These have now both experienced a decrease in parking demand as a result of the Montpelier Car Park re-opening.

2.5. Early bird car parking capacity in the City has increased by around 200 spaces in the past year. These spaces have quickly been snapped up by commuters, resulting in the early bird parking option being the most popular form of commuter parking over recent years.

2.6. Monthly permit parking occupation numbers have decreased slightly, which is a direct result of additional early bird parking becoming available. Often commuters will compare the cost of monthly parking with early bird parking, particularly if there is availability and more so when rostered days off and public holidays reduce the number of working days per month.

2.7. The primary objective of the provision of paid parking is to afford options for people who visit the City for business, to work or for shopping and socialising. The past twelve months have seen a stabilisation in parking usage and availability thanks mainly to additional early bird car parks opening and monthly permit car park numbers increasing.

2.8. Whilst it appears we currently have achieved a good balance between usage and availability we must be mindful that three of these new car parks are only temporary, therefore their closure could result in a shortage of parking. This requires close monitoring over the new few financial years to ensure we are adequately prepared.

3. Recommendation

That the information contained in the report of the Group Manager Parking Operations and the Acting Director Financial Services titled ‘City Parking Requirements 2016’ be received and noted.

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting of the 28October 2013, (Closed agenda, item 12) the Council resolved that a report be prepared to enable the Council to reconsider the car parking needs of the city.

4.2. This report was requested due to concerns raised by Aldermen that an amendment to the number of parking spaces being supplied in new developments may place pressure on future parking availability in the city.

4.3. The initial report was presented to the then Finance and Corporate Services Committee on the 16September 2014, and the report concluded that the 2013/2014 provision of both Council-operated and privately operated on and off street parking was sufficient to manage the demand at that time.

4.4. The Committee therefore resolved the following:

“In order to provide the Council with ongoing information on the state of parking in the City of Hobart, a report on city parking requirements be provided to the Finance and Corporate Services Committee annually”.

Methodology

4.5. In order to accurately predict the future parking requirements for the City of Hobart, the current status of parking had to be ascertained. This then becomes the base on which we commence measuring growth and change, therefore being a solid foundation for predicting what future trends or requirements may be.

4.6. To obtain the base information Parking Operations undertakes extensive surveys on the provision and utilisation of parking in the City of Hobart. This includes surveys of the following:

· Council short term car park usage.

· Council parking meter usage.

· Council long term (permit) car park usage.

· Council commuter car park usage.

· Privately operated long and short term parking usage.

· Privately operated Early Bird parking usage.

Survey Results

4.7. The following are a series of tables depicting the results of the surveys for the 2015/2016 financial year, along with brief comments on the methodology and results of each survey.

4.7.1. A condensed copy of the tables from 2014/2015 for reference and comparison is provided at Attachment A.

Council Short Term Multi-Storey Car Parks
Month	Argyle St 1180 spaces	Centrepoint 782 Spaces	Hobart Central 462 Spaces
	Percentage Full	Percentage Full	Percentage Full
Jul-15	88%	88%	94%
Aug-15	86%	84%	93%
Sep-15	87%	87%	91%
Oct-15	85%	84%	91%
Nov-15	92%	92%	93%
Dec-15	92%	91%	89%
Jan-16	81%	82%	77%
Feb-16	88%	86%	93%
Mar-16	84%	83%	92%
Apr-16	84%	90%	92%
May-16	91%	91%	93%
Jun-16	90%	89%	91%
Average Total	87%	87%	91%
Vacancies	153	102	41

4.8. The above table depicts the actual usage of Council’s multi-storey short term car parks for the twelve months ending July 2016.

4.8.1. The figures indicate the average percentage of occupation in each car park during the three hour peak period of the day (which is 11.00am – 2.00pm, Mon – Fri). The results here indicate that each car park still has vehicle availability during the busiest period of the day, year round.

4.8.2. When comparing the results to the 2014/2015 financial year, the overall peak period occupancy figures are very similar, with the only significant differences being a 2% increase in the use of Argyle Street Car Park since December 2015, which can possibly be attributed to the re-opening of Myer in November 2015, and a 3% decrease in the use of Hobart Central Car Park for the same period which is a result of an adjustment (decrease) in the number of early bird spaces being made available as from January 2016.

4.8.3. Overall the occupancy rate across all three car parks have increased, however, this increase is spread across the operating times resulting in availability at the peak times of the day.

4.8.4. Early bird parking operates in Hobart Central and Centrepoint Car Parks to fill the shortfall in short term parking. On average, around 250 spaces are offered daily. Usage in each car park is monitored on a daily basis, and the number of available early bird spaces is adjusted to ensure parking is always available for short term users.

4.8.5. Without early bird parking, there would be an oversupply of short term parking spaces available in car parks throughout the day. The use of early birds and/or the use of a combination of short term and long term parking in the majority of Hobart City Council and private multi-storey car parks have now become common practice.

4.8.6. Additional statistics gathered from the car parks indicate that Hobart Central and Centrepoint Car Parks did fill to capacity on occasions during the 2015/2016 financial year, however, each time it was for less than an hour. As a result, early bird numbers were adjusted in the following days.

4.8.7. Argyle Street Car Park only filled to capacity on four occasions, the first being the re-opening of Myer and the remainder being during December in the lead up to Christmas.

Council On-Street Meter Parking
Location	Number of spaces	Number Occupied	% Occupied
Central City Block	13	11	85%
1 Block Radius	305	223	73%
2+ Block Radius	1176	715	61%
Salamanca Place	210	143	68%
Salamanca Square	120	82	68%
Dunn Place	86	70	81%
North Hobart	80	34	42%
All Day	529	346	65%
Total	2519	1624	67%

4.9. The city parking meter survey was conducted by using a newly developed electronic surveying program that forms part of Council’s GIS mapping system.

4.9.1. Surveys of the Queens Domain, Dunn Place, Condell Place and Lefroy Street have been conducted by using actual live data produced from the new “on-line” parking meters.

4.9.2. The electronic survey of the city parking spaces was conducted at four intervals during the year. Each interval involved surveying at separate times of the day over four separate days; therefore resulting in multiple surveys or each metered space.

4.9.3. The number of meter spaces in the central city block reduced by three as a result of the Murray Street redevelopment of the Myer building. There are now only thirteen metered parking spaces in the entire central block.

4.9.4. The “1 and 2 block radius” areas have also experienced a reduction in the number of metered spaces as a result of the removal of spaces mainly in Barrack and Morrison Streets.

4.9.5. The survey results indicate that obtaining a parking meter space in the central block of Hobart remains difficult with an average of only two spaces available at any time during the peak period of the day. The fifteen minute parking zone in Liverpool Street is also well utilised with an average peak period usage of 84%.

4.9.6. Once motorists move out to a one block radius the availability becomes quite reasonable. The average occupancy rate for the 2014/2015 financial year was 71%. The current occupation rate has increased to 73%, however, this still equates to one in five spaces being vacant.

4.9.7. The city’s fringe areas (streets two blocks or more from the city centre) are still providing ample parking opportunities. The occupation rate has increased by two percent in the past year, but there is still a better than 39% chance of obtaining parking.

4.9.8. Salamanca Place has the heaviest usage outside of the city centre particularly around midday. The occupation rate in the 2014/2015 survey was at 77%. The 2015/2016 figures indicate a decrease of 9% to 68%, which would be directly attributed to the re-opening of the Montpelier Car Park. As was the case last year the majority of vacant spaces discovered during the survey were confined to the Davey Street end of Salamanca Place. The central areas, adjacent to restaurants, shops etc. were always well utilised.

4.9.9. Salamanca Square Car Park has had a 15% decrease in usage. This is the largest fluctuation of the survey, and again can be attributed to the re-opening of the Montpelier early bird car park and confirms the fact that a number of former users of Salamanca Square Car Park were commuters who fed the meters all day and moved their cars around every three hours.

4.9.10. The Dunn Place voucher car park remained a very popular parking location. The occupation percentage increased by thirteen percent, which can be attributed to the change in operating times of the museum and the fact that the car park offers longer time limits than other on street parking locations in the particular area.

4.9.11. All day parking numbers on the Queens Domain and other all day parking areas increased by an average of 49 vehicles per day in 2015/2016. Occupation currently stands at an average of 61% per day, leaving a further 180 spaces available each day. These spaces are usually the furthest from the city, on Lower Domain Road and above the TCA Ground.

Council Monthly Permit Car Parks
Car Park	No. of Spaces	Occupied	Vacant

Elizabeth Street	26	26	0
Goulburn Street	60	60	0
Hobart Central	44	40	4
Lefroy Street	24	16	8
Salamanca Square	126	99	27
Liverpool/Barrack Street	38	38	0
Trafalgar	544	470	74
Total	863	745	112

4.10. The Council operates seven monthly permit car parks with a total of 863 spaces available. The statistical information for long term car parks has been obtained at the time of writing this report.

4.10.1. With the exception of the Trafalgar and Salamanca Square Car Parks, for the majority of time each of the car parks is fully occupied. The current overall occupation rate is 86%.

4.10.2. Trafalgar Car Park was leased by the Council in July 2013. At that time 388 spaces were leased to long term permit holders. In the past three years 82 new permit holders have leased spaces, including multiple spaces leased to one prominent city hotel. The shortfall in permit parking is offset with early bird parkers each day, which results in the car park being full.

4.10.3. Salamanca Square Car Park has only recently had vacancies. This again is a result of the re-opening of the Montpelier Retreat Car Park.

4.10.4. Overall the occupation rates this current year are slightly down on last year, which is the expected result considering two new monthly permit car parks have opened in the city during that period.

Privately Operated Multi-Storey Car Parks
Car Park	Number. of Spaces	Type of Parking	% Occupied
Market Place	745	Monthly Permit Short Term Early Bird	95%
Cinema Car Park	425	Monthly Permit Short Term Early Bird	95%
Bathurst Street (Sultan Holdings)	146 (P)184 (E)	Monthly Permit Early Bird	95%

4.11. Market Place and the Cinema Car Park (Village Cinema, Collins Street) are both operated as a combination of short term, long term and early bird parking. The early bird parking in the Market Place Car Park operates on a valet system; therefore additional spaces are gained each day. Survey results indicated that the car park is almost full daily.

4.11.1. The Cinema Car Park was close to full most days. This car park underwent a redevelopment in 2015 which has increased the capacity by an additional 120 spaces, bringing it now to 425 spaces.

4.11.2. Sultan Holdings car park on the corner of Bathurst and Argyle Streets opened in late 2014. This was to originally contain around 700 short term, long term and early bird spaces. That figure was amended to make way for additional office space to accommodate Vodafone. The result is 330 parking spaces used as a combination of long term and early bird spaces. The car park is also at near capacity every day.

4.11.3. This car park along with Market Place offers set price (around $6.00) overnight parking, which could provide future options for city hotels.

Privately Operated Early Bird Car Parks
Car Park	Number of Spaces	Occupancy
Montpelier (Sultans)	109	95%
Montpelier Retreat (Carpark)	34	Full
Lower Collins Street	50	Full
Macquarie Point(Evans Street)	215	95%
Murray Street	18	Full
Watchorn Street	20	Full
Melville St (Former Websters)	213	Full
Goulburn Street	30	Full

4.12. Early bird parking is still very popular with commuters who do not wish to walk long distances to their place of work. The average daily rate for early bird parking is around $12.00 in the central CBD and $9.00 - $11.00 on the fringe.

4.12.1. For a number of commuters’ early bird parking is a more affordable option than parking in a monthly permit car park as the average working month is 21 days (including RDO’s).

4.12.2. There have been some changes in early bird parking availability since presenting the 2014/2015 City Parking Requirements report; the early bird car park at Molle Street containing 119 spaces has closed, whilst two new car parks have opened at Montpelier Retreat (109 spaces) and Evans Street (215 spaces). In total there are now an additional 205 early bird spaces available in and around the city.

4.12.3. With the inclusion of Council car parks there are now in excess of 1100 early bird parking spaces available to commuters throughout the city. The majority of designated early bird parking spaces fill each day, making it the area of parking with greatest popularity and largest growth.

Analysis of Survey Results

Short Term Car Parks

4.13. The use of Councils short term car parks is monitored on a daily basis. Vehicle usage statistics indicate that during the peak period of the day (11.00am – 2.00pm) an average of 296 spaces were vacant. This equates to 98 spaces being available over the 3 hour period in each of the three car parks.

4.14. Argyle Street is the busiest car park, however the 1180 available spaces still adequately caters for 1.25million vehicles per year. Centrepoint and Hobart Central Car Parks have 1244 spaces between them. The yearly combined vehicle numbers are in the vicinity of 800,000. These two car parks also provide early bird parking (around 250 spaces per day). This number is adjusted at peak times to allow for short term users.

4.15. Without early bird parking there would be an oversupply of short term parking spaces available in car parks throughout the day.

Short Term Meter Parking

4.16. On street meter parking is primarily designed to provide convenient parking for people who only need to stay for short periods in the city and surrounding areas (business, selected shopping etc). Pricing and the imposition of time limits are designed to create turnover so that spaces are always available for users.

4.17. The 2015/2016 statistics reveal an increase in overall usage, but still demonstrate that spaces are available in the areas of the City immediately outside of the central block. Similar to the situation in 2014/2015, the results are a good indication that collectively, pricing, time limits and the availability of off street short term parking is still providing motorists with good parking options.

4.18. Occupation rates in Salamanca Place and the Salamanca Square Car Park have decreased which coincides with the re-opening of the Sultan’s Montpelier Car Park. As a result there is an ample supply of parking available in these areas for both short and long term users.

4.19. Commuter parking on the Queens Domain has increased by an average of 49 vehicles per day, with the various parking areas now being at 65 percent capacity per day. In excess of 160 spaces are still available daily, mainly in the areas above the TCA ground and on the Lower Domain Road.

Long Term Parking

4.20. Turn-over of long term parking spaces remains constant. There is currently an 86% occupation rate in the Council’s long term car parks; with Salamanca Square and Trafalgar Car parks being the only car parks that have significant a waiting lists.

4.21. Of the 112 current vacancies, 74 of them occur in the Trafalgar Car Park, which is not a concern due to it also operating as an early bird car park, filling to capacity daily.

4.22. Privately operated monthly permit car parks appear to be well patronised, whilst it is difficult to ascertain, due to their multi-use, most appear to be near to capacity. As indicated earlier in this report a number of commuters now prefer early bird parking to monthly permit parking as it is in most cases a more affordable option.

4.23. Once again the best measure is availability. The current situation provides that most car parks are near capacity, however with regular turn-over and no waiting lists prospective permit holders can still obtain spaces.

Early Bird Car Parks

4.24. Early bird parking has become the most popular form of commuter parking in recent years. The combined total of early bird car parks in the city now exceeds 1200. A good indication of its popularity during the year was the opening of the Montpelier and Evans Street car parks, within a short period of the opening early bird numbers were at near capacity.

4.25. There is also potential for additional early bird car parks to be opened as operators such as CarePark, Securepark and Wilsons Parking are constantly looking for new sites in the city.

Commuter Parking

4.26. Voucher parking on the Queens Domain commenced operating in August 2014. In total 388 spaces are available at a cost of $4.00 per day.

4.27. The Lower Domain Road has 93 all day metered parking spaces available at a daily rate of $4.00.

4.28. A total of 48 metered all day commuter parking spaces have also been installed in locations on the fringe of the City.

4.29. The total number of Hobart City Council operated commuter spaces available daily is 529. Survey results indicate an average daily usage of 346. The results also indicate that the majority of vacancies occur in the Lower Domain Road area and areas above the TCA ground.

Privately operated multi-storey car parks

4.30. The privately operated multi storey car parks are well patronised on a daily basis. The Market Place Car park operators have capitalised on this by valet parking vehicles, therefore gaining up to 50 additional spaces daily.

4.31. The redeveloped Cinema Car Park in Collins Street has also been well patronised. This car park provides a combination of short term, long term and early bird parking and is at 95% capacity daily.

4.32. Sultan Holdings Vodafone car park on the corner of Bathurst and Argyle Streets opened in late 2014. This was to originally contain around 700 short term, long term and early bird spaces. That figure was amended to 330 parking spaces used as a combination of long term and early bird spaces. The car park is also at near capacity every day.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the information provided in this report be received and noted.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Strategic Objective 2.1 is applicable in considering this report:

“A fully accessible and connected city environment”.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There is no impact on the current year operating result.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

Not applicable.

9. Delegation

9.1. This matter is delegated to the Finance Committee.

Matthew Tyrrell

Group Manager Parking Operations

Lara MacDonell

Acting Director Financial Services

Date: 10 November 2016

File Reference: F16/125870; 35-1-4

Attachment a: 2014/2015 Parking Statistical Information ⇩

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance Committee Meeting - 15/11/2016

Page 164

ATTACHMENT a

2014/15 Parking Statistical Information

Council Short Term Multi-Storey Car Parks
Month	Argyle St 1180 spaces	Centrepoint 782 Spaces	Hobart Central 462 Spaces
	Percentage Full	Percentage Full	Percentage Full
Jul-14	94%	95%	90%
Aug-14	90%	85%	90%
Sep-14	90%	90%	93%
Oct-14	80%	86%	87%
Nov-14	88%	94%	95%
Dec-14	86%	93%	91%
Jan-15	77%	85%	91%
Feb-15	88%	84%	94%
Mar-15	87%	88%	94%
Apr-15	83%	87%	96%
May-15	89%	91%	97%
Jun-15	84%	90%	98%
Average Total	87%	89%	93%
Vacancies	153	86	32

Council on-Street Meter Parking
Location	Number of spaces	Number Occupied	% Occupied
Central City Block	16	14	88%
1 Block Radius	326	232	71%
2+ Block Radius	1167	686	59%
Salamanca Place	212	163	77%
Salamanca Square	120	99	83%
Dunn Place	86	58	68%
North Hobart (new)	80	37	46%
All Day (new)	486	297	61%
Total	2493	1586	69%

Council Monthly Permit Car Parks
Car Park	No. of Spaces	Occupied	Vacant
Elizabeth St	26	25	1
Goulburn St	60	55	5
Hobart Central	50	44	6
Lefroy St	24	19	5
Salamanca Square	126	126	0
Liverpool/Barrack	38	37	1
Trafalgar	544	481	63
Total	868	783	81

Privately Operated Multi-Storey Car Parks
Car Park	No. of Spaces	Type of Parking	% Occupancy
Market Place	745	Monthly permit Short Term Early Bird	95%
Cinema Car Park	425	Monthly permit Short Term Early Bird	95%
Bathurst Street (Sultan Holdings)	330	Monthly Permit Early Bird	95%

Privately Operated Early Bird Car Parks
Car Park	No. of Spaces	Occupancy
Montpelier Retreat	34	Full
Lower Collins St (new)	50	Full
Molle Street	119	Full
Murray Street	18	Full
Watchorn Street	20	Full
Melville St (Former Websters)	213	Full
Goulburn Street	30	Full

Item No. 6.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance Committee Meeting

Page 167

15/11/2016

REPORT TITLE: Implementation of 'No Business in Abuse' Pledge

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Acting Director Financial Services

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report is provided to address the implementation of the ‘No Business in Abuse’ pledge as it relates to the Council’s procurement practices and includes broadening the scope of Council’s existing ethical purchasing principles as outlined in the Hobart City Council Code for Tenders and Contracts, as requested by the Council at its meeting on 19 September 2016.

1.2. This report seeks the Council’s approval of amendments to the Hobart City Council Code for Tenders and Contracts to reflect that Council wishes to do business with organisations that have high ethical and socially responsible standards and explaining what is expected of suppliers submitting tenders or quotations for Council business.

1.3. The community benefit is to take steps to ensure that Council only supports and /or contract with companies, institutions and organisations that refuse to support or profit from practices which abuse the fundamental human rights of asylum seekers.

2. Report Summary

2.1. A petition containing 177 signatures was presented to the Council at its meeting held on 22 February 2016, requesting that the Council endorse the ‘No Business in Abuse’ pledge and take concrete steps to ensure that the Council does not engage in business relationships with Broadspectrum (formerly Transfield Services) or Wilson Security.

2.2. By signing the pledge, the Council would agree, in principle, to only support and/or contract companies, institutions and organisations that refuse to support or profit from practices which abuse the fundamental human rights of asylum seekers. A company that is not abusive is one which:

2.2.1. Has zero tolerance for child abuse, in policy and practice;

2.2.2. Respect people’s fundamental rights to freedom from arbitrary and indefinite detention;

2.2.3. Does not treat people in a cruel, inhumane or degrading manner; and

2.2.4. Commits to transparency and independent monitoring to ensure these principles are upheld.

2.3. At its meeting on 19 September 2016, the Council resolved that:

2.3.1. The Council provide in principle approval to endorse the ‘No Business in Abuse’ pledge and take steps to ensure that the Council does not engage in business relationships with Broadspectrum or Wilson Security.

2.3.2. A further report be provided to address the implementation of the pledge as it relates to the Council’s procurement practices, including broadening the scope of Council’s existing ethical purchasing principles as outlined in the Hobart City Council Code for Tenders and Contracts.

2.4. To adopt a position that the Council will not deal with the named organisations is not in the spirit of the legislation or Council’s Code for Tenders and Contracts (the Code) and does not address that businesses are constantly changing their operations, focus and business models.

2.5. It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt a broader approach and incorporate socially responsible and ethical practices into Council’s Code, purchasing policy and processes to ensure that going forward tenders and quotes are accepted only from organisations that have high ethical standards and refuse to support or profit from practices which abuse the fundamental human rights of asylum seekers.

2.6. Changes to Council’s Code and Procurement Policy, tender and quotation evaluation criteria, a new Schedule in Council’s Tender and RFQ Forms, a review of Council’s Agreements, the incorporation of social and ethical factors into procurement risk assessments and awareness / education for Officers is proposed.

2.7. The proposed changes will ensure that procurement decisions are made in accordance with Council’s ethical standards and contractual relationships are with organisations that ethically share the same values or ethical standards as the Council or the community expects.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council approve the implementation approach for the ‘No Business in Abuse’ pledge.

2. The Council adopt the amended Hobart City Council Code for Tenders and Contracts marked as Attachment B to this report.

3. The General Manager be authorised to finalise the Hobart City Council Code for Tenders and Contracts and arrange for it to be made available to the public in paper format from the Council’s Customer Service Centre and in an electronic format from Council’s website.

4. Background

4.1. A petition containing 177 signatures was presented to the Council at its meeting held on 22 February 2016, seeking the Council’s support of the ‘No Business in Abuse’ pledge. Councils across the country have been similarly approached.

4.2. The No Business in Abuse campaign is a campaign in partnership between No Business in Abuse and Get Up! More information regarding the pledge and campaign can be found from the following website: https://www.nobusinessinabuse.org/site/about.

4.3. The petition requested that the Council endorse the ‘No Business in Abuse’ pledge and take concrete steps to ensure that the Council does not engage in business relationships with Broadspectrum (formerly Transfield Services) or Wilson Security.

4.4. By signing the pledge, the Council would agree, in principle, to only support and /or contract companies, institutions and organisations that refuse to support or profit from practices which abuse the fundamental human rights of asylum seekers. A company that is not abusive is one which:

4.4.1. Has zero tolerance for child abuse, in policy and practice;

4.4.2. Respect people’s fundamental rights to freedom from arbitrary and indefinite detention;

4.4.3. Does not treat people in a cruel, inhumane or degrading manner; and

4.4.4. Commits to transparency and independent monitoring to ensure these principles are upheld.

4.5. Further information describing a company that is not abusive according to the ‘No Business in Abuse’ pledge is attached – refer Attachment A.

4.6. A report was prepared for the Special Community, Culture and Events Committee meeting on 19 September 2016, detailing how the pledge aligns with the Council’s Social Inclusion Strategy and discussing Council’s ethical purchasing standards and contractual relationships with organisations that ethically do not share the same values or ethical standards as the Council or community expectations.

4.7. At its meeting on 19 September 2016 Council resolved that:

4.7.1. The Council provide in principle approval to endorse the ‘No Business in Abuse’ pledge and take steps to ensure that the Council does not engage in business relationships with Broadspectrum or Wilson Security.

4.7.2. A further report be provided to address the implementation of the pledge as it relates to the Council’s procurement practices, including broadening the scope of Council’s existing ethical purchasing principles as outlined in the Hobart City Council Code for Tenders and Contracts.

4.8. Council does not currently have any contractual relationships with Broadspectrum or Wilson Security Group.

4.9. In its Code, the Council has already adopted a purchasing principle of ethical purchasing standards. Examples are the requirement that the purchase of tea room products (e.g. tea, coffee, sugar, etc) shall be Fairtrade Certified and avoiding the purchase of Dumped Goods.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Regulation 28 of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) requires that Council’s Code include promotion of, amongst other principles, the principles of open and effective competition, ethical behaviour and fair dealings. Therefore, it is arguably not in the spirit of the Regulations to simply build into the Council’s Code and purchasing policy that the Council will not do business with the organisations outlined in section 4.7.1. above.

5.2. If these companies responded to Council’s Request for Tender (RFT) or Request for Quotation (RFQ) it may not be appropriate to reject their submission on the basis of the Council resolution particularly if their tender / quote otherwise complied with Council’s Code for Tenders and Contracts.

5.3. Furthermore, while these organisations currently have the Government contracts for the detention centres, they may not have them in the future and other organisations may be awarded these contracts. These organisations may subcontract the works to other organisations or indeed change their company name.

5.4. The Council’s purchasing process needs to be as transparent as possible within commercial and legal constraints. This means being open with all those involved so that everyone, especially suppliers understands the elements of the process before they submit a tender or quotation.

5.5. It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt a broader approach and incorporate socially responsible and ethical practices into the Council’s Code, purchasing policy and procurement processes to ensure that going forward tenders and quotes are accepted only from organisations that have high ethical standards and refuse to support or profit from practices which abuse the fundamental human rights of asylum seekers. In addition, suppliers will understand what ethical and corporate social standards the Council expects of organisations that Council does business with.

5.6. The following is proposed:

5.6.1. Amendments to Council’s Code for Tenders and Contracts and Purchasing Policy and Guidelines to make it clear that Council wishes to do business with organisations that have high ethical and socially responsible standards and explaining what is expected of suppliers.

5.6.2. As part of the RFT or RFQ process, include social and ethical responsibility as a mandatory selection criteria. Any company that provides a tender or quote that doesn’t meet this criteria would be a non-conforming tender/quote.

5.6.3. The incorporation of a new Schedule in the RFT and RFQ forms such that suppliers provide Council with a signed declaration and supporting statement that they do not profit from detention centres. This will allow appropriate checks and due diligence to be undertaken.

5.6.4. A review of Council’s standard Agreements to ensure appropriate provisions for the cessation of contractual relationships in the event a change to suppliers business practices occurs during the Contract Term.

5.6.5. The incorporation of social and ethical factors into procurement risk assessments.

5.6.6. A staff awareness campaign to ensure all Officers undertaking a RFQ process are aware of the changes above and know how to procure accordingly. This will include training for the Council’s Procurement Officers.

5.7. The proposed changes will ensure that the Council’s procurement decisions are made in accordance with the Council’s ethical standards and contractual relationships with organisations that ethically share the same values or ethical standards as the Council or community expectations.

5.8. The proposed changes to the Code will ensure that the Council’s position on the ‘No Business in Abuse’ pledge is transparent and publicly available to organisations wishing to do business with the Council.

5.9. It is proposed that the Council adopt the attached Hobart City Council Code for Tenders and Contracts, as amended, and make copies available to the public in a paper format from the Customer Service Centre and in electronic format prominently from the Council’s website as required under section 333(B)(4) of the LG Act, which states that:

5.9.1. The general manager is to make a copy of the council's code and any amendments to the code available –

5.9.1.1. (a) for public inspection at the public office during ordinary office hours; and

(b) for purchase at a reasonable charge; and

(c) on its internet site free of charge.

5.10. An amended version of the Hobart City Council Code for Tenders and Contracts is attached – refer Attachment B.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This report relates to the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025, specifically:

Goal 4 - Strong, Safe and Healthy Communities
Strategic Objective 4.3 - “Build community resilience, public health and safety” and Strategic Objective 4.4 - “Community diversity is encouraged and celebrated”; and

Goal 5 - Governance
Strategic Objective 5.3 - “Quality services are delivered in a safe, cost effective and efficient way”.

6.2. There is strong alignment with the Social Inclusion Strategy 2014 - 2019 and the Multicultural Strategy 2014 - 2019.

6.3. This report proposes amendments to the Hobart City Council Code for Tenders and Contracts.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There are no financial implications arising from this report.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Not applicable.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. Not applicable.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. It is acknowledged that factoring in ethical purchasing decisions into procurement practices can be difficult and complex as businesses are constantly changing their operations, focus and business model.

8.2. The Local Government (General Regulations) 2015 requires Council to ensure appropriate policies exist with regards to contracts and tenders.

8.3. The recommendations in this report are designed to address community expectation and the Council’s procurement processes, to ensure that matters such as ethical business practices can be taken into account in selecting suppliers based on corporate social responsibility.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. The City of Hobart Social Inclusion Strategy 2014 - 2019 focuses on the fundamental right of every individual to have the opportunity to participate equally, socially, culturally, economically, physically and politically in society. The exercise of this right benefits everyone and is the fundamental building block for healthy and whole communities.

9.2. Two of the guiding principles of the Social Inclusion Strategy are particularly relevant in respect to this report:

· Ensuring that the needs and aspirations of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in the community are addressed in partnership with other key stakeholders; and

· Ensuring the City of Hobart’s practices, policies and procedures actively build social inclusion and do not contribute to social exclusion.

9.3. A role for the Council under the Social Inclusion Strategy is advocacy, where it states that “There are many issues and opportunities where the City of Hobart can use its voice to advocate for outcomes that will benefit all”.

10. Delegation

10.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Lara MacDonell

Acting Director Financial Services

Date: 10 November 2016

File Reference: F16/124795; 15-1-2

Attachment a: City of Hobart Code for Tenders and Contracts ⇩

Attachment b: No Business in Abuse Pledge Information ⇩

Item No. 6.6

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance Committee Meeting

Page 204

15/11/2016

REPORT TITLE: Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion: Request for Land Owner Consent to Lodge a Development Application

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Group Manager Executive & Economic Development

Economic Development Project Officer

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to request consent from the Council as landowner to lodge a development application for a second floor restaurant above the existing Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion.

1.1.1. This would be beneficial to the community as it broadens the uses of the existing building, enabling wider community use.

1.1.2. The proposed design also enables better access for the public from Sandy Bay Road down to Long Beach.

1.1.3. The operation of a restaurant at this location would result in revenue creation for the Council which in turn would be beneficial for the community.

2. Report Summary

2.1. This report presents the final designs (Attachment A) created by local architects Terroir to be submitted as part of the development application process for a second floor restaurant above the existing Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion.

2.2. Draft designs were presented to Aldermen in a briefing session on 18 October 2016 by Terroir.

2.3. Permission is being sought from the Council as landowner for the submission of a development application (DA) for this site.

2.4. The designs displayed in this report and other supporting information for the lodging of the DA including the conservation management plan, consultation with the Heritage Council, advice from David Reed (creative consultant in tourism and business), David Quon & Associates (hospitality, consulting and design) and preliminary planning advice from Emma Riley + Associates) have been formulated over the last 18 months.

2.5. Should the Council as land owner grant permission to lodge a DA and a DA be granted free from third party appeal, a further report will be brought to the Council recommending the most appropriate way of tendering this opportunity.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council as the landowner consents to the lodging of a development application for a second floor restaurant above the existing Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion.

2. A further report be provided once the outcome of the development application process is known.

4. Background

4.1. The Council on 21 December 2015 resolved:

That:

1. The Council authorise the General Manager to progress an expansion of use of the Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion by developing and submitting a development application for a generic restaurant facility, on a second floor, at an estimated cost of up to $20,000.

2. Subject to the development approval, a further report be provided detailing the proposed tender process for the Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion facility use.

4.2. This report is demonstrable progress against the Council resolution above.

History of the site

4.3. The Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion (the Pavilion) is a Council asset, located at 646A Sandy Bay Road.

4.4. It was designed by Dirk Bolt, an architect at Hartley Wilson & Bolt, and constructed in 1962. A feature of the construction is the pre-cast concrete facade created by artist Ronald Sinclair.

4.5. The Pavilion has been utilised, in part, by Surf Life Saving Association of Tasmania since 1969.

4.6. Surf Life Saving Association of Tasmania has a long-standing lease on the property. The current lease expires in 2020.

4.7. The Pavilion site was transferred to Hobart City Council from the Crown through the Crown Land Assessment and Classification project on 28 January 2010, for the purpose of public recreation.

4.8. The title has ‘Reversionary Conditions’ set forth in the transfer that reserve the right unto the Crown to resume the land if it is not being used for public recreation or if the land is used for any other purpose without Ministerial approval.

4.9. The pavilion is currently listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR) - ID number 7480. Its status is recorded as ‘permanently registered’ at tier level ‘State’. The significance of this listing is as follows (Section 32 of the Cultural Heritage Act 1995):

‘A person must not carry out any works in relation to a registered place or a place within a heritage area which may affect the historical cultural significance of the place unless works are approved by the Heritage Council.’

History of Development

2001

4.10. In May 2001, the Council issued a Planning Permit (Development Application Number 210276) under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and the City of Hobart Planning Scheme 1982 (the Scheme) for the extension and partial change of use to restaurant and car parking at the Pavilion.

4.11. The proposal was for a 90 seat restaurant to be constructed above the existing Pavilion and for an additional 18 car parking spaces to be allocated at the site.

4.12. Seven car parking spaces were to be constructed, with Council to take ‘cash-in-lieu’ for the remaining 11 spaces.

4.13. Council received numerous representations.

4.14. In December 2001, the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal set aside the Council’s permit and it was replaced with a refusal.

4.15. This was based largely on inadequate car parking at the site in relation to the scale of the restaurant.

4.16. The Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal also refused the application based on amenity which related to the restaurant being out of scale (too large) to be catering only for the nearby residential precincts.

2009

4.17. In July 2009, the General Manager presented a memorandum to Finance and Corporate Services Committee (FCSC) highlighting recent recreational developments completed in the vicinity and suggesting that it would be timely for Council to reconsider development at the Pavilion.

4.18. This suggestion was supported by the Council and the Executive Manager City Design made a presentation to the Council with a concept design of a restaurant development on an upper level of the existing Pavilion.

4.19. The project was not progressed at this point.

2013

4.20. A notice of motion was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 29 May 2013. This stated:

That a report be prepared examining possible redevelopment and future uses of the upper level of the Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion.

4.21. A subsequent report was taken to FCSC on 16 July 2013 that considered future options for the building. The Council resolved the following:

That: 1. The Council proceed with the development of the Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion site.

2. Additional information be provided in respect to conditions that may be applied to an Expression of Interest process for the site.

3. The advice of the Tasmanian Heritage Council be sought in respect to achievable design parameters for a development.

4.22. A further report was taken to FCSC on 19 November 2013 that set out the steps required to develop an upper level of the Pavilion and requested the Council’s permission to commence design of the second floor. The following was resolved:

That the matter be deferred in order for the Tasmanian Heritage Council (THC) to be consulted in respect to the Council’s proposed development of the Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion, with the aim of seeking feedback on the merits of the original Dirk Bolt design for the upper level and what the THC may regard as achievable design parameters for a development.

4.23. Consultation with the Tasmanian Heritage Council confirmed that a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) should be prepared before any consideration of future development options.

4.24. The CMP was thus commissioned, with the key points below:

4.24.1. Cultural Significance:

“Long Beach Bathing Pavilion has high historic cultural heritage”.

4.24.2. Conservation Policy / Future Development Potential

“While the integrity of the original architecture is of major conservation concern, given the original intention of an upper level, the sensitive addition of an upper level should not be detrimental to the heritage significance of the Pavilion as constructed in 1962.”

4.24.3. Structural Observations

“...the identified defects would require substantial rectification to ensure their integrity if a second floor was to rely on the existing structure. The application of a new ancillary structure would provide a verification of structural capacity in an economical manner.”

4.25. Upon finalisation of the CMP, a report was taken to the Council in December 2015 with the resolution listed in this report in section 4.1 asking that the General Manager progress a development application for a restaurant on a second floor above the Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion.

Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015

4.26. The City of Hobart Planning scheme 1982 has been replaced by the Interim Planning Scheme 2015. With this in mind, the following is noted:

4.27. The Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion is located in the Open Space Zone, the purposes of which are:

4.27.1. To provide land for open space purposes including for passive recreation and natural or landscape amenity.

4.27.2. To encourage open space networks that are linked through the provision of walking and cycling trails.

4.27.3. To encourage passive recreational opportunities, and allow for tourist operation uses, which are consistent with the protection of bushland and foreshore values.

4.28. Discretionary uses associated with this zone which may be relevant to the Pavilion are ‘food services’, ‘community meeting and entertainment’ and ‘general retail and hire’.

4.29. Discretionary uses must complement and enhance the use of the land for recreational purposes by providing for facilities and services that augment and support passive recreation use.

4.30. The requirements for parking are also discretionary and must be evaluated as part of the approvals process.

4.31. Any uses which are not ‘No Permit Required’ or ‘Discretionary’ are prohibited within this zone, however applications for prohibited uses on heritage listed places, if it would facilitate the restoration, conservation and future maintenance of the historic cultural heritage significance of the place, can be considered.

4.32. The Pavilion is listed as a heritage place in the Historic Heritage Code.

4.33. The planning scheme also lists requirements with regards to heritage and waterway and coastal protection that would need to be considered as part of a development application.

Final Design Concept

4.34. Based on the design of the existing building, original design of the second floor, conservation management plan, consultation with the Heritage Council, advice from David Reed (creative consultant in tourism and business) and David Quon & Associates (hospitality, consulting and design), as well as preliminary planning advice from Emma Riley + Associates) the final design for the restaurant has been developed by Terroir (Attachment A).

4.35. The design has been developed with the consideration of a number of design principles as articulated by Terroir:

4.35.1. The new upper level is within the envelope of the original Dirk Bolt design for the second floor (see Attachment A).

4.35.2. The new structure addresses the CMP’s acknowledgement of a rhythm of vertical elements in the existing building. New upper level columns are aligned to every second existing lower level structural column. Vertical butt-joins in the strip window provide a further subtle vertical rhythm.

4.35.3. The horizontal emphasis of the new floor compliments the horizontal emphasis of the existing building, particularly the existing significant feature mural panel which is in line with the conservation management plan.

4.35.4. The proposed white concrete material provides a cost effective durable finish in this maritime context, and is sympathetic to the existing masonry building. The new material will not contrast with the quality of the existing feature mural panel.

4.35.5. Whilst relatively simple in external appearance, the interior ceiling’s folded quality makes a connection to the varied views on offer from inside, including near and distant water views and further around to the pinnacle of kunanyi / Mount Wellington.

4.35.6. The roof repeats the interesting folded quality of the interior ceiling as an acknowledgement that passers-by and residents higher up on the opposite side of Sandy Bay Road will look down on the roof.

4.35.7. A single disruption to the water-facing façade’s new solid horizontal element, is the cut-out on the upper edge. This cut-out reduces the impact of the new element so as not to over-power the existing building, especially the significant mural element, and reduces the impact of the building when viewed from Sandy Bay Road.

4.35.8. Except for removal of a few to enable the access from Sandy Bay Road, the existing trees along the Sandy Bay Road boundary have been retained. The new building is generally concealed by these trees and the rising road.

4.35.9. A new lift and stair is located at the west/car park end of the building – providing public access between the lower promenade and upper new function and Sandy Bay Road levels. By placing these facilities external to the building, they provide valuable general public amenity. The potential for the new lift shaft to visually dominate the new building has been addressed by cladding the new shaft in bluestone gabion walls, consistent with the existing (and relatively recent) gabion wall to the car park. To further reduce impact, the scale of stones differ between top and bottom portions of the lift shaft enclosure – to visually “lighten” the upper portion.

4.36. The basic layout of the restaurant was designed in partnership by Terroir and David Quon & Associates and is based on what is deemed acceptable for a destination restaurant in terms of space required per person and resultant kitchen space required (Attachment A).

4.37. It is noted that the potential development of a new upper level to the Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion, if successful, may also allow for the opportunity for the Council to reconsider how the current ground floor of the Pavilion is utilised. If the Council was minded to consider this option a further report can be provided in due course.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council as landowner gives consent for the lodging of a development application for a second floor restaurant facility above the existing Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion.

5.2. Subject to permission to lodge the DA, this will be assessed by the Council as the planning authority.

5.3. As part of the DA process, Council is required to advertised the DA for 14 days an invite representations.

5.4. Any representations must be considered as part of the DA assessment.

5.5. It is possible that a decision granting the DA or refusing the DA may be appealed.

5.6. Should a development application be approved free from third party appeal, a subsequent report will be taken to Council recommending the optimum tender process for taking the opportunity to the market.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The development of a second floor restaurant facility on top of the existing Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion is in line with the following Council strategies:

6.1.1. Hobart 2025 Strategic Framework:

1.1.5 Support niche and local business activities that promote the uniqueness of Hobart and Tasmania.

1.2.1 Continue to develop Hobart’s cultural strengths to support lifestyle and employment choices.

2.1.2 Protect and enhance the value of foreshore locations as useable public assets.

4.3.2 Improve access to waterfront, waterways and foreshore spaces.

7.3.2 Support multi-functional venues, facilities and spaces suitable for a full range of events and activities for all ages and cultures.

6.1.2. Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025

1.4.1 Ensure Council owned assets reflect visitor requirements.

1.4.2 Engage and continue to work with the tourism sector.

2.4.3 Support and communicate the concept of adaptive reuse of heritage assets to promote heritage conservation practices.

4.2.2 Support effective utilisation of city facilities, infrastructure and open spaces.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. A sum of $20,000 has been allocated from the Parks and Recreation Management Budget Division budget 2016/2017 for the purpose of developing and submitting a DA for a restaurant facility on a second floor above the existing Sandy Bay bathing Pavilion.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Should a DA be granted, there will be costs associated with promoting the opportunity to the market which will vary depending on the level of involvement of the Council. For example, the Council could decide to develop the restaurant and lease it out or may grant a third party rights to develop the restaurant and operate it etc.

7.2.2. If a development application was not granted, there would be costs associated with an appeal process.

7.2.3. If a development application was granted and this was appealed by a third party, there would be costs associated with this process.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. This provides an opportunity for this asset to generate more revenue than it currently yields but will be dependent on the level of involvement of Council.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. If a DA was granted, this may be appealed by a third party.

8.2. If a DA was not granted, a decision would need to be made whether to appeal this.

8.3. In the preparation of the development application and this report advice has been received from:

8.3.1. Terroir architects;

8.3.2. Emma Rile & Associates Consultant Planners;

8.3.3. Two independent hospitality consultants; and

8.3.4. The Tasmanian Heritage Council.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. If a DA was granted, the Council as landowner would have a level of control over the environmental impacts of the development.

9.2. The impact of the development from a noise perspective has been considered as part of the DA process. Efforts have been made to minimise noise.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. Currently the Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion is used by the community as there is a public toilet provision on site. The existing building is leased by a community group (Surf Life Saving Association of Tasmania) until 2020. The development of a restaurant facility on a second floor would expand the uses of the building, thus expanding the potential community uses.

10.2. The second floor of the building will be fully accessible by people with disabilities.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. Should a DA be granted, the media would be used to advertise the opportunity.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. As part of the statutory planning process, the DA must be advertised for 14 days. Advertising in this context means Council officers will notify the owners / occupiers of any property which shares a boundary with the land subject to the development application; place an advertisement in The Mercury Newspaper and place a notice on all public frontages bounded by the property which is the subject of the development application.

12.2. A discussion has been had with the Surf Life Saving Association of Tasmania of the Council’s intention to develop a second floor restaurant facility. Surf Life Saving Association of Tasmania was supportive of this development.

13. Delegation

13.1. This matter is delegated to the Council as landowner.

Tim Short

Group Manager Executive & Economic Development

Lucy Knott

Economic Development Project Officer

Date: 10 November 2016

File Reference: F16/126787

Attachment a: Terroir Final Designs Second Floor Restaurant Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion ⇩

Item No. 6.7

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance Committee Meeting

Page 221

15/11/2016

REPORT TITLE: Tasmanian Hockey Centre, New Town - Proposed Optus Infrastructure and Related Sub-Lease

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Program Leader Recreation and Projects

Manager Parks and Recreation

Director Parks and City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to consider a request from Optus to place a mobile phone base station at the Tasmanian Hockey Centre, 1 Bell Street, New Town.

1.2. The report also seeks consideration of a request from Hockey Tasmania to sub-lease part of the Centre to Optus for the base station.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The City has received correspondence from Optus requesting landlord approval to install telecommunication infrastructure at the Tasmanian Hockey Centre, New Town.

2.2. Hockey Tasmania has also requested permission to enable a sub-lease with Optus at the Centre to allow for the proposed development.

2.3. The proposal to install a new turret head frame and aerials on an existing light pole at the Centre on the south western corner of the property and a new equipment shelter in close proximity is considered a low impact facility under the City of Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 and as such a development application is not required.

2.4. Optus has undertaken community engagement, with a report detailing the results attached to this report (refer Attachment A).

2.5. During the engagement period, there was one submission received raising concern as to the potential electromagnetic energy related to the proposal.

2.6. The potential emissions have been assessed and will operate considerably below the Australian Standards which are based on strict World Health Organisation guidelines.

2.7. As such the report is recommending that landlord approval and the request for the sub-lease be granted.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Landlord approval be granted for the installation of a new turret head frame and aerials on an existing light pole at the Tasmanian Hockey Centre.

2. Hockey Tasmania be granted approval to enter into a sub-lease with Optus for the site of this proposal on the condition that the expiry of the sub-lease coincides with the expiry of the head lease in 2029.

4. Background

4.1. Optus has recently investigated opportunities to upgrade their services at a number of sites in and around Hobart and have identified areas in North Hobart, New Town, Glebe, South Hobart and Sandy Bay as having poor service.

4.2. Optus is proposing a number of new installations across the City, a number of which are on City land including:

4.2.1. Tasmanian Hockey Centre, New Town;

4.2.2. Sandown Park, Sandy Bay; and

4.2.3. TCA Ground, Queens Domain.

4.3. In July 2016, a representative from Optus contacted the lessee of the Tasmanian Hockey Centre to request approval for new infrastructure to be installed at the Hockey Centre to provide an improved coverage in the North Hobart and New Town areas.

4.4. Hockey Tasmania approved the proposal in-principle for Optus to install a new turret head frame and aerials on an existing light pole at the Centre on the south western corner of the property and a new equipment shelter in close proximity.

4.5. Hockey Tasmania wrote to the City on 19 August 2016, requesting permission to enter into a sub-lease with Optus and for the 10 year option in their current lease agreement to be enacted thereby allowing the lease until 2029.

4.6. A letter was sent to Hockey Tasmania granting approval for the 10 year option.

4.7. Optus also made contact with the City’s Development Appraisal Planner who advised that the proposal was deemed to be low impact under the City of Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 and therefore a development application was not required, however the City would need to see evidence of community engagement prior to considering the request from a landlord perspective.

4.8. Optus undertook the required consultation which included:

4.8.1. Letterbox drop to 550 residential, recreational and commercial properties within a 500 metres radius of the proposal.

4.8.2. Letters addressed to two community sensitive locations (The Friends School and Southern Childcare Services).

4.8.3. Public advertisement in ‘The Mercury’.

4.8.4. Two signs placed on site.

4.8.5. Consultation page on the RFNSA (Radio Frequency National Site Archive) website.

4.9. The community engagement concluded on 9 September 2016, with one submission received raising concerns about potential electromagnetic energy from the proposed facility.

4.10. The consultation report is attached to this report (Attachment A).

4.11. Optus now requests the City consider the proposal from a landlord perspective and have supplied plans of the proposed development (refer Attachment B).

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council provide landlord approval for the installation of a new turret head frame and aerials on an existing light pole at the Tasmanian Hockey Centre.

5.2. It is also proposed that Hockey Tasmania be granted approval to enter into a sub-lease with Optus for the site of this proposal on the condition that the expiry of the sub-lease coincides with the expiry of the head lease in 2029.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposal is line with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025, Strategic Objective 2.3:

City and regional planning ensures quality design, meets community needs and maintains residential amenity.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There will be no financial implication to the City as a result of this proposal.

7.1.2. Any income from the proposal will be subject to a commercial arrangement between Optus and Hockey Tasmania, with the income utilised to invest into the Centre and provide improved recreational opportunities.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. None foreseen.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. All assets will remain the property of Optus, with the exception of the light tower which is owned by Hockey Tasmania.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. As noted previously, the proposal does not require a development application as it is considered low impact.

8.2. The terms of the sub-lease of the facility will need to be considered so as they comply with the lease between the City and Hockey Tasmania.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. As noted, there was one submission received during the community engagement period which raised concern as to potential electromagnetic energy from the site.

9.2. Optus have advised that the potential emissions have been assessed and will operate considerably below the Australian Standards which are based on strict World Health Organisation guidelines.

9.3. The resident who raised the concern has been advised of this and provided with relevant information.

10. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

10.1. As noted Optus have undertaken an extensive community engagement process with the results attached to this report (refer Attachment A).

11. Delegation

11.1. This matter is delegated to the Council

Shannon avery

Shannon Avery

Program Leader Recreation and Projects

Simon Harrison

Manager Parks and Recreation

Glenn Doyle

Director Parks and City Amenity

Date: 10 November 2016

File Reference: F16/127989; 72-24-1

Attachment a: Community Engagement Report ⇩

Attachment b: Plans - Tasmanian Hockey Centre ⇩

about people	We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
professional	We take pride in our work.
enterprising	We look for ways to create value.
responsive	We’re accessible and focused on service.
inclusive	We respect diversity in people and ideas.
making a difference	We recognise that everything we do shapes Hobart’s future.