Agenda of City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 5

2/2/2022

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting (Open Portion) held Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 5.15 pm via Zoom.

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.

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

Councillor W F Harvey (Chairman)

Lord Mayor A M Reynolds

Deputy Lord Mayor H Burnet

Alderman S Behrakis

Councillor J Fox

NON-MEMBERS

Alderman M Zucco

Alderman J R Briscoe

Alderman Dr P T Sexton

Alderman D T Thomas

Councillor M S C Dutta

Councillor Dr Z E Sherlock

Councillor W N S 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 City Infrastructure Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 8 December 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?

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 28

2/2/2022

8. Responses to Questions Without Notice

Regulation 29(3) Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
File Ref: 13-1-10

The Chief Executive Officer reports:-

“In accordance with the procedures approved in respect to Questions Without Notice, the following responses to questions taken on notice are provided to the Committee for information.

The Committee is reminded that in accordance with Regulation 29(3) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the Chairman is not to allow discussion or debate on either the question or the response.”

8.1 Operational Costs - Road Markings (Yellow Line)

File Ref: F21/88360

Report of the Director City Planning of 2 February 2022.

8.2 Motorbike Parking

File Ref: F21/98090

Report of the Director City Planning of 2 February 2022.

8.3 Collins and Victoria Streets Crossing

File Ref: F21/129264; 13-1-10

Report of the Director City Planning of 2 February 2022.

8.4 Nature Strip Gardens

File Ref: F21/129270

Report of the Acting Director City Amenity of 2 February 2022.

8.5 Speed Limit Reduction - Lenah Valley

File Ref: F21/129276; 13-1-10

Report of the Director City Planning of 2 February 2022.

8.6 Mowing of Nature Strips

File Ref: F21/129278; 13-1-10

Report of the Acting Director City Amenity of 2 February 2022.

That the information be received and noted.

Delegation: Committee

Item No. 8.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 32

2/2/2022

memorandum: Lord Mayor
Deputy lord Mayor
Elected members

Operational Costs - Road Markings (Yellow Line)

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

Meeting date: 25 August 2021

Raised by: Lord Mayor Reynolds

Question:

Can the Director City Planning advise the operational costs of the management of the yellow line road markings in Hobart and whether there’s anything that we could learn from other cities that have perhaps reduced the amount of resources required to manage yellow line road markings, particularly around driveways?

Response:

Public requests for installation / removal of yellow ‘No Stopping’ linemarking most often are in the form of a telephone call to the Duty Officer in the City Mobility Unit of the City of Hobart. The request and its likelihood of being successful is discussed, and the requestor is advised that they will need to submit a request in writing for it to be investigated.

In the period from 30 November 2020 to 29 November 2021, the City of Hobart received 103 emailed / written pieces of correspondence that were registered in the records systems relating to requests to install / modify or remove sections of yellow ‘No Stopping’ linemarking. These 103 pieces of correspondence related to 61 specific separate enquiries.

In that same period, a total of 14 changes to yellow ‘No Stopping’ linemarking were approved under delegation, and subsequently installed.

Council Officers do not keep timesheets, so the cost of this service cannot be calculated exactly, however using an estimate of 2.5 telephone enquiries a week, each taking 30 minutes, 61 written enquiries a year each taking 3 hours, and 14 approved changes a year each taking 5 hours, this equates to 318 officer hours per year.

Using the salary of a Municipal Officer 2F ($73,609 per annum, with a 53.78% On Cost), this equates to an operational salary cost of $18,216 per annum, or 0.16 of a full time employee.

The physical installation of the changes are estimated to take an average of 2 hours for the maintenance team who undertake these works, and the yellow line would have a typical life of 10 years.

At an operating cost of $167.5 per hour for the two person team, vehicle and materials, this equates to an operating cost for installation of $4,690 per year for yellow line installation / alteration, and an ongoing future maintenance cost of $234 per year for the future maintenance of the yellow lines installed in that year.

The overall operational cost to the City of Hobart for considering and installing modifications to yellow lines per annum, is therefore estimated to be $22,906, with a resultant ongoing maintenance cost of $234 per annum for future maintenance of the line markings installed in that 12 month period.

The road rules in Tasmania have long included linemarking to signify ‘No Stopping’ parking restrictions. For many years this was in the form of alternating black and white paint installed along kerblines, which then transitioned to the use of yellow linemarking in the 1990’s.

In 1999, the Australian National Transport Commission adopted a set of model road rules, aimed at standardising road rules across Australia when adopted by each State and Territory. These model road rules included a road rule making it an offense to stop adjacent to a yellow line.

The road rules in NSW were only amended to allow the use of yellow lines in 2008. In Queensland they were adopted in 2009. In Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia they were adopted in 1999, and in Western Australia in 2000.

In Hobart, following the delegation of the power to approve changes to parking controls from the State Government to Council in the early 1990’s, the City of Hobart increased the number of approvals for yellow line installations adjacent to driveways. Before that time, the State Government typically did not support or approve their installation at individual driveways.

Over time, as the number of yellow lines adjacent to driveways increased, they became a treatment that members of the public were more likely to have seen, and therefore became more likely to request.

By 2005, the City of Hobart was approving in the order of 80 installations / modifications to yellow line per year.

Based on the cost methodology used above, this equates to an operating cost (excluding maintenance) in 2005 of $75,000 in 2021 dollars.

The figures below show the changes in approvals per year and annual costs for the period 2000 to present.

As is apparent from the figures, a significant change was made in 2009 / 2010 by Council Officers. At that time, the former Manager Traffic Engineering significantly tightened the eligibility criteria which has reduced the annual costs of this service significantly.

In terms of the practice used in other states, an online review only identified five local government authorities that specifically provide information of requesting installation of yellow lines adjacent to driveways. These are:

· City of Burnside (Greater Adelaide) – Outlines criteria of when yellow lines may be considered.

· City of Mitcham (Greater Adelaide) – Advise that is not City of Mitcham practice to install yellow lines on or near driveways.

Campbelltown City Council (Greater Adelaide) – Have an online application form for requesting installation of yellow lines.

Brisbane City Council (Brisbane) – Have an online application form for requesting installation of yellow lines.

Randwick City Council (Greater Sydney) – Do not provide yellow lines, but allow residents to apply for guidance linemarking to help define driveways (but that have no legal significance).

As discussed, yellow lines (and the black and white stripes on kerblines that were their precursor) have been an established treatment in the Tasmanian Road Rules for many decades. The use of yellow lines adjacent to driveways in Hobart started to be applied as a normalised treatment in the early 1990’s, and as it became a treatment seen by more and more people, it became a treatment requested by more and more people.

In other states, it appears that yellow lines were not an option until the states adopted the model national road rules, which has occurred in each state between 1999 and 2009.

To reduce the resources allocated to this task the simplest measure would be to make a decision on a policy level, that yellow lines will not be installed adjacent to driveways. The alternative approach to reducing resources is to ensure full cost recovery from applicants. Officers are reviewing current fee structures to ensure this is the case in future financial years.

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.

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 27 January 2022

File Reference: F21/88360

Item No. 8.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 34

2/2/2022

memorandum: Lord Mayor
Deputy lord Mayor
Elected members

Motorbike Parking

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

Meeting date: 22 September 2021

Raised by: Deputy Lord Mayor Burnet

Question:

Could the Director please seek advice from Metro as to whether motorbike parking can be reinstated in the middle of Elizabeth Street, between Davey and Macquarie Streets?

Response:

Council officers wrote to Metro Tasmania on 12 October 2021. For the information of elected members, the content of the letter is detailed below.

“At the City of Hobart’s City Infrastructure Committee meeting of 22 September 2021, Deputy Lord Mayor Burnet raised a question without notice regarding the possible reinstatement of motorcycle parking that for many years was present in the median of Elizabeth Street between Davey Street and Macquarie Street in Hobart.

In full the question is:

“Could the Director please seek advice from Metro as to whether motorbike parking can be reinstated in the middle of Elizabeth Street, between Davey and Macquarie Streets?”

It would be appreciated if you could provide a response. It should be noted that any response would be expected to be provided to the City Infrastructure Committee, and as such would be on the public record.”

To date, a formal response has not been received.

It is understood that there is significant work being undertaken by both the State Government and Metro Tasmania regarding bus access to and from the Central Hobart Bus Interchange area.

Our discussions with Metro Tasmania officers have indicated that under current and planned usage, Metro Tasmania do not support the re-instatement of motorcycle parking in the Elizabeth Street median.

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 27 January 2022

File Reference: F21/98090

Item No. 8.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 35

2/2/2022

memorandum: Lord Mayor
Deputy lord Mayor
Elected members

Collins and Victoria Streets Crossing

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

Meeting date: 8 December 2021

Raised by: Lord Mayor Reynolds

Question:

Has there ever been an assessment of the need for a zebra / wombat crossing or crossings on the inter-section of Collins and Victoria Street?

Response:

No there has been no assessments undertaken of the need for zebra / wombat crossings at this intersection.

In 2022 it is anticipated that planning work will commence on the design of the future treatment of Collins Street between Molle Street and the Hobart CBD, to better cater for pedestrians, cyclists and personal mobility device users.

The treatment style adopted following the planning process will dictate what pedestrian facilities are appropriate at the Collins Street / Victoria Street intersection (and elsewhere on this corridor).

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 27 January 2022

File Reference: F21/129264; 13-1-10

Item No. 8.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 37

2/2/2022

memorandum: Lord Mayor
Deputy lord Mayor
Elected members

Nature Strip Gardens

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

Meeting date: 8 December 2021

Raised by: Councillor Harvey

Question:

1) What is the process for seeking permission to create a nature strip garden?

2) Does the council have a brochure outlining the process and what council resources are available to assist?

3) How many or what percentage of nature strips is council currently caring for?

Response:

1. Residents can apply to Council to establish a nature strip garden on a case by case basis with a design and planting proposals. The criteria for the assessment of these proposals centres on the suitability of planting and the risk to public safety for users of the footpath and people exiting cars parked adjacent to the proposed garden.

2. A draft policy is in preparation and will be put to Council in the near future outlining the criteria, standards and arrangements for nature strip gardens. The policy will also define the public liability acceptance requirements in the establishment of approved gardens.

3. Council does not care for any nature strip gardens at this point but is preparing a holistic policy for the management for all nature strips across the City including maintenance and responsibility. Council currently mows/slashes only 16% of nature strips in the City with no logical reasoning for how these are selected and this must be addressed.

John Fisher

Acting Director City Amenity

Date: 27 January 2022

File Reference: F21/129270

Item No. 8.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 39

2/2/2022

memorandum: Lord Mayor
Deputy lord Mayor
Elected members

Speed Limit Reduction - Lenah Valley

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

Meeting date: 8 December 2021

Raised by: Councillor Harvey

Question:

At the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Lenah Valley Community Association (the Association), held 26 October 2021 at the Lenah Valley Community Hall on Creek Road, a motion was passed to write to City of Hobart.

The motion is to request City of Hobart to action the approved speed limit reduction to 40 kmph within the Lenah Valley retail precinct through interim, static sign changes as soon as practical until variable speed signage can be funded and installed.

Can officers please provide a response?

Response:

Officers can confirm that a request from the Lenah Valley Community Association on this matter was received by City of Hobart on 7 December 2021, and a response to the Association was provided on 9 December 2021.

For the information of elected members, the response is repeated below:

“The City of Hobart has received approval for the installation of electronic variable 40km/h speed limit signage on Augusta Road in the Lenah Valley retail precinct area.

Speed limits and their associated signage are installed as per Transport Commission directions, i.e. the City of Hobart cannot install signage contrary to the Transport Commission directions. As such the current direction for the Transport Commission would not support the installation of static signage.

That said, the City of Hobart has received funding for the installation of the electronic variable 40km/h speed limit signage through a Vulnerable Road user grant and has placed an order for the requisite signage through the DSG electronic sign provider.

The City of Hobart is in the process of finalising the detailed engineering design and has identified a physical works contractor for the installation of the signage foundations and electrical supply conduits.

It is likely that the works will be completed in the first quarter of 2022”.

Neil Noye

Director City Planning

Date: 27 January 2022

File Reference: F21/129276; 13-1-10

Item No. 8.6

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 41

2/2/2022

memorandum: Lord Mayor
Deputy lord Mayor
Elected members

Mowing of Nature Strips

Meeting: City Infrastructure Committee

Meeting date: 8 December 2021

Raised by: Lord Mayor Reynolds

Question:

Can the Director advise if Hobart City Council is the only city in Tasmania that mows all its nature strips?

Response:

Local government authorities in Tasmania have different but largely similar policies on the treatment of nature strips. Council is preparing a standard policy that aligns with other major Councils like Kingborough, Launceston, Clarence and Glenorchy Councils.

Common principles that apply are:

· An expectation of residents they accept a level of community obligation to maintain common areas in front of their property.

· Provision by Council of support to do so for vulnerable people who are demonstrably unable to do so themselves due to age, infirmity or lack of family support.

The financial burden of slashing and mowing areas outside of the areas that adjoin Council land is significant. The City currently spends $100,000 per cut for each of four cuts per annum totalling $400,000. The current program is not well defined and services only 16% of residents and a clear policy is required.

John Fisher

Acting Director City Amenity

Date: 27 January 2022

File Reference: F21/129278; 13-1-10

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 42

2/2/2022

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.

Agenda (Open Portion)

City Infrastructure Committee Meeting

Page 43

2/2/2022

10. Closed Portion Of The Meeting

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve by majority that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to regulation 15(1) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 because the items included on the closed agenda contain the following matters:

· Minutes of the Closed portion of a Committee meeting

· Contracts involing the Council and their terms

· Closed Questions Without Notice

The following items are listed for discussion:-

Item No. 1 Minutes of the last meeting of the Closed Portion of the Committee Meeting

Item No. 2 Consideration of supplementary items to the agenda

Item No. 3 Indications of pecuniary and conflicts of interest

Item No. 4 Reports

Item No. 4.1 Processing of Recyclable Materials - Establishment of a Joint Authority

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.