Agenda of City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 4

24/6/2020

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Wednesday, 24 June 2020 at 4:00 pm.

This meeting of the City Infrastructure Committee is held in accordance with a Notice issued by the Premier on 3 April 2020 under section 18 of the COVID-19 Disease Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Harvey (Chairman)

Lord Mayor Reynolds

Deputy Lord Mayor Burnet

Ewin

NON-MEMBERS

Zucco

Briscoe

Sexton

Thomas

Behrakis

Dutta

Sherlock

Coats

Apologies:

Leave of Absence:

1. Co-Option of a Committee Member in the event of a vacancy

2. Confirmation of Minutes

The minutes of the Open Portion of the City Infrastructure Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 26 February 2020, are submitted for confirming as an accurate record.

3. Consideration of Supplementary Items

Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(6) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

Recommendation

That the Committee resolve to deal with any supplementary items not appearing on the agenda, as reported by the General Manager.

4. Indications of Pecuniary and Conflicts of Interest

Ref: Part 2, Regulation 8(7) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

Members of the committee 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.

5. Transfer of Agenda Items

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?

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 20

24/6/2020

REPORT TITLE: Request For Speed Limit Reduction in Hobart Central Business District and Retail Precincts

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager City Mobility

Director City Planning

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to advise the Council that as part of the Covid-19 arrangements for management of the Central Business District Retail and Hobart’s Suburban Retail Precincts (Centre environments) coupled with best practice, it is proposed to seek a reduction in the speed limits in select areas of the city to provide a safer environment for traders, pedestrians and cyclists.

2. Report Summary

2.1. On 19 March 2020, Premier Peter Gutwein declared a State of Emergency in Tasmania as a result of the Covid-19 Pandemic.

2.2. From late March 2020 businesses in Tasmania were ordered to close or arrange for work to continue from home, excluding essential services. During this time very little economic activity occurred in Hobart’s Centre environments, although some suburban centres and recreational pathways were reportedly busier as workers and families took exercise.

2.3. From early June 2020 non-essential businesses in Tasmania have gradually begun to reopen and activity in the Centre environments has increased.

2.4. On the 5^th and 15th May 2020, the Hobart Active Travel Committee convened to discuss needs for safe active travel in Hobart.

2.5. The Hobart Active Travel Committee endorsed to proceed proposed changes to widen footpath, extend outdoor dining areas and lower the speed limits. As a result, both the General Manager and Director of City Planning met with Gary Swain, Department of State Growth (20 May 2020) to discuss a range of potential measures to deliver mobility access to business and residential uses in Centres environments.

2.6. The key constraints guiding the discussions were:

· The Australian Government’s 1.5 metres social distancing requirement and

· Safe access for workers and visitors to Centre environments to avoid pedestrian compaction along footpaths and at crossing

· Likelihood for lower public transport utilisation

3. Recommendation

That:

3.1. The Council endorse the engagement with key stakeholders and the preparation of supporting documentation to allow a submission to the Transport Commissioner requesting the following speed limit changes in Hobart’s Central Business District indicatively proposed as:

a) Elizabeth Street between Melville and Morrison Streets (excluding the Elizabeth Street Mall and Macquarie and Davey Street crossing points) from 50 to 30km/hour. (Note: Elizabeth Street between Collins and Davey Streets is currently 30km/hr)

b) Collins and Liverpool Streets between Murray and Argyle from 50 km/hour to 30km/hour (Note: Criterion Lane and Liverpool St between Elizabeth Street and Murray Street is currently 30km/hr)

c) Melville and Bathurst Streets between Harrington and Campbell Streets from 50 km/hour to 40km/ hour.

d) Harrington, Murray, Argyle and Campbell Streets between Melville and Davey Streets (excluding the Davey and Macquarie Street crossings), from 50 km/hour to 40km/hour.

e) Liverpool and Collins Streets between Harrington and Murray Streets, and between Argyle and Campbell Streets from 50 km/hour to 40km/hour. (Note: Collins Street from Argyle to Elizabeth Street is currently 30 km/hour)

f) Market Place, Kemp Street, Trafalgar Place, Purdys Mart, Wellington Court, Harrington Lane, Watchorn Street, Victoria Street, Bidencopes Lane from 50 km/hour to 40km/hour.

3.2. The Council endorse engagement with key stakeholders and the preparation of supporting documentation to allow a submission to the Transport Commissioner for the following speed limit changes in the Suburban Retail Precincts between the hours of 7:00am until 7:00pm Monday to Thursday and 7:00am until 10:00pm Friday to Sunday indicatively proposed as:

a) North Hobart between Burnett Street and Tasma Street from 50km/hour to 40km/ hour (Note: Extending the existing 40km/hour zone between Federal Street and Burnett Street)

b) Lenah Valley between Giblin Street and Greenway Avenue from 50km/hour to 40km/ hour.

c) South Hobart from Excell Lane and the Southern Outlet Junction from 50km/hour to 40km/ hour.

d) Sandy Bay along Sandy Bay Road from Osborne Street and Russell Crescent, and including King Street between Grosvenor Street and Princes Street, Gregory Street between Grosvenor and Sandy Bay Road, Princes Street between King Street and Sandy Bay Road, and Russell Crescent between Sandy Bay Road and King Street from 50km/hour to 40km/ hour.

e) New Town: New Town Road from Marsh Street to the Pirie Street intersection, and Risdon Road between New Town Road and Swanston Street from 50km/hour to 40km/ hour.

4. Background

4.1. The City of Hobart has considered matters relating to vehicle speeds in Centres environments since the mid 2000’s, including the following:

· In 2011 and 2014, roads across the Hobart municipality had their speed limit reduced from 60km/h to 50km/h.

· In 2011 The Council endorsed the Inner City Action Plan where it was proposed that an Inner City Courtesy Zone be developed and promoted for a 30kph general limit between Macquarie, Bathurst, Argyle and Harrington Streets.

4.2. Since 2011, and in coordination with a number of capital works projects undertaken by the City of Hobart, the following streets have also had their speed limits reduced further:

· In March 2014, Liverpool Street between Elizabeth Street and Murray Street and Criterion Lane to 30 km/hr

This has resulted in 2 separate 30km/ hour areas in Hobart’s Central Business District (Elizabeth Street between Davey and Collins Street). Further 30km/hr and 40km/hr zones also exists within Sullivans Cove.

4.3. A post implementation Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources analysis found these reductions have resulted in a 17.6 per cent decrease in crashes.

4.4. The Department of State Growth has advised (15 June 2020) that since 2009 there have been 1011 crashes in the Central Business District as shown on Figure 1 (on the roads coloured red) plus a further 490 in off-road locations (typically in car parks, with Argyle St and Centrepoint being the most prominent for off street crashes). The majority of the 1011 on-road crashes were minor with only 11 (9 serious & 2 Fatal) involving serious casualties. Refer to Figures 2 - 5.

Figure 1 Hobart Central Business District - Extent of crash data in Figures 2 and 3

Figure 2 Hobart Central Business District - Crash data by type (percentage) 2009 to 2020

Figure 3 Hobart Central Business District - All Crash Data

- Volumes by Location 2009 to 2020

Figure 4 Hobart Central Business District - Crashes Involving Pedestrians – Volumes by Location 2009 to 2020

Figure 5 Hobart Central Business District - Crashes Involving Pedestrians and Non Pedestrian – Percentages by Severity 2009 to 2020

4.5. Documentation provided by the Road Safety Branch of the Tasmanian Department of State Growth in support of this report to Council included the Recommendations of the Academic Expert Group 3rd Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety (Stockholm February 2020). At Recommendation 8 of the Recommendations of the Expert Group:

‘In a Safe System, roads and vehicles are designed to accommodate human errors without resulting in serious injury or death. Allowable vehicle speeds in a Safe System are a function of the level of safety provided by other parts of the system.’

And

‘Safe vehicle and road design features are especially critical in urban areas where vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists, are a constant part of the road user environment. The concentration of vulnerable road users in urban neighborhoods, together with the complexity of traffic patterns and the frequency of road user interactions, creates extraordinary crash and injury risk. In these dense urban areas, even the best road and vehicle design features are unable to adequately guarantee the safety of all road users when speeds are above the known safe level of 30 km/h. A maximum speed limit of 30 km/h in urban areas is widely supported by researchers and safety experts to provide adequate protection for vulnerable road users.’

4.6. According to the Tasmanian Department of State Growth HIGHER SPEED, GREATER IMPACT Towards Zero Action Plan 2020-2024 Fact sheet, the risk of increased severity of injury and potential for death increases significantly with speed. Refer to Figure 6.

Figure 6 Extract Department of State Growth Fact Sheet HIGHER SPEED, GREATER IMPACT Towards Zero Action Plan 2020-2024

4.7. In consideration of typical travel time for 30km/hr, 40 km/hr and 50 km/hr refer to Figure 7.

Figure 7 Typical travel time for differing speeds over standard distance

4.8. The Transport Commission retains the authority to install and modify speed limit signage. This signage (along with traffic signals) can only be modified with the approval of the Transport Commission.

4.9. Before considering a speed limit change, the Transport Commission will request that a review be prepared by the road manager (in this case the City of Hobart) which the Transport Commission will then consider and make a decision.

4.10. The officer advice on a speed limit reduction to date is that the current road design and layout is not effective in mitigating driver speeds for the centre environments of the Hobart Central Business District and Hobart’s suburban Retails Centres, and that the speed limit reductions as recommended in Section 5.0 would deliver road safety benefits in the selected centre environment locations across the city in terms of speed limit consistency and coverage of highly pedestrianised areas across the city. This recommendation is in keeping with speed limit guidance in the Australian Standard - Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Speed controls (AS1742.4) for highly pedestrianised environments.

5. Proposal and Implementation.

5.1. In order to provide consistency in treatment and to provide greater safety to heavily pedestrian occupied streets, three CBD central spines of 30km/hour zone surrounded by 40km/hour zone is proposed. As shown in Attachment A, the specific speed environment in Hobart’s Central Business District is proposed as:

· 30km/ hour on Elizabeth Street between Brisbane and Davey Streets (excluding the Elizabeth Street Mall and Macquarie and Davey Street crossing points)

· 30km/hour in both Collins and Liverpool Streets between Murray and Argyle)

· 40km/ hour on Melville and Bathurst Streets between Harrington and Campbell Streets

· 40km/hour on Harrington, Murray, Argyle and Campbell Streets between Melville and Davey Streets (excluding the Davey and Macquarie Street crossings)

· 40km/hour on Liverpool and Collins Streets between Harrington and Murray, and between Argyle and Campbell Streets.

· 40km/hour in Market Place.

As noted previously a number of streets within the CBD are already limited to 30km/hour.

5.2. It is further proposed, to seek a reduction in the speed limit to 40km/hour within a number of suburban retail precincts during the main trading periods. These retail precincts are outlined in Attachment B and include the following:

· 40 km/hour for Lenah Valley, Sandy Bay, New Town, North Hobart and South Hobart

5.3. Attachments A and B of this report are indicatively only. The scope and extent of the proposed speed limits reductions will be consulted with Department of State Growth, the Royal Automobile Club of Tasmania (RACT) and stakeholders in the Retail Precincts.

5.4. The recommendations need to be supported by a report from the road owner that includes the following information regarding the characteristics of the road:

- Road function

- Road standard

- Road owner

- Roadside development

- Road alignment

- Road accesses / intersections

- Traffic volume

- Pedestrians

- Length

- Adjacent speed zones

- Proposed signage locations

- Crash history

5.5. In relation to signage types the following is recommended:

5.5.1. For the Hobart Central Business District, fixed speed limit signage in accordance with Attachment A.

5.5.2. For the Hobart Retail Precincts solar powered Variable Message Signs (VMS) limiting the time frames for the 40km/hour speed limit are indicatively proposed as follows:

· 7.00am until 7.00pm Monday to Thursday

· 7.00am until 10.00pm Friday to Sunday

In order to provide for safe retail and dining precincts, and for the Retail Precincts as community places. Sign locations will be determined as a result of further analysis.

This initiative is similar to the Variable Message Signage found around schools and in the Moonah retail area.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Matters of road safety are supported by Pillar 5, outcome 5.2 of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2019‑2029 as follows:

“5.2 Hobart has effective and environmentally sustainable transport systems.

5.2.4 Identify and implement infrastructure improvements to enhance access and road safety and reduce air and noise pollution.”

6.2. The desire to reduce speed limits is understandable given the function of the Hobart Central Business District and Retail Precinct areas identified at Attachments A and B as invested and highly utilised pedestrian environments.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Nil for Financial Year 2019-2020.

7.1.2. Should Council decide to support the recommendation then the preparation of an appropriate supporting report would need to be undertaken including costings for the proposed signage changes. The cost of this would be cover within the existing operating budget and is estimated to be in the order of $30,000.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Subject to Section 59 of the Traffic Act 1925, the City of Hobart has responsibility for the care control and management of local highways (such as the Hobart Central Business District and the Suburban Retail Precincts) under Section 21 and 30 of the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982.

8.2. The Transport Commission, pursuant to Section 59 of the Traffic Act 1925 has issued a direction to Tasmanian Highway Authorities (Transport Commission Direction – 2014/2) that requires those authorities to only install traffic signs and linemarking in compliance with the Australian Standard Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, consider the AustRoads national guidelines, and to comply with Department of State Growth specifications and standard drawings.

8.3. The City of Hobart has a responsibility to consider and respond to issues raised by the community on our road network.

8.4. For matters raised concerning traffic signs that the City of Hobart has authority to alter / install, the risk to Council is managed by relying on professional advice about the suitability of a proposed change, and by installing signage that complies with the Transport Commission instruction issued under Section 59 of the Traffic Act 1925.

8.5. For matters raised concerning traffic signs that the City of Hobart does not have the authority to alter (regulatory speed limit signs, traffic signals and parking controls on State roads with a speed limit over 70 km/h), the risk to Council is managed by relying on professional advice and either referring the matter to the Department of State Growth with a request to make alterations, or advising that the City of Hobart does not support a change, but that the party making the request may contact the Department of State Growth directly if they wish to pursue the matter.

9. Delegation

9.1. The responsibility for the approval of speed limits sits with the Transport Commissioner, within the Department of State Growth.

9.2. That the City of Hobart requests the Transport Commissioner to provide Variable Message Signage (VMS) for the Retail Precincts, and further discussion is held on VMS time frames.

9.3. As the road authority responsible for the management and maintenance of Hobart Central Business District and Retail Precincts Centre environments, the Council can request changes to speed limits on Council roads.

9.4. The Manager City Mobility and all positions to which that position reports have delegation to approve changes to signage and linemarking on those public streets for which the City of Hobart is the Highway Authority (except for speed limits, traffic signals and parking controls on State roads with a speed limit over 70 km/h).

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.

Louisa Carter

Manager City Mobility

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 19 June 2020

File Reference: F20/61264

Attachment a: Indicative Proposed Speed Limit Changes to Hobart Central Business District ⇩

Attachment b: Indicative Proposed Speed Limit Limit Changes to Hobart Retail Precincts ⇩

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 36

24/6/2020

Memorandum: City Infrastructure Committee

Solar Panels - Notice of Motion

The Notice of Motion (refer Attachment A) requested a report be prepared to review the ongoing environmental and financial case for continuing with the installation of solar panels on Council buildings, which commenced in 2015/16, given:

(i) The increasing proportion of renewable energy generation in Tasmania; and

(ii) Technological advances in other sectors such as transport over the past three years.

The original Notice of Motion contains several points that are summarised below.

1. BUDGET

There are a number of photovoltaic (PV) installations identified as approved by the Council or mentioned in Annual Reports that, when aggregated, appear to be well in excess of the initial value approved by the Council.

2. EMISSIONS

The financial and environmental benefits of solar panels may have been overstated and may have changed since the beginning of this program. Emissions reductions have been significantly lower than initially claimed for the program, resulting in 18 tonnes rather than 100 tonnes CO₂ equivalent per annum based on recent Tasmanian data. This emission reduction number would fall to zero tonnes by 2022 if Tasmania hits its 100% renewable target at that date (since there is no emissions benefit of solar over other renewables).

3. ONGOING EXPENSES

The cost accounting for this program may not have fully considered depreciation, interest on loans, maintenance and disposal costs.

4. ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS

Alternative investments (specifically in transport and fleet operations) may possibly reduce emissions and achieve other environmental and financial benefits.

A response to each of these four points is laid out below. It is also noted that the City has utilised its considerable in-house skills within this functional domain to analyse the cost and performance of solar panels. This has allowed the Council to avoid the expense of an external audit, estimated at up to $30,000.

1. BUDGET

The total installed size and total cost of City of Hobart (CoH) PV installations can be difficult to quantify. This is due to occasional overlap between the progress reporting of projects mentioned in subsequent Annual Reports. For example, if a project continues from one financial year into the next, then the cost for the same project will be shown in each respective year.

Hence, if figures are summed between subsequent Annual Reports, the total reached may significantly exceed the total budget for PV installations approved by the Council. This appears to be what was inadvertently done in preparing the Notice of Motion.

Following investigations by various officers and the City’s Finance team, the aggregated costs for PV projects has been determined to be $913,165. This figure is broken down according to the following summary:

Amount	Council meeting date	Agenda item number
$187,000	23 April 2018	28. – Solar Panels – Additional Installations on City of Hobart Buildings File Ref: F18/21714; 2016-0018-003
$571,400	26 June 2016	19. – Solar Panel Power Installations for Council Buildings File Ref: 10-45-1 (Ref. Open FC 8, 15/6/2016)
$135,000	23 March 2015	16. – Energy Efficiency – The Hobart Aquatic Centre – Reallocation of Solar Project Funding File Refs: 10-45-1; 33-21-21 (Ref Open FCSC 5, 17/3/2015)

A 2.3% increase in spending over the original budgets (approximately $20,000) was approved by variation through the quarterly BVR process.

The above four amounts account for the total expenditure of $913,722.

PV installations undertaken to date:

2. EMISSIONS

There are various methods for calculating emissions reductions created from renewable energy installations. According to the Notice of Motion, estimates have varied between 18 and 100 tonnes of CO2e (CO2 equivalent) avoided per annum.

Rather than using an estimate, the method used here is based on the actual CO2e emissions reported by one of CoH’s electricity suppliers, ERM Power.

Analysis of bills covering 18 CoH sites over summer and winter usage shows average CO2e emissions for Hobart’s grid energy of 0.1006 kg CO2e per kWh.^{^[1]}

Energy sourced from PV panels also has a small CO2e emission component due to panel production and other embodied energy. One typical source, Euractiv estimates an average per-kWh CO2e emission rate for PV panels of 0.016 kg/kWh.^{^[2]}

Subtracting 0.016 from 0.1006 results in a net saving of 0.0846 kg/kWh CO2e when using PV over grid energy in Hobart.

The average energy production from 747 kW of PV in Hobart is approximately 863,796 kWh (this is NREL data adjusted down to account for degradation over 25 years – from https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/).

At 0.0846 kg/kWh CO2e avoided, the annual CO2 saving is calculated at 73,077 kg or about 73 tonnes. The two estimates quoted in the Notice of Motion were 18 tonnes and 100 tonnes. The actual figure lies between these two.

It is noted that despite the Tasmanian State Government’s 2022 100% renewable energy target (which would ostensibly remove the CO2e benefit of PV panels), the State Government suggests there are still environmental benefits to organisations developing alternative low-carbon electricity generation, such as PV.

· This point is made by the State Government in its What You Can Do fact sheet, which suggests: “There are many things you can do to reduce your carbon footprint and prepare for a changing climate”, and includes advice to consider installing PV.

· Another important factor, highlighted in the State Government’s Climate Action 21: Tasmania's Climate Change Action Plan 2017–2021 is that we can improve energy security and further support the state’s ability to achieve and maintain its net-zero-carbon electricity target by wherever possible “reducing the drawdown on our hydro dams”. This is of net benefit to the state, since Hydro can sell power to the mainland during times of grid necessity at far higher mark-ups than selling the same quantum of energy during the year in the Tasmanian market.

· Furthermore, the uptake of electric vehicles may impact the state’s ability to utilise 100% renewable energy, a factor that is listed in the State Government’s Climate Action 21 document as one to be analysed by the Electric Vehicle Working Group created in 2017. This body lists a key action as “understanding the impact of electric vehicle uptake on Tasmania’s electricity sector”, but it is yet to publish any significant findings on this topic. While there is some optimism that electric vehicles may have a positive impact in Tasmania in the long term,^{^[3]} the State Government’s Tasmanian Energy Security Taskforce nevertheless concluded in its final report of June 2017 that “The ability for Tasmania to significantly influence or control these factors [electric vehicle uptake] creates uncertainty over their value to, and impact on, the energy security of the stationary energy sector.”

· Moreover, the commitment to 100% renewable energy by 2022 is a commitment to net use of renewables, not to sole use of renewables. Hence, it is possible Tasmania would continue to import fossil-fuel-sourced power from mainland sources, even though it may nevertheless export more renewable energy than it imports over the long term. The use of PV by Tasmanian citizens and organisations may therefore continue to assist in reducing the total import of fossil-fuel-sourced power and hence continue to have an effect on greenhouse gas reduction, even if the State meets its 2022 target.

3. ONGOING EXPENSES

Although business cases for the installation of solar panels has been consistently made by the City ahead of seeking any approval from the Council, it is unclear whether panel degradation, depreciation, interest on loans, maintenance and disposal costs have been consistently quantified. CoH officers have attempted to consider all these factors in response to this Notice of Motion as outlined in the following findings.

A levelised cost of energy (LCoE) for any energy source can be calculated by dividing the lifetime cost by the amount of lifetime energy produced.

The LCoE for the City of Hobart’s grid-purchased energy is complicated to determine, as it fluctuates month-by-month, dependent on costs, including the energy tariff, network costs, demand charges, metering charges, environmental charges and other sundry charges.

The best estimate for a true LCoE is made using energy bills for 18 CoH sites from ERM Power. Also, for comparison, predictions have been made on the basis of the contract for energy supply for “contestable sites” (large consumption sites) between CoH and Aurora Energy.

Taking these sources into account, it has been calculated that the City of Hobart has a grid LCoE of approximately 16 cents per kWh ($0.16 per kWh).

Based on industry expectations the 747 kW of PV installed would degrade (approximately linearly) to 80% of day-one performance over its 25 year life. According to the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) PV Watts Calculator (https://pvwatts.nrel.gov), a 747 kW system in Hobart would produce 954,471 kWh in its first year of life. The monthly production at the beginning and end of a 25-year life is shown below:

Averaging between these cycles, and integrating the average to calculate a lifetime energy output, and considering only CAPEX costs, the raw LCoE for a 747 kW system is shown below:

Energy produced per annum in Hobart by 747 kW PV at day 1 cost $913,722

· 954,471 kWh in first year (Source: PVWatts Calculator from NREL)

· 773,122 kWh in year 25 with degradation to 81%

Average energy produced per annum: 863,796 kWh

Total energy produced over 25 year life: 21,594,906 kWh

Raw LcOE: $913,722 ÷ 21,594,906 kWh = $0.04 per kWh

However, on top of CAPEX costs, there are a number of business and operating expenses that must be factored into the ongoing cost of the PV system. These have been calculated over the life of the system, and are summarised below.

Note that for simplicity, the 747 kW installation has been assumed as a single installation created in 2020, with a day-one cost of $913,722.

In reality, this investment was made over several years into systems of various sizes at various prices, which would have an effect on the timing of payments and costs. However, since the difference between a bulk analysis and a system-by-system analysis is quite negligible, the bulk analysis was thought to suffice without affecting the veracity of response.

Summary	Assumption (also see Appendix A)	Average annual	Total over life	Cents per kWh
Raw LCoE	Based on CAPEX cost alone	$36,549	$913,722	4.23
Cost of capital	Assumed at 5.0% on full CAPEX and paid down by system savings	$17,800	$445,006	2.06
Maintenance	Assumed at $8.00 per panel per year	$22,985	$574,615	2.66
Inverter replacement	Assumed at 10 and 20 years given 10 year life of inverters	$5,549	$138,729	0.64
End of life	Assumed at $63.50 per panel at end of life for removal, shipping and recycling	$7,590	$189,738	0.88
Exported energy	Assume 7.0% exported at $0.09 feed-in tariff	$5,442	$136,048	‑0.01
Averaged LCoE	Summation of various costs above (c.f. grid LCoE of 16 cents per kWh)			10.47

The above analysis shows a cost saving of about 5.5 cents per kWh between PV and grid energy.

For simplicity, any further cost benefits from environmental certificates were excluded from this analysis, as most were rolled-up in the purchase price of the PV system (or assumed to be to provide a conservative cost saving). Other schemes may exist that change from time to time, making their calculation complex and subject to interpretation.

Taking the various costs in the table above into account, and amortising the savings monthly over a 25 year period (rather than averaging as in the table above) the following payback model is seen, showing the amount of CAPEX unpaid at the end of each month. (Note it is assumed in this analysis that the full project CAPEX was borrowed at commercial rates, but it should not be inferred that this was actually the case. The interest payments stop at the point of payback:

Note the end of life cost is apparent as an uptick at year 25. The other two upticks are inverter replacements at years 10 and 20. The “wobble” is the seasonal variation of solar insolation. With these assumptions, payback is achieved in about year 18 (2038).

For sensitivity analysis:

· Each percentage point change in assumed interest rates moves the payback year back (or forward) by about 2.5 years.

· Each dollar change in per-panel maintenance per annum moves the payback back (or forward) about one year.

· Each cent change in grid energy moves the payback back (or forward) about two years.

4. ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS

The Notice of Motion suggests that better environmental outcomes may be achieved with other types of investments, specifically in transport and fleet operations. Given Tasmania’s largely carbon-neutral electricity sector, this is almost certainly correct.

It is also the case that significantly better financial outcomes can likely be achieved, alongside equally good or better environmental benefits, through other energy and transport related projects currently under consideration through the Energy Savings Action Plan and Sustainable Hobart programs.

REcommendation

It is recommended that:

1. As a large energy user, the Council continue to create energy, cost and greenhouse gas reductions by pursuing new technologies and opportunities.

Recent changes in the energy sector create tremendous scope for the Council to undertake exciting projects in:

(i) Smart grids;

(ii) Peer-to-peer trading;

(iii) Solar and battery micro grid projects;

(iv) Other renewable and storage projects;

(v) Electric vehicles;

(vi) Street lighting; and

(vii) Smart-city monitoring.

These projects offer the Council significant scope to achieve far shorter financial payback (in the range of 3 to 5 years), as well as impressive environmental benefits.

2. Solar panels continue to play a role in the City’s energy strategy. They should be used more strategically, together with other technologies, to improve their payback periods. For example, a solar/battery micro-grid would allow the Council to avoid not only energy costs but network and demand charges (which can account for more than half of the energy bill) when used for a high power site such as an electric vehicle charging station.

Robert Stevenson

Manager Smart & Sustainable City

Peter Carr

Director City Innovation

Date: 18 June 2020

File Reference: F20/58951; 13-1-9/10

Attachment a: Full Notice of Motion - Solar Panels on Council Buildings ⇩

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 44

24/6/2020

REPORT TITLE: Council Delegations - Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 - Proposed Amendments to Officer Delegations

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Roads and Capital Works

Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. Approval is sought to amend the Council’s delegations, pursuant to Section 124 of the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982, to the Program Leader Road Services.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 (the Act) is principle legislation in the City’s management and provision of its public road network.

2.2. Section 124 of the Act authorises the Council to delegate powers of the Act to City Officers.

2.3. The Council recently granted delegated powers in September 2019 to the Manager Roads and Capital Works and the Director City Amenity.

2.4. A further review has identified several of those powers should also be delegated to the senior engineering role of Program Leader Road Services, as marked in Attachment A to the report.

2.5. This role reports directly to the Manager Roads and Capital Works and holds the necessary qualifications and experience to act on behalf of the Council in this regard.

2.6. As prescribed in the Act, a two-thirds simple majority vote of the Council is required to grant the delegated powers.

3. Recommendation

That the Council delegate additional powers under the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 to the role of Program Leader Road Services, as marked in Attachment A to the report.

(i) As prescribed in the Act, a two-thirds simple majority vote of the Council is required to grant the delegated powers.

4. Background

4.1. The Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 is principle legislation in the City’s management and provision of its public road network.

4.2. Section 124 of the Act authorises the Council to delegate powers of the Act to City Officers.

124. Delegation of powers, &c., by corporations

(1) The corporation may, by special resolution, delegate to one or more officers of the corporation or to a committee consisting of members of the council the exercise or performance of such of its powers or functions under this Act (except this power of delegation) as are specified in the resolution and may, by resolution, revoke wholly or in part any such delegation.

(2) A resolution for the purposes of subsection (1) , other than a resolution revoking a delegation, shall be passed by a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of the council present at the meeting at which it is moved.

(3) A power or function, the exercise or performance of which has been delegated under this section, may, while the delegation remains unrevoked, be exercised or performed from time to time in accordance with the terms of the delegation.

(4) A delegation under this section may be made subject to such conditions or limitations as to the exercise or performance of any of the powers or functions delegated, or as to time or circumstance, as are specified in the resolution.

(5) Notwithstanding any delegation under this section, the corporation may continue to exercise or perform all or any of the powers or functions delegated.

(6) Any act or thing done by or to a delegate while acting in the exercise of a delegation under this section shall have the same force and effect as if the act or thing had been done by or to the corporation and shall be deemed to have been done by or to the corporation.

(7) An instrument purporting to be signed by a delegate of the corporation in his capacity as such a delegate shall in all courts and before all persons acting judicially be received in evidence as if it were an instrument executed by the corporation under seal and, until the contrary is proved, shall be deemed to be an instrument signed by a delegate of the corporation under this section.

4.3. The Council recently granted delegated powers in September 2019 to the Manager Roads and Capital Works and the Director City Amenity.

4.4. A further review has identified several of those powers should also be delegated to the senior engineering role of Program Leader Road Services, as marked in Attachment A to the report.

4.5. This role reports directly to the Manager Roads and Capital Works and holds the necessary qualifications and experience to act on behalf of the Council in this regard.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council delegate powers under the Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 to the role of Program Leader Road Services, as marked in Attachment A to the report.

5.2. A two-thirds simple majority vote of the Council is required to grant these powers, in accordance with Section 124(2) of the Act.

5.3. If approved, the Council’s delegations register will be updated accordingly.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The City’s Strategic Plan 2019-2029

Strategic Outcome 8.1

Hobart is a city of best practice, ethical governance and transparent decision-making

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. These are no financial implications in relation to the proposal.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. These are no financial implications in relation to the proposal.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 is principle legislation in the City’s management and provision of its public road network.

8.2. Section 124 of the Act authorises the Council to delegate powers of the Act to City Officers.

9. Delegation

9.1. The matter is delegated to the Council.

Mao Cheng

Manager Roads and Capital Works

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 17 June 2020

File Reference: F20/23513

Attachment a: Proposed Instrument of Delegation ⇩

Item No. 6.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 51

24/6/2020

REPORT TITLE: Hobart Municipal Emergency Management Plan - Update

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Projects & Support Services

Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to obtain endorsement from the Council for the latest version (Issue 11) of the City of Hobart’s Emergency Management Plan.

1.2. Updating this report will benefit the community by providing a contemporary Emergency Management Plan that clearly identifies the City of Hobart’s roles, responsibilities, resources and processes during an emergency.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The current version of the City of Hobart’s Emergency Management Plan (Issue 10) was approved by the State Controller (Police Commissioner Darren Hine) in April 2018.

2.2. An amended Emergency Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Emergency Management Act 2006.

2.3. The Plan is required to be reviewed by the Hobart Municipal Emergency Management Committee at least every two years. The amended Plan (Draft Issue 11) was provided to the Hobart Emergency Management Committee members in February 2020.

2.4. The updated draft Emergency Management Plan is now being presented to the Council for endorsement (refer Attachment A to this report).

2.5. The main updates to the Emergency Plan are summarised below:

2.5.1. The role of the Municipal Emergency Management Committee during an emergency has been clarified;

2.5.2. The role of the Incident Management Team has been defined;

2.5.3. Roles and responsibilities during recovery are identified; and

2.5.4. A number of additional Evacuation Centres have been included to the list of available centres.

2.6. Once endorsed, the plan will be submitted to the State Controller for approval and subsequent distribution.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The draft Hobart Emergency Management Plan Issue 11, marked as Attachment A to this report, be endorsed.

2. The General Manager be authorised to endorse any subsequent minor amendments.

4. Background

4.1. The current version of the City of Hobart Emergency Management Plan (“the Plan”) was authorised by the State Emergency Management Controller in April 2018.

4.2. The Emergency Management Act 2006 requires that the Municipal Committee review its Plan at least once every two years.

4.3. Hobart’s Municipal Committee consists of a chairperson (the Lord Mayor), the Municipal Coordinator (Geoff Lang), emergency services agencies (Police, Fire, Ambulance, SES, Department of Health), Red Cross, neighbouring Councils and several Council officers who undertake statutory and non-statutory roles within the emergency management framework.

4.4. An amended draft of the Plan was provided to the City of Hobart Emergency Management Committee members on 26 February 2020.

4.5. The Plan has been amended to adopt recommendations following the May 2018 flood and the January 2019 Southern Tasmania bushfires. A review of the Plan by an Emergency Management consultant also occurred which resulted in several recommendations being put in place.

4.6. The changes to the Plan can be summarised as follows:

4.6.1. The role of the Emergency Committee during and following an emergency is clarified;

4.6.2. The role of the Incident Management Team is defined;

4.6.3. Roles and responsibilities during recovery are identified;

4.6.4. Risk mitigation measures have been modified and roles clarified;

4.6.5. Duty statements have been updated;

4.6.6. Nearby Safer Places in Hobart have been identified and included in the Plan; and

4.6.7. A number of new sites have been nominated as Evacuation Centres and Recovery Centres. These include TasPorts Macquarie Wharf 2, the Regatta Grounds, Regatta buildings and the Tasmania Hockey Centre.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed Council endorse the Hobart Emergency Management Plan - Issue 11.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Capital City Strategic Plan 2019-2029:

Strategic outcome 2.4 Hobart communities are safe and resilient, ensuring people can support one another and flourish in times of hardship

Strategy 2.4.1 Develop and, when necessary, activate the City of Hobart Municipal Emergency Plan and Community Recovery Plan

Strategy 2.4.5 Ensure that Hobart is a safe and liveable city by enhancing community and public safety and security, working in partnership with key stakeholders.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The current operating budget provides funding for emergency management functions.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. There will not be any significant impacts on the current or future year’s operating results as a result of the proposed amendments.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. Nil.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The Emergency Management Act 2006 places a range of statutory obligations on Council. The review of the Plan addresses a significant portion of Council’s obligations detailed in the Act.

8.2. The Act also requires the Council to provide the necessary resources for the management of an emergency in accordance with the Municipal Plan.

8.3. The Act specifies that councils, in consultation with the Director SES, are to establish and maintain such volunteer SES unit as considered necessary under the Municipal Plan and for rescue and retrieval activities.

8.3.1. The Council meets this obligation through its support of the Southern Regional (Volunteer) SES Unit, known as the Southern Regional Unit.

8.4. Other risk treatment strategies and actions are identified in Appendix 2 - Risk Assessment Report in the Plan.

9. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1. The release of the Plan will involve the preparation of a media release and some communication with the community as well as emergency management stakeholders.

10. Delegation

10.1. This is a matter for the Council to determine.

Geoff Lang

Manager Projects & Support Services

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 17 June 2020

File Reference: F20/23835; 14/141

Attachment a: DRAFT City of Hobart Emergency Management Plan ⇩

Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 197

24/6/2020

Memorandum: Lord Mayor

Deputy Lord Mayor

Elected Members

Response to Question Without Notice

Wombat Crossing - Hill Street / Arthur Street, West Hobart

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

Meeting date: 26 February 2020

Raised by: Alderman Briscoe

Question:

In relation to the wombat crossing located on the corner of Hill and Arthur Streets, West Hobart, could the Director please advise if any solutions have been considered for this location and if so, could the Director please advise what has been suggested?

Response:

The intersection of Hill Street and Arthur Street was carefully considered in the period leading up to and following the opening of the ‘Hill Street Grocer’ store at the site with frontage to this intersection.

The matter was most recently reported to the City Infrastructure Committee on 27 April 2016. That report included discussion of options such as installation of traffic signals, a roundabout and other treatments at the Hill Street / Arthur Street intersection. The five recommendations described below were adopted.

PRIORITY: IMMEDIATE

1. Consult with key stakeholders about on-street parking on Hill Street between Arthur Street and the northern driveway to AA Lord Homes.

2. Hill Street Grocer provide additional signage within their car park.

3. Prepare a design for extended medians on Hill Street and Arthur Street.

PRIORITY: IN CURRENT BUDGET PERIOD

4. Subject to a suitable design, implement a median treatment in Arthur Street to prevent the right turn out of Hill Street Grocer without negatively impacting the right turn into Mellifont Street.

5. Review the effectiveness of any parking changes implemented (as per Item 1). If additional works are considered necessary and following consultation with the Hill Street Grocer — implement a median treatment in Hill Street to prevent the right turn into Hill Street Grocer.

These five recommendations were completed, and reported to Elected Members via memorandum dated 7 April 2017 (Copy attached).

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 19 June 2020

File Reference: F20/28343; 13-1-10

Attachment a: Memo - 70 Arthur Street West Hobart - Hill Street Grocer - April 2017 ⇩

[1] See for instance CRM Power’s Invoice #2566285, issued 01 August 2019

[3] For instance the Electric Vehicle Working Group update to the General Management Committee of the Local Government Association of Tasmania, 31 May 2018 said, “Because Tasmania is a significant energy producer, electric vehicles offer some unique advantages for Tasmania by improving our energy self-sufficiency and resilience, reducing import costs and improving our terms of trade. There is an opportunity for Local Government to be a leader in achieving these outcomes for Tasmania.”

People	We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
Teamwork	We collaborate both within the organisation and with external stakeholders drawing on skills and expertise for the benefit of our community.
Focus and Direction	We have clear goals and plans to achieve sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes for the Hobart community.
Creativity and Innovation	We embrace new approaches and continuously improve to achieve better outcomes for our community.
Accountability	We are transparent, work to high ethical and professional standards and are accountable for delivering outcomes for our community.