City
of hobart
AGENDA
Finance Committee Meeting
Open Portion
Wednesday, 14 June 2017
at 5.00 pm
Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall
THE MISSION
Our mission is to ensure good governance of our capital City.
THE VALUES
The Council is:
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. |
|
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 3 |
|
14/6/2017 |
|
Business listed on the agenda is to be conducted in the order in which it is set out, unless the committee by simple majority determines otherwise.
APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE
1. Co-Option of a Committee Member in the event of a vacancy
3. Consideration of Supplementary Items
4. Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest
6.1 Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion Update
6.2 Debts Deemed to be Uncollectable - Director, Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service
6.3 Outstanding Long Term Permit Parking Debts as at 31 May 2017
7 Committee Action Status Report
7.1 Committee Actions - Status Report
9. Closed Portion Of The Meeting
|
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 4 |
|
14/6/2017 |
|
Finance Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 5.00 pm in the Lady Osborne Room, Town Hall.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS Thomas (Chairman) Deputy Lord Mayor Christie Zucco Ruzicka Sexton
ALDERMEN Lord Mayor Hickey Briscoe Burnet Cocker Reynolds Denison Harvey |
Apologies: Nil.
Leave of Absence: Nil.
|
The minutes of the Open Portion of the Finance Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 16 May 2017, are submitted for confirming as an accurate record.
|
Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
That the Committee resolve to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the General Manager.
|
Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(7) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
Aldermen are requested to indicate where they may have any pecuniary or conflict of interest in respect to any matter appearing on the agenda, or any supplementary item to the agenda, which the committee has resolved to deal with.
Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
A committee may close a part of a meeting to the public where a matter to be discussed falls within 15(2) of the above regulations.
In the event that the committee transfer an item to the closed portion, the reasons for doing so should be stated.
Are there any items which should be transferred from this agenda to the closed portion of the agenda, or from the closed to the open portion of the agenda?
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 6 |
|
|
14/6/2017 |
|
6.1 Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion Update
File Ref: F17/58791
Memorandum of the Economic Development Project Officer and the Driector Parks and City Amenity of 9 June 2017 and attachment.
Delegation: Council
Item No. 6.1 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 7 |
|
14/6/2017 |
|
Memorandum: Finance Committee
Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion Update
Finance Committee on 16 May 2017 deferred consideration of the Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion (the Pavilion) project, pending further information relating to feedback given on proposed designs for an additional storey by the original architect of the building - Dirk Bolt.
Significance of original architect
A conservation management plan (CMP) was commissioned by the City of Hobart and completed in May 2015. This CMP was required by Heritage Tasmania before they would consider any development plans for the site. The CMP supported the concept of an additional floor, stating in section 9.1 that:
“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.”
The CMP listed a number of recommended policies relating to the continued ownership and management of the Pavilion. Policy 14 states:
“Prior to making decisions about change to the Pavilion, consult with the architect of the Pavilion, or his agent, in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright (Moral Rights) Amendment Act 2000.”
Moral rights
An amendment was made to the Copyright Act 1968 in 2000 that sought to protect the moral rights of artists including architects. This was to protect their reputation and the integrity of their work. Moral rights comprise three elements of which the third ‘the right of integrity of authorship’ is relevant.
An author of artistic work (in this case Dirk Bolt as the architect of the Pavilion) has the right of ‘integrity of authorship’ which means the project designed by the artist (in this case the Pavilion) can be protected from derogatory treatment defined as a material distortion or alteration, a mutilation or anything else that is prejudicial to the honour and reputation of the author. The Copyright Act 1968 states that the rights of the designer (or their representative) extend for a period of 50 years after the death of the designer.
Pursuant to Section 195AT of the Copyright Act 1968 (amended in 2000), the City, as the owner, has to provide written notice to the designer (in this instance Dirk Bolt) stating the intention to undertake alteration etc. to the Pavilion. The designer then has three weeks to seek access to the building for the purposes of making a record of the building and /or consulting in good faith with the owners about the proposed alteration. On seeking access, the designer subsequently has a further three weeks in which they should be provided with access to the building.
Views of original architect
The draft plans, as drawn up by local architect Terroir, were sent to Dirk Bolt via email. Mr Bolt responded promptly in February 2017. The plans were also accompanied by an architect design statement that is intended to form part of the documentation necessary for submitting a development application.
Key points from Mr Bolt’s response are summarised as:
· Although the front sea facing surface of the new building design is not one continuous surface, it would still overpower the existing Pavilion.
· The front sea facing surface (fascia) appears to have little to do with the Pavilion.
· The proposal seems to have no compelling rationale.
· A better shape would be one with a simple saddle roof that would preserve the view of the residents on the other side of Sandy Bay Road and would not overwhelm the Pavilion with a white wall.
· The façade from the original designs for a second storey is set back and broken into smaller units leaving the concrete panels as the largest elements of the building.
Tasmanian Heritage Council
Upon receiving unsupportive feedback from Dirk Bolt on the design, an officer met with the Tasmanian Heritage Council (THC) to ascertain the weight the original architect’s view would be given in the development application process. THC stated that significant weight would be given to Dirk Bolt’s view and that it would be preferable that his support was secured.
Next Steps
As mentioned in the report to the Finance Committee on 16 May 2017, there are three options in relation to this project:
Option 1
Submit a development application with the current design for a second floor restaurant above the existing Pavilion that is not supported by Mr Bolt.
Option 2
Re-consider the design for the second floor restaurant in conjunction with Mr Bolt. Submit a development application with a new design endorsed by Mr Bolt.
Option 3
Do not proceed with any form of development application for a second floor restaurant above the existing Pavilion at the present time.
Should the Council proceed with submitting a development application (DA) for the Pavilion and should this be granted, two options for development were presented to the Council at its meeting of 21 December 2015 to progress the project.
These were where the Council secured a DA for the basic shell of a restaurant and then took this to market, seeking a lease agreement with a developer / operator that would constructing the design and complete the fit out.
The other option was for the Council to develop the site and lease to third parties to fit out the restaurant and operate it.
The Council resolved at that stage
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.
That: 1. That proposals associated with the development of a new second floor restaurant above the existing Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion not be proceeded with, at this time.
|
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.
Lucy Knott Economic Development Project Officer |
Glenn Doyle Director Parks and City Amenity |
Date: 9 June 2017
File Reference: F17/58791
Attachment a: Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion Report to Finance Committee 16 May 2017 ⇩
Item No. 6.2 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 24 |
|
14/6/2017 |
|
6.2 Debts Deemed to be Uncollectable - Director, Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service
File Ref: F17/58408
Report of the Group Manager Parking Operations and the Director Financial Services of 8 June 2017.
Delegation: Committee
Item No. 6.2 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 25 |
|
14/6/2017 |
|
REPORT TITLE: Debts Deemed to be Uncollectable - Director, Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service
REPORT PROVIDED BY: Group Manager Parking Operations
Director Financial Services
1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit
1.1. The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee on the quantum and value of Infringement Notices that have been deemed to be uncollectable by the Director, Monetary Penalties in accordance with Section 109 of the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005.
2. Report Summary
2.1. The Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service (MPES) is the State Authority to collect infringement notice revenue on behalf of the City of Hobart.
2.1.1. MPES have been collecting infringement revenue since 2008 and also assumed responsibility for the collection of all outstanding Magistrates Court fines issued prior to April 2008.
2.1.2. As at 28 April, MPES have approximately $3.7M of debt they are attempting to recover on behalf of the City.
2.1.3. This debt is made up of both infringement notices and Magistrates Court fines.
2.1.4. Section 109 of the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005 (MPEA) provides that the Director, Monetary Penalties may deem an amount to be uncollectable for a variety of reasons.
2.1.5. Since the inception of Monetary Penalties in 2008, the Director has deemed 2,124 infringements to be Uncollectable, with a referral value of $272,258.80.
That: 1. That 2,124 infringements with a referred value of $272,258.80 that have been deemed to be uncollectable by the Director, Monetary Penalties be written-off. 2. That all future infringements deemed to be uncollectable by the Director, Monetary Penalties be included in the Six Monthly Infringement Debt Write-Off report.
|
4. Background
4.1. The Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service is the State Authority to collect infringement notice revenue on behalf of the City of Hobart.
4.1.1. MPES have been collecting infringement revenue since 2008 and also assumed responsibility for the collection of all outstanding Magistrates Court fines issued prior to April 2008.
4.1.2. As at 28 April, MPES have approximately $3.7M of debt they are attempting to recover on behalf of the City.
4.1.3. This debt is made up of both infringement notices and Magistrates Court fines.
4.1.4. Section 109 of the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005 provides that the Director, Monetary Penalties may deem an amount to be uncollectable for a variety of reasons.
4.1.4.1. These reasons include, but are not limited to; Death, Bankruptcy or Insolvency of the debtor, inability to locate or identify a debtor, Debts satisfied by Monetary Penalty Community Service Orders or where a debtor has no capacity to pay.
4.1.5. Since the inception of MPES in 2008, the Director has deemed 2,124 infringements to be uncollectable, with a combined referral value of $272,258.80.
4.1.6. As a consequence, the City of Hobart infringement debt is overstated.
4.1.7. The average value of each infringement is $128.20.
5. Proposal and Implementation
5.1. It is proposed that the 2,124 infringements with a referred value of $272,258.80 that have been deemed to be uncollectable by the Director, Monetary Penalties be written-off.
5.2. To ensure consistency and accuracy of the General Ledger, all future infringements deemed to be uncollectable by the Director, Monetary Penalties are to be included in the Six Monthly Infringement Debt Write-Off report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result
6.1.1. Council makes a provision for bad and doubtful debts, and reviews this annually. The provision includes 25% of the value of parking infringements lodged with MPES (reflecting the entity’s success rate in collecting these debts).This adjustment will impact against budget function 421, bringing the YTD write-offs to $365,520.50.
6.1.2. This means that 25% of the value of infringements being recommended for write-off ($68,064.70) has already been recognised as doubtful, and an appropriate provision made. The remaining 75% of the value of infringements being recommended for write-off ($204,194.10) has not previously been recognised as doubtful, and will therefore need to be expensed in the current financial year.
6.1.3. The current year’s budget for bad and doubtful parking infringements is $350,000 but this is now likely to be exceeded by around $200,000. The operating result for 2016-17 will therefore be reduced by this amount.
6.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result
6.2.1. The impact on future years’ financial results will be negligible. The provision for doubtful debt is sufficient to cover MPES write-offs.
7. Delegation
7.1. This matter is delegated to the Finance Committee.
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.
Matthew Tyrrell Group Manager Parking Operations |
David Spinks Director Financial Services |
Date: 8 June 2017
File Reference: F17/58408
Item No. 6.3 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 29 |
|
14/6/2017 |
|
6.3 Outstanding Long Term Permit Parking Debts as at 31 May 2017
File Ref: F17/55137
Memorandum of the Manager Finance and the Director Financial Services of 5 June 2017.
Delegation: Committee
Item No. 6.3 |
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 30 |
|
14/6/2017 |
|
Memorandum: Finance Committee
Outstanding Long Term Permit Parking Debts as at 31 May 2017
|
31-May-16 |
% of total O/S |
30-Apr-17 |
% of total O/S |
31-May-17 |
% of total O/S |
|
$ |
|
$ |
|
$ |
|
Current |
39,911 |
76% |
58,126 |
83% |
41,557 |
83% |
30 days |
5,327 |
10% |
-535 |
-1% |
5,944 |
12% |
60 days |
1,984 |
4% |
9,047 |
13% |
-795 |
-2% |
90 days |
5,422 |
10% |
3,310 |
5% |
3,180 |
6% |
Total |
52,644 |
|
69,948 |
|
49,886 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* 30 days+(all) |
12,733 |
24% |
11,822 |
17% |
8,329 |
17% |
DEBTS GREATER THAN $2,000
That the information contained in the memorandum of the Manager Finance and Director Financial Services of 14 June 2017 titled “Outstanding Long Term Parking Debts as at 31 May 2017” be received and noted.
|
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.
Peter Jenkins Manager Finance |
David Spinks Director Financial Services |
Date: 5 June 2017
File Reference: F17/55137
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 32 |
|
|
14/6/2017 |
|
A report indicating the status of current decisions is attached for the information of Aldermen.
REcommendation
That the information be received and noted.
Delegation: Committee
|
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 43 |
|
14/6/2017 |
|
Section 29 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
File Ref: 13-1-10
An Alderman may ask a question without notice of the Chairman, another Alderman, the General Manager or the General Manager’s representative, in line with the following procedures:
1. The Chairman will refuse to accept a question without notice if it does not relate to the Terms of Reference of the Council committee at which it is asked.
2. In putting a question without notice, an Alderman must not:
(i) offer an argument or opinion; or
(ii) draw any inferences or make any imputations – except so far as may be necessary to explain the question.
3. The Chairman must not permit any debate of a question without notice or its answer.
4. The Chairman, Aldermen, General Manager or General Manager’s representative who is asked a question may decline to answer the question, if in the opinion of the respondent it is considered inappropriate due to its being unclear, insulting or improper.
5. The Chairman may require a question to be put in writing.
6. Where a question without notice is asked and answered at a meeting, both the question and the response will be recorded in the minutes of that meeting.
7. Where a response is not able to be provided at the meeting, the question will be taken on notice and
(i) the minutes of the meeting at which the question is asked will record the question and the fact that it has been taken on notice.
(ii) a written response will be provided to all Aldermen, at the appropriate time.
(iii) upon the answer to the question being circulated to Aldermen, both the question and the answer will be listed on the agenda for the next available ordinary meeting of the committee at which it was asked, where it will be listed for noting purposes only.
|
Agenda (Open Portion) Finance Committee Meeting |
Page 44 |
|
14/6/2017 |
|