Agenda of Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 5

10/6/2021

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Thursday, 10 June 2021 at 5:15 pm via Zoom.

This meeting of the Parks and Recreation 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.

The title Chief Executive Officer is a term of reference for the General Manager as appointed by Council pursuant s.61 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas).

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Briscoe (Chairman)

Deputy Lord Mayor Burnet

Thomas

Ewin

Sherlock

NON-MEMBERS

Lord Mayor Reynolds

Zucco

Sexton

Harvey

Behrakis

Dutta

Coats

Apologies:

Leave of Absence: Nil.

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 Parks and Recreation Committee meeting held on Thursday, 22 April 2021 and the Special Parks and Recreation Committee meeting held on Monday, 24 May 2021, 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 Chief Executive Officer.

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. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 7

10/6/2021

Memorandum: Parks and Recreation Committee

Parks and Recreation Committee - Review of COVID-19 Format

The Council at its meeting of 24 May 2021 resolved the following position in respect to Council Committees convening their future meetings:

Committees that have not yet resolved to return to physical meetings determine whether they wish to re-consider their meeting format.

For those Council Committees still meeting via Zoom, the Chief Executive Officer noted that an item would be placed on the agenda of these Committees to determine if they wish to return to physical meetings or remain convening their meetings via a virtual platform using Zoom.

If physical meetings are to resume, the Council Committee will convene their meetings in the Council Chamber as a return to the Lady Osborne Room for Committee meetings is not possible at this time. As the open portion of all meetings of Council and Council Committees are currently being live streamed to the public, the Lady Osborne Room at present does not have the technology required to provide this service. The Lady Osborne Room will continue to be used as an overflow gallery with meetings being streamed to the room as required.

REcommendation

That the matter be considered by the Parks and Recreation 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.

Paul Jackson

Manager Legal and Governance

Date: 4 June 2021

File Reference: F21/52750

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 13

10/6/2021

REPORT TITLE: Response to Petition - Street Tree Planting in Rupert Avenue, Mount Stuart

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Program Leader Arboriculture & Nursery

Manager Bushland / Manager Parks & Recreation

Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report responds to a petition, tabled at the Council meeting held on 10 May 2021, from residents of Rupert Avenue, Mount Stuart requesting the City plant an avenue of trees in Rupert Avenue. There were 24 signatories to the petition.

2. Report Summary

2.1. Rupert Avenue, Mount Stuart does not currently contain any street trees though there is local community support for tree planting along the street.

2.2. Initial investigations identify that there is no opportunity to plant trees within the footpath or down the centre of the roadway due to width limitations and/or the presence of services.

2.3. Planting within on-street parking areas may present an opportunity, however the loss of available on-street parking may result.

2.4. More detailed investigations and design work, including local area consultation would be required to more fully understand

2.4.1. Number and location of potential tree plantings.

2.4.2. Impact of on-street parking availability.

2.4.3. Costs for the installation of the trees within the road reservation.

2.5. With finite funding available for the installation of new street trees in new locations across the City’s network, the prioritisation of this request will need to be assessed against other areas identified for new street tree plantings.

2.6. The City’s ambitions to expand its network of street trees remains a key deliverable of the City’s Street Tree Strategy.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The City undertake detailed investigations and design work for the potential installation of new street trees within Rupert Street, Mount Stuart, involving the following

(i) Local area consultation and engagement;

(ii) Determination of potential locations and number of tree plantings, including suitable species selection;

(iii) Traffic safety audit and traffic impact assessments;

(iv) Impact of on-street parking availability;

(v) Cost assessment for the installation of the trees within the road reservation to ensure appropriate tree root treatment and backfilling with structural soil to ensure surface surrounds remain trafficable; and

(vi) Prioritisation of any installation to consider:

(a) The timing of any potential road works scheduled for the Street.

(b) Available funding (that is to be accommodated within the City’s existing budget provision for its wider street tree planting program).

2. Elected Members be kept informed of the matter via advice memorandums.

3. The petitioners be advised of the Council’s decision.

4. Background

4.1. The Council at its meeting held on 10 May 2021 received a petition from residents Rupert Avenue, Mount Stuart requesting the City plant an avenue of trees in Rupert Avenue.

4.1.1. The 24 signatories represent 17 of the 21 properties that have frontage or access onto Rupert Avenue and demonstrates strong support within the street for tree planting.

4.2. Initial investigations identify that there is no opportunity to plant trees within the footpath or down the centre of the roadway due to width limitations and/or the presence of services.

4.3. Planting within on-street parking areas may present an opportunity, however the extent of potential parking loss would need further investigation.

4.4. More detailed investigations and design work, including local area consultation would be required to more fully understand the following:

4.4.1. Number and location of potential tree plantings, including suitable species selection.

4.4.2. Traffic safety audit and traffic impact assessments.

4.4.3. Impact of on-street parking availability.

4.4.4. Costs for the installation of the trees within the road reservation to ensure appropriate tree root treatment and backfilling with structural soil to ensure surface surround is trafficable.

4.5. With finite funding available for the installation of new street trees in new locations across the City’s network, the prioritisation of this request will need to be assessed against other areas identified for new street tree plantings.

4.6. Prioritisation of the installation of any plantings in Rupert Street will consider where possible, the timing of any potential road works scheduled for the Street.

4.7. The City’s ambitions to expand its network of street trees remains a key deliverable of the City’s Street Tree Strategy.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the City undertake detailed investigations and design work for the potential installation of new street trees within Rupert Street, Mount Stuart, involving the following:

5.1.1. Local area consultation and engagement.

5.1.2. Determination of potential locations and number of tree plantings, including suitable species selection.

5.1.3. Traffic safety audit and traffic impact assessments.

5.1.4. Impact of on-street parking availability.

5.1.5. Cost assessment for the installation of the trees within the road reservation to ensure appropriate tree root treatment and backfilling with structural soil to ensure surface surrounds remain trafficable.

5.1.6. Prioritisation of any installation to consider:

5.1.6.1. The timing of any potential road works scheduled for the Street.

5.1.6.2. Available funding (that is to be accommodated within the City’s existing budget provision for its wider street tree planting program)

5.2. It is proposed to keep Elected Members informed of the matter via advice memorandums.

5.3. It is proposed that the petitioners be advised of the Council’s decision.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Tree planting is supported in the following strategic documents:

6.1.1. Hobart: A community vision for our island capital:

Pillar 6.1.5: Greenways thread through our city. We create and enhance linkages to parks and reserves, and wildlife have corridors relevant to their behaviours and habitats.

6.1.2. Capital City Strategic Plan 2019-2029:

Pillar 6- 6.1.5: Enhance urban forests, tree canopy cover and greenery throughout Hobart.

6.1.3. City of Hobart Street Tree Strategy 2017

6.1.4. Sustainable Hobart Action Plan –

RESI-07 Urban Cooling Vegetation Program

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Nil.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Scoping and design assessments will inform the costs of any new street tree plantings for the Street that will need to be accommodated within existing budget provisions for the City’s wider street tree planting program.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. Street Trees are recorded as non-valued assets within the City’s asset management and financial systems.

7.3.2. The longer term protection of surrounding road and services infrastructure through appropriate planting techniques will form part of any scope of works.

7.3.3. Prioritisation of the installation of any plantings in Rupert Street will consider where possible, the timing of any potential road works scheduled for the Street to minimise disruption and impact on road surface.

8. Environmental Considerations

8.1. Planting of trees along Rupert Avenue would allow for a substantial local increase in tree canopy over time.

8.2. This is in keeping with Action plan ‘RESI-07 Urban Cooling Vegetation Program’ of the Sustainable Hobart Action Plan

9. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1. All owners and occupiers of properties with frontage on Rupert Avenue will be consulted pending the outcome of a preliminary design.

10. Delegation

10.1. As a petition tabled to a meeting of the Council, the matter is delegated to the Council to determine.

Ruby Wilson

Program Leader Arboriculture & Nursery

John Fisher

Manager Bushland / Manager Parks & Recreation

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 4 June 2021

File Reference: F21/47038

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 19

10/6/2021

REPORT TITLE: Response to Petition - Regular Closure of Pinnacle Road to Allow Safe Access for Walkers, Cyclists and Others

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Program Leader Bushland Recreation

Manager Bushland / Manager Parks & Recreation

Director City Amenity

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report responds to a petition presented to the Council at its meeting held on 6 July 2020, calling for the City to regularly close Pinnacle Road to motor vehicles, allowing walker, cyclists and others safe enjoyable use of the road.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The temporary closure of Pinnacle Road due to COVID-19 restrictions during 2020, provided a unique opportunity for the community to walk and ride Pinnacle Road from the Wellington Park entry at Bracken Lane to the summit without vehicular traffic.

This lasted for one month and the community’s enjoyment of this ‘unique experience’ resulted in a petition.

2.2. The Council at its meeting held on the 6 July 2020, received a petition of 1,320 signatures calling for the City to regularly close Pinnacle Road to motor vehicles, allowing walker, cyclists and others safe enjoyable use of the road.

2.3. Currently for mountain bikes or road cycling, the only way to access the mountain above The Springs is to ride Pinnacle Road.

2.4. The opportunity to ride, walk or run Pinnacle Road without vehicles is currently only available as a participant of special events run by external organisations (the iconic Point to Pinnacle and the kunanyi challenge) and in certain snow conditions.

There is currently no provision of regular free of charge, traffic free, non-event based access to Pinnacle Road or any other public road in the City.

2.5. The proposal as it stands is a conceptual request.

It could potentially happen through various operational models, but not without commitment of resources and incurring costs to the City.

Further investigations are required to determine the feasibility, costs and wider impacts of the proposal if it were to be supported as a concept.

2.6. The current situation with reduced resources and reduction in funds for Pinnacle Road management would prevent the City from supporting such a proposal without additional funds being allocated or for the event to be fully funded by participants through the application of fees and related costs.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council note the request from the petitioners seeking to regularly close Pinnacle Road to vehicle traffic to allow for pedestrian and cycling users to access the road.

2. The proposal not be supported due to resource and cost implications.

3. The petitioner be advised of the Council’s decision.

4. Background

4.1. kunanyi / Mount Wellington is Tasmania's third most visited tourist attraction and most visited natural attraction (pre-COVID > 500,000 visitors per year).

The traffic on Pinnacle Road can be very busy during peak periods (up to 1800 vehicles per day).

4.2. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, Wellington Park was closed from 27 March 2020 until 11 May 2020. When COVID-19 public health directions were first relaxed, Wellington Park was re-opened for limited access (recreational use and exercise), but the Pinnacle Road remained closed to vehicles for four weeks (12 May 2020 to 5 June 2020).

4.3. These circumstance provided an opportunity for the community to walk, run and ride Pinnacle Road from the Park entry at Bracken Lane to the summit without vehicular traffic.

The community’s enjoyment of this unexpected experience, not normally available, resulted in the petition.

4.4. The Council at its meeting held on 6 July 2020, received a petition of 1,320 signatures calling for Council to regularly close Pinnacle Road to motor vehicles, allowing walker, cyclists and others safe enjoyable use of the road, as extracted below:

We, the undersigned request that Pinnacle Road is regularly closed to motor vehicles and motor bikes, allowing only pedestrian and cycle traffic.

This is to encourage safe and enjoyable access to the wonderful resource that is kunanyi / Mt Wellington.

Closing the road once each month would create a special occasion allowing families, the elderly and many others the opportunity to experience this are without the noise and danger of traffic.

4.5. There is currently no regular scheduled provision of traffic-free access.

4.6. The proposal presented by the petition is not specific about the operational model and simply seeks:

We request that Pinnacle Road is regularly closed to motor vehicles, allowing walkers, cyclists and others safe enjoyable use of the road. This could be one day per fortnight or month for example.

4.7. The COVID experience indicated this could prove popular with the community and create health, recreation, tourism and economic benefits.

However, it will not happen without resourcing or incurring costs and could also potentially negatively affect the existing services of some commercial tour operators.

4.7.1. It is noted that the City received significant complaints and serious conflict arose from the impact of uncontrolled traffic and parking at Gate 1 on Pinnacle Road and Bracken Lane during this period.

4.8. In addition to resourcing, there would be a range of issue to consider if this proposal was to be progressed:

a. Who is to manage the event and participants – Council or external organisation as an event proponent?

b. What level of patronage would justify the continuation of the event?

c. Who bears traffic management costs and closure locations?

d. Parking provision for users and the control of this impact upon residents (i.e. knock on effects from point of closure arising from vehicle based walkers and riders).

e. Frequency and timing of the event – which day, how often and for what duration (2 hours, half day or whole day)?

f. Seasonality, restrictions, safety of participants during extreme weather.

g. Closure point – the whole of Pinnacle Road from the Wellington Park boundary (Bracken Lane) or just up from The Springs?

h. Operational requirements and costs incurred by Council (would vary depending on the frequency, duration and delivery method).

i. Full closure to all vehicles - or allow shuttle buses to run?

j. What legal authority is available to close the road, other than for safety reasons?

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council not implement regular closure of Pinnacle Road, due to resourcing and cost implications.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Encourages and supports diverse recreational experiences, physical health and sustainable transport.

6.2. There are no other such regular closures in Australia of a Highway for such recreational pursuits.

6.3. Closure of the road would require a permit from the Wellington Park Management Trust and Tasmania Police.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Costs to be incurred by the City to host road closures for activities as sought by the petition have not been fully quantified but are expected to be considerable.

7.1.2. Funding is not available such activities.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Not applicable.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. None foreseen.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Authority to close Pinnacle Road need to be considered.

8.2. Closure of the road for recreational purposes would require an event management plan to address safety risks and assign responsibility for the management of the event.

8.3. During the winter months, during storms or high fire danger or with pre-emptive weather condition monitoring, the Council would need to determine if it were obliged to conduct road condition assessments pertaining to the suitability of the road for its safe use by bicycles including e-bikes and walkers.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. The initiative as broadly proposed would encourage physical health but to no greater extent than using the existing walking tracks and mountain bike tracks on the mountain.

9.2. The City already provides an extensive and maintained walking trail network in the areas and thee are already off road routes to get to the summit.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. Activities requested by the Petition during a road closure would not be possible during periods of high fire danger, extreme weather events or maintenance or repair closures.

10.2. Variations in any potential operating model (frequency, duration and timing) would limit access by vehicles during the road closure time and potentially effect some services provided by commercial tour operators.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. Considering the public interest in the mountain, and in particular the debate about access issues, implementing some communications measures to advise the public, key stakeholders and interested parties of the proposal would likely raise criticism.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. The City of Hobart has a well-established community consultation process which can be enacted if the Council determines the proposal is worthy of further investigation at this point in time.

12.2. The obvious interest groups include regional tourism bodies, commercial tour operators and peak cycling / walking / trail running bodies.

13. Delegation

13.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Greg Milne

Program Leader Bushland Recreation

John Fisher

Manager Bushland / Manager Parks & Recreation

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 4 June 2021

File Reference: F21/16046; 18/12

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 21

10/6/2021

Memorandum: Parks and Recreation Committee

Franklin Square Amenities Building - Proposal to Install Luggage Lockers - Update

At its open meeting held on 17 June 2019, the Council considered an item (no. 28) on the Franklin Square Amenities Building – Proposal to install Luggage Lockers, whereat it resolved the following:

“That: 1. The proposal to provide luggage lockers for the travelling public be endorsed.

2. Approval be provided for the General Manager to enter negotiations with ‘ezy Lockers’ for a partnership facilitating the provision of lockers at Franklin Square on a revenue sharing arrangement.”

Following further external investigations and internal consultation, officers advise that investment in smart Locker infrastructure would respond to a number of previously approved Connected Hobart Smart City Action Plan initiatives, including CV105 Smart Locker Trials, CTR13 Digital Upgrades to Major City Bus Stops and CV103 Digital Wayfinding and Information Kiosk initiatives.

Such an investment would also have the potential to compliment a range of other city-wide programs including:

• CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design);

• City Security (CCTV and appropriate lighting design);

• Equal Access and Assistive Technologies;

• Social Mobility;

• Local business and tourism information and services; and

• Language services.

Officers further advise that City Innovation had commenced investigations into the installation of smart locker facilities in the city. As part of these investigations, officers have consulted with a range of smart locker providers including ezy Lockers, Bloq It, Click & Collect, V locker, TZ locker, Smart Locker, e-locker, Dong Cheng and Interloc.

An assessment has identified that a formal procurement process would be required before the original action could be undertaken. It is noted that no decision has yet been taken.

REcommendation

That:

1. The Council rescind clause 2 of the Council resolution in regards to item 28 of the Council agenda of 17 June 2019 titled “Franklin Square Amenities Building – Proposal to Install Luggage Lockers”, being:

“That approval be provided for the General Manager to enter negotiations with ‘ezy Lockers’ for a partnership facilitating the provision of lockers at Franklin Square on a revenue sharing arrangement”.

2. The City Innovation Division continue to progress Action CV105 – Smart Locker Trials - within the agreed Connected Hobart Action Plan.

Robert Stevenson

Manager Smart & Sustainable City

Peter Carr

Director City Innovation

Date: 4 June 2021

File Reference: F21/42585; 17/262

Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 34

10/6/2021

Memorandum: Lord Mayor

Deputy Lord Mayor

Elected Members

Response to Question Without Notice

Seasonal Gardens and Planter Boxes

Meeting: Parks and Recreation Committee

Meeting date: 10 December 2020

Raised by: Councillor Ewin

Question:

The gardens and planter boxes are a colourful feature around the city, and are changed seasonally.

I’m interested in how this fits in with our sustainability and climate action strategies, as well as the community vision document.

Could the Director please provide a response as to:

a) The rationale behind changing the gardens and planters seasonally;

b) How we could design our city garden spaces to better support native flora and fauna biodiversity;

c) The financial implications of continuing as we are, as opposed to switching to permanently installed garden beds and/or planter boxes?

Response:

The provision of colourful garden annual plants in planter boxes has been an element of the streetscape of the CBD for many years with a degree of rationalisation based on the experience with alternative plantings.

The Hobart City Vision Pillar 1 recognises the unique nature of the City and Pillar 6 the need to thread greenways through the City.

Annual plants are grown at the City’s production nursery and are timed to be placed in the City to achieve maximum impact that provides a changing feature to the City especially during the short winter days and allows a greater burst of colour during spring and summer to break the constructed nature of a city landscape at street level.

The use of annuals establishes a link between the gardens in the formal urban parks of the inner City to the formal streetscape in the CBD by bring colour and greenery into these built spaces.

Perennial plants have been found to be unsuitable as they do not withstand the City environment and the level of disturbance that occurs in these CBD street locations quickly damages the displays.

The use of annuals is limited to inner city locations where the encouragement of wildlife is not appropriate.

Plantings in our parks and reserves are used to encourage native fauna residency in locations where both food resources, roosting, nesting habitat and shelter is available.

There are implications for establishing permanent beds within the city which include:

· Continual replacement of expensive plants due to damage;

· Watering and moisture impacts on street and road infrastructure;

· Costs associated with removing such beds for underground works;

· Trip hazards with ground level beds and surrounds;

· Rubbish accumulation; and

· The loss of vibrant colour in the City during winter days.

Costs of maintaining annual beds is not greatly different to maintaining a permanent bed in a high use area if the same standard of display is required.

Replacing displays in planter boxes is cost effective as individual plants are in pots and can be replaced in one event seasonally or individuals replaced if they are damaged.

Carbon capture in annual plants is achieved when the potted plants are recycled through composting which is consistent with a responsible climate change action strategy.

John Fisher

Manager Bushland / Manager Parks & Recreation

Glenn Doyle

Director City Amenity

Date: 4 June 2021

File Reference: F20/135928; 13-1-10

Agenda (Open Portion)

Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting

Page 35

10/6/2021

9. Questions Without Notice

Section 29 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

File Ref: 13-1-10

An Elected Member may ask a question without notice of the Chairman, another Elected Member, the Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Executive Officer’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 Elected Member 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, Elected Members, Chief Executive Officer or Chief Executive Officer’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 Elected Members, at the appropriate time.

(iii) upon the answer to the question being circulated to Elected Members, 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.

People	We care about 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.