Agenda of Finance and Governance Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance and Governance Committee Meeting

Page 11

26/7/2022

REPORT TITLE: Response to Notice of Motion - Differential Rating Strategy

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Acting Director City Enablers

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to respond to a notice of motion requesting a report on differential rating options for short stay visitor accommodation and vacant residential land, and other rates and State Government incentives designed to address some of the chronic housing shortage the City is facing recognising both the social and economic implications of the current housing affordability crisis in Hobart.

2. Report Summary

2.1. During the period 2013 - 2018 Council considered a number of discussion papers and reports on the matter of introducing a differential rate for vacant or unused residential housing accommodation and derelict or dilapidated buildings.

2.2. At its meeting on 15 March 2022, the Council approved a Notice of Motion from the Deputy Lord Mayor, that:

1. An urgent report be prepared to provide Council with advice it can use to determine if it is appropriate to seek approval to apply variable (differential) rates for the following:

a. Properties listed as whole house visitor accommodation that currently have rates based on the Assessed Annual Value as a residential property; and

b. Vacant land zoned as Residential

2. The report also provide advice on rates rebates and possible State Government incentives for (new) residential properties approved and built as either the principle place of residence for the applicant, or that are tenanted through long-term rental or affordable housing rentals.

2.3. Differentially rating is an option open to Council pursuant to Section 107 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) (the Act) and given recent changes to land use codes, the Council could apply a differential rate to properties that have a land use of vacant – residential and / or short stay visitor accommodation.

2.4. Differential rates allow councils to address strategic objectives for funding and service delivery and provide flexibility for local rating issues, as well as property value fluctuations between different categories of land. A differential rate is generally levied where a council determines it would be inequitable and unfair to levy a single general rate on all land in a council’s area.

2.5. Through rate rebates the Council could also introduce incentives to encourage vacant land owners to develop land.

2.6. The introduction of differential rating for the purposes of stimulating housing development and disincentivising the conversion of residential property into short stay visitor accommodation is a policy decision for Council and the decision requires an absolute majority of Council.

2.7. It is suggested that Council consider differential rating for properties used for short stay visitor accommodation and vacant – residential land during its broader review of the City of Hobart rating and valuation strategy in 2022-23.

3. Recommendations

That:

1. The report ‘Differential Rating Strategy’ be received and noted.

2. Council consider differential rating for properties used for short stay visitor accommodation and vacant – residential land during its broader review of the City of Hobart Rating and Valuation Strategy in 2022-23.

4. Background

4.1. During the period 2013 - 2018 Council considered a number of discussion papers and reports on the matter of introducing a differential rate for vacant or unused residential housing accommodation and derelict or dilapidated buildings.

4.2. Council last considered a similar matter at its meeting on 18 June 2018, title ‘Tax for Vacant or Unused Residential Housing Accommodation’ whereat Council considered a possible tax for vacant or unused residential housing accommodation designed to address the shortage of rental accommodation and resolved that:

4.2.1. The Council write to the Local Government Association of Tasmania to raise the issue more broadly with the sector.

4.2.2. The Council write to the State Government requesting consideration be given or a vacant residential land tax similar to the Victoria model.

4.3. At its meeting on 15 March 2022, the Council approved a Notice of Motion from the Deputy Lord Mayor, that:

1. An urgent report be prepared to provide Council with advice it can use to determine if it is appropriate to seek approval to apply variable (differential) rates for the following:

a. Properties listed as whole house visitor accommodation that currently have rates based on the Assessed Annual Value as a residential property; and

b. Vacant land zoned as Residential

4.4. Differential rating is a rating tool, available under Section 107 of the Local Government Act 1993, which allows a council to charge a different rate in the dollar depending on land use and/or location, planning zone or other prescribed factor.

4.5. The application of a differential rate means that one class of property is treated differently from another – either paying a higher or lower rate in the dollar. For each effect a differential has, it will have the opposite effect for other property classes. A rate discount given to one class of property can only be covered by higher rates paid by other classes and vice-a-versa.

4.6. Council’s rating strategy has been to use a single rate, that is, the same rate in the dollar applied to all properties no matter what the land is being used for or where it is located. However, for 2022-23 the Council adopted a differential rating and limiting rate increases through maximum percentage increase caps to help mitigate the disparity in the distribution of rate collections resulting from the municipal property revaluation.

4.7. Using differential rates is a policy decision of Council. In Tasmania, approximately half of the 29 councils use differential rating as a rating strategy tool.

4.8. Differential rates allow councils to address strategic objectives for funding and service delivery and provide flexibility for local rating issues, as well as property value fluctuations between different categories of land. A differential rate is generally levied where a council determines it would be inequitable and unfair to levy a single general rate on all land in a council’s area.

Short Stay Visitor Accommodation

4.9. In early 2014, the then Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 were amended to also allow councils to vary the general rate by the Valuer-General land use code i.e. property type. This amendment increased the categories of land use that a council could differentially rate by providing more detailed land use categories.

4.10. While the Office of the Valuer-General (OVG) has had a land use of Vacant – Residential, it did not historically have a land use for Short Stay Visitor Accommodation and therefore differential rating could not occur on these types of properties.

4.11. However, following the introduction of the Short Stay Accommodation Act 2019, on 4 June 2019 the OVG reviewed the Land Use Codes applied to this type of property and created a new Property Valuation Classification Code - R7 – Short Stay Visitor Accommodation. This is a subset of the ‘Residential’ land use group. The OVG has determined that a residential primary classification is considered appropriate due to the basis of valuation and application of Adjustment Factors.

4.12. The legislation requires new and existing short stay premises providers to have a planning permit or evidence of existing use rights, which are protected under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and this must be provided to the booking platform provider who is required to display it for each property.

4.13. Short stay visitor accommodation refers to premises that are let out to paying guests for overnight accommodation. This may be for a very short period (one or two nights) or for extended periods (a number of weeks). The term “Short Stay” describes accommodation as being on a temporary basis, rather than longer-term residential use.

4.14. This does not apply to hotels, motels, guest houses, bed and breakfast; there is a separate commercial land use code for these types of properties.

4.15. It should be noted that to qualify as short stay visitor accommodation the property must have a planning permit to operate the whole of the property as short stay accommodation. The entire premises must be permanently available for visitor letting; not simply a room within a dwelling where the owner or occupier also resides and not let out on a temporary basis while the owner or occupier is on vacation or temporarily absent. Those properties with only a room within a house would not be classified as R7.

4.16. The approval of short stay visitor accommodation in private dwellings is a matter for a council. The OVG has no involvement in making determinations regarding use of these types of properties. The OVG will code properties as short stay visitor accommodation only on written notification from council that a permit has been approved by council and/or there is a change of use.

4.17. Since 2015 the City has approved change of use to visitor accommodation, partial change of use to visitor accommodation or new works including visitor accommodation as an approved use for 488 properties. The City has approved the conversion of visitor accommodation to something else for 16 properties.

4.18. The current Valuation Roll for Hobart has 14 R7 properties. The OVG will be undertaking a review of the properties that council has issued a permit for to determine whether they should also have the R7 land use code. This would allow the City to differentially rate these types of properties should it wish to.

4.19. It is noted that in its budget 2022-23 Brisbane City Council introduced a new rating category for ‘transitory accommodation’, which means that owners who lease their property on the short-term market will pay 50% higher rates than equivalent non-owner-occupied residential properties. For a property on the minimum rating level, that’s almost $600 extra a year.

4.20. Brisbane City Council has taken this step for a number of reasons including to address the removal of homes from the long-term rental market contributing to supply shortages and increasing housing costs in the municipal area.

Vacant Land

4.21. Differentially rating vacant or unoccupied land is an option open to Council under the Act.

4.22. Hobart has 634 properties with a land use category of vacant according to the Office of the Valuer-General (OVG), classified as follows:

4.22.1. Vacant – Residential - 541 properties.

4.22.2. Vacant - Commercial – 15 properties.

4.22.3. Vacant - Industrial – 2 properties.

4.22.4. Vacant – Broad Hectares – 40 properties.

4.22.5. Vacant – Rural Residential – 36 properties.

4.23. Of the 541 properties classified as Vacant – Residential, 500 of those are rateable.

4.24. Vacant properties represent 3% of all properties in the Hobart municipal area but contribute only 1% of the rate burden due to paying lower rates.

4.25. Properties classified as Vacant enjoy lower rates due to having lower valuations. The AAV of the property is always 4% of the Land Value because there are no capital improvements on the land and due to the 4% Minimum Rule. Vacant properties do not pay the Waste Management Service Charge, the FOGO collection service charge or contribute to the Landfill Rehabilitation Levy. There is, therefore, from a rating perspective, little incentive for the land to be developed or improved.

4.26. It should be noted that the quantum of vacant land is reducing in the municipal area. In 2009 there were 790 vacant land properties, in 2015 there were 655 vacant land properties and currently there are 634. Conversely subdivisions appear to be increasing.

4.27. Many councils in Australia apply a strategy of differentially rating vacant land. That is, applying a different rate in the dollar for land classified as vacant from other land categories. From a review of those councils the reasoning behind a vacant land differential is:

4.27.1. To encourage development of vacant land for housing and other purposes.

4.27.2. To promote the development of all properties to their full potential thereby stimulating economic growth and development in all areas of the municipality.

4.27.3. To discourage the holding of land.

4.27.4. To ensure vacant land owners contribute an equitable share of the rate burden compared to other types of land owners.

4.28. While it should be recognised that not all land in the Hobart municipal area can be equally developed due to different requirements of applicable zones and codes, along with the current challenges with the sharp increase to costs of development.

4.29. Furthermore, in bushland and rural areas there may be little benefit to Council in encouraging development. These areas are usually environmentally sensitive with landscape value, high bushfire risk and limited services.

4.30. However, under most circumstances vacant land can have at least one dwelling constructed.

4.31. In terms of how this could be implemented, should council wish to consider differentially rating vacant land, it would be proposed that the differential would apply without exceptions except where there is a legal entitlement to a General Rate exemption under section 87 of the Act. In this case, the General Rate, differential or otherwise, would not be applicable to the property.

4.32. Council could, as an example, introduce a policy whereby if it can be established that land is being held purely while sufficient funds are being raised to build a dwelling Council would consider providing relief from the higher differential general rate for a certain period or, for instance, where an owner has a planning or building permit. This could be implemented through the application of a rate rebate, which is considered further from section 4.34 below.

4.33. Conversely having an exceptions policy may be complex and difficult to administer. Also, a planning or building permit is no guarantee that land will be developed. It is also considered unnecessary because:

4.33.1. under the Act a ratepayer can object to a differential rate and

4.33.2. if land is developed it will be revalued by the OVG as non-vacant, the rates will be adjusted accordingly and any credit applied to the property.

4.34. Pursuant to section 109 of the Act, a ratepayer may object to a differential rate only on the grounds that the use of the ratepayer’s land is not the use on which the variation is based.

4.35. For example, Council may have applied the differential rate to land with a land use of Vacant Residential but a house has been built on the land meaning that the land use is no longer ‘vacant’ and the vacant land differential should not apply.

Rate Rebates

4.36. In some jurisdictions rates rebates are used by councils as incentives to stimulate residential development.

4.37. City of Charles Sturt offers a rate rebate for owners building a new family home on land classed as ‘vacant land’ on their 2021-22 rates notice, called the Residential Construction Rebate. Details are available from the City of Charles Sturt website and are summarised at Attachment A.

4.38. There are no application fees and to apply you need to complete an application form and provide supporting documentation.

4.39. As part of their rating strategy the City of Adelaide applies a differential rate to all vacant land holdings that is 100% higher (i.e. double) than the residential rate. The purpose is to:

4.39.1. Provide a disincentive to withholding land from development

4.39.2. Discourage land banking

4.39.3. Recognise the cost of surrounding infrastructure and services.

4.40. The City of Adelaide also provide a rebate for any vacant land that is not within the definition of ‘long term’ e.g. is in the process of being developed. The effect of which is to reduce the differential rate back to the applicable residential rate.

4.41. In considering the definition of long term vacant land, the City of Adelaide have considered development time frames including planning, pre-sales and construction.

4.42. The City of Adelaide also rebate (so effectively don’t apply the vacant land differential rate) small parcels of vacant land on separate titles that may form part of a rear garden, side gate entrance of other small pieces of adjacent land that may not be able to be developed in their own right.

4.43. Section 129 of the Act allows council to provide a rates rebate or remission. Therefore, Council could adopt a similar program should it wish to.

4.44. Murrindindi Shire Council introduced a differential rate to land identified as vacant and developable in 2015. The differential is 150% of the general residential rate (or three times more).

4.45. Murrindindi Shire Council provide a rebate of the differential to vacant land that is subject to a subdivision. The rebate recognises the investment committed to a subdivision by a developing land holders and the holding cost of the subdivided lots prior to transfer or sale.

4.46. The rebate is designed to remove a potential disincentive to subdividing development of vacant developable land that a vacant land differential on multiple lots within a subdivision may cause.

4.47. To apply a ratepayer must complete an application form and provide appropriate evidence.

State Government Incentives

4.48. There are a number of State Government incentives designed to address Tasmania’s current chronic housing shortage.

4.49. Funded under the State Government’s Tasmania’s Affordable Housing Action Plan 2019-2023, Communities Tasmania has a Private Rental Incentives Program, which encourages property owners to make their homes available for affordable rent to low income households with low or no support needs.

4.50. More information is available on the Communities Tasmania website and is summarised at Attachment B.

4.51. The Department of State Growth has a $5 million Ancillary Dwelling Grants Program designed to help boost housing supply, support home ownership and put downward pressure on rents.

4.52. To be eligible for the grant applicants must construct a new ancillary dwelling and make it available for long-term rent for at least two years. There is eligibility criteria and an application process.

4.53. The State Government also offers a HomeBuilder grant and a First Home Owner Grant.

4.54. The State Government also provides a range of concessions for housing, including

4.54.1. Aboriginal housing service – providing assistance to Aboriginal people to access housing.

4.54.2. HomeShare – purchasers can buy a Communities Tasmania property for sale, a property they currently rent from Housing Tasmania (if available for sale), a newly built home or a house and land page. The cost is shared with the Director of Housing 30% and the owner 70%.

4.54.3. Private Rental Assistance – to assist low to moderate income owners who are having difficulty accessing or staying in the private rental market.

4.54.4. Public Housing Rent assistance – to assist low income earners access housing.

4.54.5. Council rates remission – a 30% reduction on rates capped at a maximum amount each year for eligible pensioners.

4.54.6. Streets Ahead Incentive Program – assists low to moderate income earners to buy a home from Housing Tasmania through the provision of financial and other assistance.

4.55. The Tasmanian Government has committed to developing a Tasmanian Housing Strategy that will underpin a more sustainable housing system, due for completion in late 2022. The Tasmanian Housing Strategy will be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders and the Tasmanian community and a discussion paper will be available for public consultation from mid-2022.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. The City has recently undergone a municipal property revaluation, which occurs once every seven years. It last occurred in 2015 and since then property values have increased considerably throughout the municipal area but not uniformly causing a shift in the rate burden from commercial to residential.

5.2. As a result, for 2022-23 the City has introduced a temporary rating strategy to help mitigate the disparity in the distribution of rate collections resulting from the municipal property revaluation.

5.3. A comprehensive review of the City’s Rating and Valuation Strategy (the Review) will be undertaken during the 2022-23 year to review how rates are levied and applied. The Review will give consideration to quarantining the additional revenue derived from the rate base growth and applying this to growth initiatives in the municipal area.

5.4. Introducing a differential rate for short stay visitor accommodation and / or vacant land is a rating policy and strategy decision for Council and it is proposed that this be considered as part of the Review.

5.5. The Review will also consider how rates should be raised from properties in the municipal area, including pensioners and consider a range of social and economic factors in doing so.

5.6. With a land use of residential, short stay visitor accommodation properties would pay lower rates than if the property was classified as commercial. It is proposed that as part of the City’s rating and valuation strategy review consideration be given to:

5.6.1. whether short stay visitor accommodation is a commercial enterprise and so should be contributing more of the rate burden than a residential property; and

5.6.2. whether introducing a differential would have the effect of discouraging the conversion of residential properties to short stay visitor accommodation.

5.7. In terms of vacant land, the Review will consider whether it is inequitable and unfair that vacant land contribute 1% of the total rate burden but constitute 3% of all properties. Council also may wish to promote the development of land to its full potential via the rating system thereby stimulating economic growth and development in all areas of the municipality.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This matter is consistent with pillar 4, 7 and 8 in the City of Hobart Capital City Strategic Plan 2019-2029 and outcome 7.1 Hobart has a diverse supply of housing and affordable homes, and strategies as follows:

4.5.5 – Prepare for the impacts of long-term trends, such as climate change, transport modes, and tourism and housing demand cycles on the Hobart economy.

7.1.1 – Work in collaboration with government bodies and the not-for-profit sector to identify and address issues of homelessness and housing affordability, diversity and supply.

7.1.2 – Advocate for people at risk of housing stress and homelessness.

7.1.3 – Encourage recognition and understanding of the issues that contribute to homelessness and develop effective partnerships to enhance interactions with homeless people.

7.1.4 – Advocate for the increased supply of social housing to be delivered through a range of supported accommodation models.

7.1.5 – Advocate for legislative and other tools that support social and affordable housing.

7.2.4 – Support existing housing stock to meet changing needs, while recognising and enhancing Hobart’s aesthetic and character.

8.5.8 – Maintain a rating system that supports fairness, capacity to pay and effectiveness.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Applying a differential rate will not affect the total amount of revenue Council collects in rates. However, applying a higher general rate differential will have a redistributive effect on the rate burden i.e. those land owners will pay more and all other ratepayers will pay less, albeit slightly less.

7.2. As an example, applying a higher rate-in-the-dollar to vacant land or properties used for short-stay visitor accommodation in comparison to all other land use categories would mean that these owners would pay higher general rates in comparison to all other types of land owners (on a per $ of AAV basis).

7.3. In terms of what quantum of differential rate would be effective, I note that other councils have a differential at least 100% of the residential rate (2 x) and some have more.

7.4. It is proposed that as part of the Review, extensive rates modelling is undertaken to determine options for the appropriate distribution of the rates burden.

7.5. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.5.1. Differential rating doesn’t impact the amount of rates revenue required in the budget to be collected each year. Differential rating impacts the portion of the rates to be paid by different types of properties.

7.5.2. The City’s rating strategy does not influence the amount of money to be raised by Council, which is considered in the City’s Long-term Financial Management Plan and annual budget. It instead determines how rates and charge will be equitably distributed amongst the City’s ratepayers.

7.6. Asset Related Implications

7.6.1. There are no asset related implications.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. These have been considered elsewhere in this report.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. Any change to Council’s current system of rating would have an impact on all ratepayers in the municipality. It will be important that the community and other stakeholder groups are engaged on any changes and understand how any new measures will impact and importantly benefit them.

10. Marketing and Media

10.1. Should Council wish to introduce any of the matters considered in this report a plan to communicate council’s decision would be prepared and implemented in advance of the change taking effect.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. The proposed review of the City’s Rating and Valuation Strategy is proposed to be undertaken in stages and there will be a number of opportunities for the community to provide feedback and support Council’s decision making. A community engagement strategy will be developed.

12. Delegation

12.1. Pursuant to s107 of the Act, a decision to introduce a differential rate requires an absolute majority of Council.

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

Lara MacDonell

Acting Director City Enablers

Date: 12 July 2022

File Reference: F22/48699

Attachment a: City of Charles Sturt Residential Construction Rebate ⇩

Attachment b: Communities Tasmania - Private Rental Incentives Program ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance and Governance Committee Meeting

Page 26

26/7/2022

Memorandum: Finance and Governance Committee

Petition Seeking Elector Poll - Save UTas Campus Inc

The purpose of this report is to provide advice to the Council in relation to outcome of the petition submitted by Professor Pamela Sharpe on behalf of Save UTas Campus Inc seeking an elector poll regarding the University’s relocation from its Sandy Bay Campus into the CBD.

The Council held a public meeting on 11 May 2022 pursuant to a petition requesting same. Following that public meeting a further petition was submitted on 10 June 2022 seeking the Council conduct and elector poll asking the following question:

Do you support the University of Tasmania’s proposal to relocate the Sandy Bay campus into Hobart’s central business district?

Threshold

The Council must hold an elector poll if three pre-conditions are met.

1. A petition requesting the elector poll is received within 30 days after a public meeting is held under section 59 of the Local Government Act 1993 (“the Act”) in relation to the same subject matter as that contained in the petition requesting that public meeting. The petition was received on 10 June 2022 which is within 30 days after the public meeting held on 11 May 2022. The subject matter of the petition seeking the elector poll is also the same subject matter as contained in the petition seeking the public meeting.

2. The petition is signed by at least 5% of the electors in the municipal area or 1,000 of those electors, whichever is the lesser. The relevant figure for the City of Hobart is 1,000 of the electors in the municipal area.

In order to determine the number of signature in the petition, assistance from the Tasmanian Electoral Commission (“the TEC”) was required. This was due to a number of the signatures not including sufficient detail to determine whether the individual was included on the electoral roll. The Council initially determined that 975 signatures were electors and the TEC determined that an additional 42 were confirmed and 28 were likely.

Following this advice from the TEC, the petition was confirmed as being signed by 1,017 electors and possibly 1,045. In any event it has achieved the requisite number under the Act.

3. The petition complies with s57(2) of the Act. These are the administrative requirements in relation to submitting any petition to Council and these were confirmed prior to it being tabled at the Council meeting of 14 June 2022.

The Council must therefore hold an elector poll as requested.

Timing

If the person who lodged the petition agrees to an elector poll being held in conjunction with the next ordinary election, the elector poll may be held in conjunction with that next ordinary election. The Chief Executive Officer wrote to Prof Sharpe on 16 June 2022 seeking that agreement. Prof Sharpe has agreed that the elector poll can be conducted in conjunction with the next ordinary election, which is in October this year.

Elector Poll Process

Section 60D of the Act provides that an elector poll held in conjunction with an election is to be conducted as determined by the Electoral Commissioner. Early engagement has occurred with the Commissioner in relation to the logistics around conducting the poll.

The commissioner has stated that as part of the process a preamble, a “no” case and a “yes” case would be required. The Commissioner’s suggestion is that as the question proposed relates to the actions of the University of Tasmania that:

· A draft preamble would be written by the Council (written in easy English and including background information around the issue and the process undertaken to trigger the elector poll);

· a draft “no case” would be written by the person(s) who lodged the petition; and

· a draft “yes case” would be written by a University of Tasmania representative.

Following consideration of this matter by Council, the relevant parties would be written to seeking the relevant content. Ultimately though, final approval of the content will rest with the Commissioner before being printed.

In terms of the preamble prepared by the Council the following is proposed:

The City of Hobart held a public meeting on Wednesday 11 May 2022 in response to a petition regarding the relocation of the University of Tasmania (UTAS) from its Sandy Bay campus into the Hobart central business district. Following the public meeting, a petition was submitted to the Council seeking an elector poll asking:

Do you support the University of Tasmania’s proposal to relocate the Sandy Bay campus into Hobart’s central business district?

As the petition had over 1,000 signatures from electors in the Hobart municipal area the Council is required to conduct an elector poll. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (“the Act”), the person that submitted the petition, Professor Pam Sharpe, agreed that the elector poll could occur in conjunction with the ordinary local government election in October 2022. The Act provides that an elector poll held in conjunction with an election is to be conducted by the Electoral Commissioner. The Commissioner is therefore conducting this elector poll. The result of an elector poll is not binding on a council.

Material relating to the elector poll would be included with ballot papers relating to the local government election in October 2022 and will follow the election timeline. A matter which is the subject of an elector poll is decided by a simple majority of the formal votes cast. The CEO has an obligation to publish the result of an elector poll in a newspaper circulating in the municipal area and the Council is to discuss the result of an elector poll at its next ordinary meeting, however the result of the elector poll is not binding on the Council.

Proposal

It is proposed that in accordance with the Act, the Electoral Commissioner be engaged to conduct the elector poll on the Council’s behalf in conjunction with the local government election in October 2022.

Save UTas Campus Inc and the University of Tasmania will be written to requesting their contribution to the respective ‘cases’ to be provided to the Electoral Commissioner.

Recommendation

That:

1. The Council note that the petition tabled at the Council meeting of 14 June 2022 submitted by Professor Pam Sharpe contained the signatures of over 1,000 electors from the Hobart municipal area and that it is required to conduct an elector poll in relation to the University of Tasmania’s proposed relocation of its campus from Sandy Bay to the central business district of Hobart.

2. The elector poll be conducted in conjunction with the next ordinary local government election in October 2022.

3. The Tasmanian Electoral Commission be engaged to undertake the elector poll on the Council’s behalf and the Council notes that in accordance with s60D of the Local Government Act 1993 that an elector poll held in conjunction with an election is to be conducted as determined by the Electoral Commissioner which includes the determination of the question to be asked.

4. The University of Tasmania and Save UTas Campus Inc be requested to provide the “yes case” and “no case” respectively with these to be provided to the Electoral Commissioner.

Paul Jackson

Manager Legal and Governance

Date: 15 July 2022

File Reference: F22/66866; 16/119-0009

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance and Governance Committee Meeting

Page 30

26/7/2022

Memorandum: Finance and Governance Committee

Legislative Council Select Committee
Inquiry into the provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992

The Legislative Council established a select committee on Tuesday May 24 2022 with the following terms of reference:

That a Select Committee be appointed, with power to send for persons and papers, with leave to sit during any adjournment of the Council, and with leave to adjourn from place to place, to inquire into and report upon the provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 with particular reference to —

(1) The constitution, functions and powers of the University;

(2) The constitution, role, powers and obligations of the Council and Academic Senate;

(3) The appropriateness of the Act to ensure accountable executive, fiscal and academic decision making;

(4) The appropriateness of the Act to protect and promote academic freedom, independence and autonomy; and

(5) Any other matters incidental.

The Committee Chair, Hon Rob Valentine MLC, has written to the Chief Executive Officer inviting written submissions from interested individuals or organisations which specifically address the relevant terms of reference. A copy of the correspondence is included as Attachment A to this report. Submissions should be received before close of business on Monday 29 August 2022.

As part of the Council’s decision of 27 June 2022 regarding the Notice of Motion in relation to UTas, it resolved that:

Council notes that a parliamentary inquiry into UTAS is being considered. Should the Council make a submission, then the report marked as Item 6.5 and attachments of Item 6.4, of the Open Finance and Governance Committee agenda of 21 June 2022, be considered to form the basis of that submission;

These two documents are the comprehensive report regarding UTas in response to the Notice of Motion and the other is the resolutions and questions from the public meeting held on 11 May 2022.

It is therefore proposed that the Council make a submission to the Committee in accordance with the Council’s resolution of 27 June. It remains open to the Council to consider whether it wishes to provide any further material as part of its written submission, noting that submissions are to specifically address the relevant terms of reference.

To that end, and recognising the role of the Council and its relationship to the University, it would seem that the main concern with the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (“the UTas Act”) is in relation to the lack of accountability of the University and the University Council for its actions and decisions. A full copy of the UTas Act is included as Attachment B to this report.

It appears that the UTas Act is set-up for the University Council to be the overarching ‘check and balance’ mechanism for the University itself as they are separately constituted and have separate powers and functions. These powers, however, are very broad and have no public accountability or community or stakeholder consultation requirement built into the legislation. Additionally, the obligations of the University Council is to act in all matters concerning the University in the way it considers will best advance the interests of the University (s9(2) of the UTas Act). The UTas Act fails to provide any recognition that the University is a member of the broader community and also has an obligation to consider the views and impact of their decisions on the broader community.

REcommendation

That:

1. The Council make a submission to the Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 including the following positions:

(i) In accordance with the Council’s resolution of 27 June 2022 the report marked as Item 6.5 and attachments of Item 6.4 of the Open Finance and Governance Committee agenda of 21 June 2022 form the basis of the submission.

(ii) The Council’s main concern is with respect to the lack of accountability of the University of Tasmania and the University Council for its actions and decision.

2. The Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise the form of a submission on behalf of the City of Hobart.

Kelly Grigsby

Chief Executive Officer

Date: 20 July 2022

File Reference: F22/69324; 15/153-652

Attachment a: Correspondence LegCo Select Committee - UTas ⇩

Attachment b: University of Tasmania Act 1992 ⇩

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance and Governance Committee Meeting

Page 60

26/7/2022

REPORT TITLE: Lease of Mariners Cottage, Battery Point Slipyards

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Principal Advisor Legal & Property

Manager Legal and Governance

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to consider a proposal from the Wooden Boat Guild of Tasmania Inc (the “Guild”) to renew their lease of the Mariners Cottage within the Battery Point Slipyards (“Mariners Cottage”)(Attachment A).

1.2. The Guild has leased the Mariners Cottage since 1 August 2016 and used it as its base of operations for undertaking boat building within the precinct. This has included using the Mariners Cottage for board meetings, performing research, undertaking guided tours and for storage of some equipment and reading materials related to its activities.

1.3. The Guild currently leases the space on a monthly basis following the recent expiry of their old lease and has made an application for a new lease for a term of five (5) years (Attachment B).

1.4. It is considered the proposal represents a good use of this property and aligns with the Council’s Policy: Leases to Non-profit Organisations. It also represents a good opportunity to use the space for a purpose that aligns with the objectives of the Battery Point Slipyards Master Plan by maintaining the character of the site as a working maritime precinct.

2. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council grant a lease of the Mariners Cottage, situated at 18-44 Napoleon Street, Battery Point in Tasmania to the Wooden Boat Guild of Tasmania Inc for a period of five (5) years at $50.00 per annum (plus GST) in accordance with the Council’s Policy: Leases to Non-Profit Organisations.

2. The benefit provided by Council be reported in the Council’s Annual Report in accordance with the Council’s Policy: Leases to Non-Profit Organisations.

3. The Chief Executive Officer be delegated the authority to negotiate and agree to the final lease terms.

3. Background

3.1. The Council owns a building known as the Mariners Cottage which is situated within the Battery Point Slipyards (“Slipyards”) at 18-44 Napoleon Street, Battery Point in Tasmania.

3.2. The Mariners Cottage has been leased from time-to-time, with the most recent tenant being the Guild.

3.3. Council approached the Guild in anticipation of their lease expiring seeking confirmation on whether they would be seeking to apply for a renewal. Council officers also used this opportunity to renegotiate the terms of their occupation to align it closer with the recommendations of the Battery Point Slipyards Master Plan.

3.4. The attached proposal (Attachment B) outlines the Guild’s intent in respect to the property.

3.5. It is considered this proposal represents a good use of the property given the boat making activities and general purpose of the Guild aligns with the character and heritage values of the site.

3.6. Whilst it is open to Council to call for expressions of interest for the use of this property, recognising the unique nature of the precinct and the suitability of the Guild’s use of the property, the direct approach is considered a sensible outcome.

3.7. The Council’s Leases to Non-Profit Organisations policy sets out a number of criteria against which any proposals seeking a reduced rental are to be assessed. The table below provides commentary regarding the proposal by the Guild against the criteria in that policy:

Criteria	Comments
Use, or proposed use of the property	The Mariner’s Cottage will be used by the Guild to support its operations within the Slipyards and will be accessible to the public for inspection (subject to the availability of the Guild’s volunteers) to showcase the memorabilia displayed within the property.
Alignment with the Council’s Strategic Plan and other relevant Council strategic documents	Aligns strongly with Pillars 1, 2, and 3 of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2019-29. The Guild has particularised these synergies in greater detail on pages 9-10 of their application (Annexure B)
Level of community benefit – proposed or provided	The Guild’s mission can be generally summarised as preserving the skills, processes, tools and materials associated with wooden boatbuilding in all its forms through education. The Guild furthers this purpose through its activities and in undertaking open day sessions at the Mariners Cottage, preparing pamphlets and website materials documenting the history of the site and the craft, undertaking guided tours and offering support for the annual wooden boat festival.
Value of land and buildings	The property has been appraised as having a market rental of $13,500.00 per annum (excluding GST)
Potential for alternative use	The use of the site is guided by the Battery Point Slipyards Master Plan which would favour proposals that protect the heritage of the precinct by continuing its use as a working maritime precinct and provide opportunities to tell the maritime history of the site, both of which are demonstrated by the Guild’s use of the Mariner’s Cottage
Viability and capability of the organisation	The Guild was established in November 1994 and is a Incorporated Association regulated by Consumer Building and Occupational Services
Capacity to pay, after all income and expenditure is taken into account	The Guild has limited funds raised from annual membership fees and fundraising BBQs and therefore has limited capacity to pay rent.
Capacity to invest in and maintain the asset, or degree of capital investment undertaken	The Guild will have internal maintenance obligations imposed as part of the lease.
Type of facility	Caretakers Cottage
Capacity to invest in the community, or level of community investment provided, through disbursement of surplus funds to local community groups, organisations or activities	Not applicable.
Length of tenure sought	Five (5) year term.
For lease renewals only, the level of compliance with existing lease terms and conditions	The Guild has been a good tenant and responsive to the requests made by the Council (noting in particular its active participation in the consultation process undertaken in preparing the Battery Point Slipyards Masterplan) and officers are not aware of any breach of the terms of the lease.

3.8. In accordance with the desire for improved due diligence relating to leasing to not for profit organisations, and in line with external accounting advice, additional information relating to the operations of COMA has been obtained and assessed. This information is included as part of Attachment B and includes:

(a) evidence of CBOS registration;

(b) a list of all past and present committee members;

(c) disclosure of existing relationships, transactions and arrangements in place (noting the Guild was not required to provide these and appears to have mistaken these to be “related party transactions”);

(d) confirmation that there are no conflicts of interest within the governance of the organisation (including the provision of services); and

(e) a written undertaking from the committee members of the organisation warranting they are a not-for-profit organisation, they comply with the policy, the completeness of the information provided and the accuracy of that information.

3.9. Based on the consideration of the proposal as against the requirements of the Policy it is considered appropriate to grant a lease of the property to the Guild.

4. Proposal and Implementation

4.1. It is proposed that the Council grant a lease of the Mariners Cottage to the Wooden Boat Guild of Tasmania Inc for a period of five (5) years at a nominal rent in accordance with the Council’s Policy: Leases to Non-Profit Organisations.

4.2. It is also proposed that the benefit provided by Council be reported in the Council’s Annual Report in accordance with the Council’s Policy: Leases to Non-Profit Organisations.

4.3. Should Council endorse the approach, a draft lease will be prepared and finalised with the Guild.

5. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

5.1. Strategy 3.4.1 of the Capital City Strategic Plan is to support the activation of City-owned spaces for creative, cultural and commercial initiatives. Given the current proposal is to have a publically accessible space (subject to volunteer availability) within a Council building it is considered that there is strong alignment with this strategy.

5.2. Strategy 7.2.1 is to promote contemporary heritage conservation practices and support adaptive reuse of heritage assets. The Mariners Cottage is a pair of mid-Victorian brick built cottages situated within an identified Heritage Listed Place as set out in the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 whilst also forming part of the Battery Point Heritage Precinct. The Guild’s proposal to engage with the public through the availability of educational materials and guided tours detailing the history of the Mariner’s Cottage and the Battery Point Slipyards strongly aligns with this strategy.

6. Financial Implications

6.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

6.1.1. The property is currently leased for a nominal rent, so while no additional income will be generated from the proposal, there is no cost for Council in approving this request.

6.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

6.2.1. There is no impact on future year’s financial result.

6.3. Asset Related Implications

6.3.1. This proposal will seek the continued activation of a Council asset. This is a positive outcome.

7. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

7.1. No significant legal or risk considerations have been identified.

8. Delegation

8.1. This report is delegated to the Committee.

Adrian Hutchinson

Principal Advisor Legal & Property

Paul Jackson

Manager Legal and Governance

Date: 7 July 2022

File Reference: F22/45752

Attachment a: Lease Plan ⇩

Attachment b: Letter - Lease Application ⇩

Item No. 6.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

Finance and Governance Committee Meeting

Page 81

26/7/2022

Memorandum: Finance and Governance Committee

Lord Mayor and CEO Meetings with Key Stakeholders -
Canberra June 2022

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with a summary of the meetings held by the Lord Mayor and CEO with key stakeholders in Canberra between Monday 20 June 2022 and Wednesday 22 June 2022, as per the resolution of Council at its meeting on Monday, 27 June 2022.

Summary of meetings and proposed next steps

Below is a summary of the meetings held, which consisted of:

· engaging with Ministers and senior officials of the incoming Commonwealth Government on the priorities of Greater Hobart and the City of Hobart; and

· liaising with key contacts in the ACT Government on areas of shared priority and interest between the cities of Canberra and Hobart.

In addition to these meetings, the Lord Mayor and CEO also attended key sessions of the Australian Local Government Association’s General Assembly, which was held in Canberra on Monday 20 June 2022 to Wednesday 22 June 2022.

Stakeholder	Notes
The Hon Catherine King MP, Minister for Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government	Issues discussed · Proposed approaches to the City and the Commonwealth working together on the Government’s election commitment of $20 million to deliver on-water ferry infrastructure, noting that the project is currently being assessed by the Department of Infrastructure through the standard election commitment merit test process. · Hobart’s other strategic priorities, including the Antarctic and Science Precinct, and Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor (including opportunities for in-fill residential development). · The incoming Government’s proposed approach to City Deals. Outcomes and next steps · CEO and Lord Mayor to remain in touch with the Minister on key issues as they emerge, particularly in the infrastructure and local government portfolios. · CEO and HCC officers to continue to monitor and input into the merit test process for the ferry network expansion, and advocate for this funding to be included in the Commonwealth Budget as soon as possible.
The Hon Kristy McBain MP, Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories	Issues discussed · Hobart’s strategic priorities, including the ferry network expansion, Antarctic and Science Precinct, and Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor (including opportunities for in-fill residential development). · the incoming Government’s proposed approach to City Deals. · The Minister’s likely approach to the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program – particularly whether a forumula of both road length and population size would be used for calculating funding allocations. · housing affordability and availability, and how the Commonwealth and the City may be able to work together to address housing challenges in Hobart. · issues around building resilience to climate change, including shared experiences of bushfire risk between the Minister’s seat of Eden-Monaro and Hobart. · NOTE: Minister McBain was very active at the ALGA Congress and she noted that both housing and climate change resilience were of very broad concern to local governments across the country. Outcomes and next steps · CEO and Lord Mayor to remain in touch with the Minister on key issues as they emerge, particularly in the local government portfolio.
The Hon Chris Steel MLA, ACT Minister for Transport and City Services	Issues discussed · the ACT’s approach to constructing and operating public transport on major transit corridors through the effective use of public/private partnerships, particularly in the recent construction of a light rail service between the Canberra CBD and Gunghalin (northern suburbs). · The ACT’s e-scooter trial, which is also being undertaken with commercial operators Beam and Neuron, including recent legislative amendments made following the initial phase of the trial. · The ACT’s approach to reducing single use plastics, as well as to introducing a FOGO service, and how this compares to Hobart’s approaches to these issues. Outcomes and next steps · The City of Hobart and ACT Government to consider appropriate ways of sharing information and learnings regarding each jurisdiction’s e-scooter trials. · Via the Greater Hobart Committee, City of Hobart to work with the State Government to consider how public-private partnerships could be utilised effectively to support transport infrastructure projects, including the Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor and ferry network expansion.
Ray Griggs, Secretary of the Department of Social Services	Issues discussed · Housing affordability and availability, and how the Commonwealth and the City may be able to work together to address housing challenges in Hobart. · The proposed activation of the Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor, which offers a specific opportunity for potential partnerships on innovative approaches to urban infill housing development. · The Commonwealth’s existing commitments to housing through the Hobart City Deal, including the delivery of new social housing, and how this could be built on in the next three years. Outcomes and next steps · The CEO and HCC officers to remain in contact with counterparts in the housing team of the Department of Social Services, to continue to explore opportunities for future collaborative and innovative partnerships.
Lyn O’Connell, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Water, Environment and Climate Change	Issues discussed · The importance of the proposed Antarctic and Science Precinct and Hobart port upgrade to the future economic development of the city. · The Department and AAD’s willingness to work with the City on a potential awareness-raising campaign about the importance of the Antarctic and Science sectors to Hobart. · The possibility of arranging a visit for Minister Plibersek to Hobart. Outcomes and next steps · CEO and HCC officers to remain in contact with the Department and AAD on the Antarctic and Science Precinct, and other related opportunities.
Hannah Wandle, from the National Resilience and Recovery Agency	Issues discussed · The City of Hobart’s successful bid for $1.7 million in funding from the NRRA to support the Sparking Conversation, Igniting Action bushfire resilience program, and how the NRRA could support collaboration between Hobart and other jurisdictions. · Processes and programs regarding emergency management, recovery and resilience. · Future funding opportunities through the incoming government’s $200 million disaster readiness fund. Outcomes and next steps · CEO and HCC officers to continue to liaise with the NRRA, including local officers in Hobart, to further develop opportunities for cooperation and pursue future funding.
Chris Minson, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief Minister of the ACT; and representatives of the Chief Minister’s Directorate	Issues discussed · The ACT and Hobart’s ongoing participation in and cooperation through the Council of Capital City Lord Mayors. · Opportunities to refine and improve the CCCLM’s approach to key advocacy issues. Outcomes and next steps · The ACT and Hobart officers to continue to work together to progress mutually beneficial issues and opportunities for reform via CCCLM.

REcommendation

That the report titled ‘Lord Mayor and CEO Meetings with Key Stakeholders – Canberra June 2022, be received and noted.

Kelly Grigsby

Chief Executive Officer

Date: 8 July 2022

File Reference: F22/67864; 18/17

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.