Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 3

15/3/2022

Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 22

15/03/2022

The Chairman reports that she has perused the minutes of the meeting of the Open Portion of the Council meeting held on Monday, 28 February 2022, finds them to be a true record and recommends that they be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Burnet

Sherlock                                               That the recommendation be adopted.  

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

The minutes were signed.

Ms Bloomfield put the following question which was taken on notice by the Lord Mayor.

The parklets installed in Elizabeth Street are a disgrace. Nearly 50% of the plant life is now dead and it looks DREADFUL.

I have pictures evidencing at 12:20pm both Thursday 10th March and Friday 11th of March, there is no-one using these areas.

WHEN are they going to be admitted as an utter failure for the area and be removed? The small businesses in the area are in desperate need of these parking spaces back.

Mr Hoare put the following question which was taken on notice by the Lord Mayor.

As an avid watcher of Council’s activities and a Hobart City constituent, I have been quite disgusted by the behaviour from some elected members in recent times, particularly from the male Alderman and Councillors. Behaviour such as shouting over the top of the Chair within the Chamber when they have made a ruling, and condescending comments towards the Chair and/or other elected members are just a few I would like to highlight.

Appallingly, the victims of this horrific behaviour are the female elected members. As a constituent, I find this incredibly disrespectful, especially when the Lord Mayor, Deputy Lord Mayor, and the CEO of the Hobart City Council are women, powerful women. So my question is, how is Council retaining and enforcing respectful workplace culture within the Council Chamber?

Is it necessary for the male elected members of council to re-read Council’s respectful workplace policy and/or attend some personal development training regarding this issue?

Mr Cooper put the following question which was taken on notice by the Lord Mayor.

My question without notice is to the Lord Mayor.

Did you on the morning of the Saturday 26 February direct any staff to raise certain flags on the façade of the Town Hall on that day? And if so, why and with what authority? And if so, who else did you consult? And why did you not notify the Chief Executive Officer of your action?

Ms Milne put the following question which was taken on notice by the Lord Mayor.

My question is that as an alumni of the University of Tasmania and a person with a disability my struggles with basic access to the old out of date buildings was horrendous and I would not want anyone to have to go through the same physical difficulties I went through to access education at the highest level in Tasmania.

The move of UTas into the city will enable buildings to be purpose built according to today’s accessible building codes giving people with disabilities equitable access to higher education. There are other benefits as well to this move, both financial and physical that will reintroduce university to the city as it was in the past. Look how well integrated existing campus life is in the city now with medicine, the arts and music already occupying space in the city.

It seems an emotional attachment to the old buildings is an irrational argument as to why the move should be curtailed, but is this argument really thinly veiling the real reason and that is of Sandy Bay residents concerned about their property values if a bunch of social housing is introduced to their suburb.

The benefits from where I sit in my wheelchair far outweigh the negatives, put simplistically there will be a stock of land available to build housing which is so greatly needed in the Hobart once UTas vacates the Sandy Bay Campus. There will be greater access for students like myself, people with disabilities.

So my question was will Hobart City Council facilitate a smooth transition for UTas to come to the city?

That the following responses to public questions taken on notice, be received and noted.

5.2.1 Elected Member’s Development and Support Policy – EV Charger

5.2.2 UTas Sandy Bay Campus Redevelopment

Burnet

Behrakis                                That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Meeting date:             6 December 2021

Raised by:                  Ms Louise Elliot

Response Author:   Kelly Grigsby (CEO)

Topic:                          Elected Member's Development and Support Policy - EV Charger

Meeting date:             31 January 2022

Raised by:                  Mr Ben Lohberger

Response Author:   Kelly Grigsby (CEO)

Topic:                          UTAS Sandy Bay Campus Redevelopment

9.1      3/13 Wayne Avenue, Sandy Bay and Common Land Of Parent Title - Change of Use to Visitor Accommodation

Ref:    Open CPC 7.1.1, 7/03/2022

Application Expiry Date: 22 March 2022

Harvey

Fox                                                                                                                                

That pursuant to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the Council refuse the application for a change of use to visitor accommodation, at 3/13 Wayne Avenue, Sandy Bay 7005 on the basis that it is contrary to clause 3.1(e) P2 (a) to (f) of Planning Directive 6.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

9.2      1/4 Sunvale Avenue, Sandy Bay and Common Land Of Parent Title - Partial Change of Use to Visitor Accommodation

Ref:    Open CPC 7.1.2, 7/03/2022

Application Expiry Date: 28 April 2022

Harvey

Fox

That pursuant to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, the Council refuse the application for a change of use to visitor accommodation, at 1/4 Sunvale Avenue, Sandy Bay 7005 on the basis that it is contrary to clause 3.1(e) P2 (a) to (f) of Planning Directive 6.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

10.      UTAS Move to the City

Alderman Briscoe

Motion

“That a report be provided to:

1.      Determine how independent inquiry can be instituted (or supported if say the State Parliament is of the mind to have a select committee or similar) to determine whether or not the UTAS’s move into the CBD and the conversion of the current Sandy Bay campus into a mixed use zone is for the benefit or otherwise of the residents, businesses, students and generally the community of greater Hobart.

          Following such an inquiry the Council determine whether or not to support the UTas move to the CBD.

2.      The report should suggest scope including the Terms of Reference of such an inquiry. These terms should at least include;

(i)      The consultation, the steps and decisions and reports that both the UTas and the City Council have currently taken to date from 2015

(ii)     Effect on amenity or otherwise on the residents of Sandy Bay and other inner city suburbs.

(iii)    Effect on the CBD businesses,

(iv)    Effect on traffic flow and parking in the CBD and in Sandy Bay and other inner city suburbs

(v)     The short and long term ramifications to the budget of the City

(vi)    The capital expenditure on infrastructure by the City Council that is required and over what period.

3.      The report should canvas how the inquiry should seek public submissions via correspondence or community meetings or by interview and/or an elector poll at the next council election.

Rationale:

“Considerable disquiet and concern has being expressed in our community and in academic and business circles about UTAS’s ‘utopian’ plans. An independent comprehensive inquiry is required. The actual framework and terms of reference of such an inquiry and who does it justifies a report from council officers.

It may be that such an independent inquiry could be done by the City’s external auditors or the State Parliament via its select committee process. Both are options that are available but there could be more.

In the next few weeks there will be a public meeting that a significant citizens group will have petitioned the council to run and the council will need to prepare itself to be accountable to its residents.

The UTAS’s plan to totally relocate its Hobart campus to the CBD and converting its current Sandy Bay campus into a massive mixed use real estate development without any independent assessment of the benefits or otherwise to education, the economy to the City and the residents of greater Hobart could be considered to have all the hallmarks of a gigantic and unquantified risk to the reputation and the finances of the Hobart City Council and to the livelihood of its residents and businesses.

The university has its Antarctic & Marine Studies programs, medical, nursing, art and music already in various locations in the city. These seem logical and have been incremental moves over a long period of time with good justification. For example moving nursing from Launceston to the Domain to the refurbished old university buildings close to the RHH or the medical school co-locating with Menzies Centre or the Antarctic and Marine Studies close to the waterfront and the arts close to the theatres.

UTAS claims that it will spend $600 million in the CBD on new buildings and refurbishing its many purchased properties that were previously hospitality or retail businesses.

The quantum of expenditure may be correct but the resulting developments would exempt from rates due to the institution being classed as a charity. Whilst it has offered some ‘rates equivalent’ for 10 years, this will diminish to zero at the end of the period leaving the ratepayers to pick up the tab.

Major infrastructure upgrades alone on city owned assets such as roads and footpaths would cost the City many millions of dollars just for the proposed ‘greening of Melville St’ let alone other consequential expenditure (such as maintenance) required to do by the City. Where is the analysis to quantify, justify and budget for?

The sheer size of UTAS’s real estate proposal will have a massive effect on the CBD core businesses (particularly retail and hospitality) and as well on the suburb of Sandy Bay with an anticipated 2700 new residences. The largest real estate development in Hobart’s history with no independent assessment could be considered totally foolhardy and risky.

The City in its dealings with other large real estate developers do not rely on the developers own PR which seems to be the case here.

It is time to independently assess and model the effect on the traffic flow and congestion, parking, education, shopper visitation to the city, current CBD businesses in the CBD and Sandy Bay before it is inevitable that UTAS has achieved its purposes.

To leave a beautiful, leafy, well situated, spacious Campus at Sandy Bay to move a short walkable distance into the central business district is truly a courageous but possibly a decision that the City and its future residents may regret.

It is my view that the UTAS’s move is a financial one and the return from selling the real estate in Sandy Bay is the key underlying motive which would reap billions of dollars to the university but at what cost to the City? We need to know.”

Zucco

Briscoe

That pursuant to regulation 22(9) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 the Council suspend the operation of regulation 22 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.

MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

Briscoe

Coats

That the following revised motion be adopted and each clause be taken separately:

Motion:

“Given the level of public concern that has been raised with elected members of the Hobart City Council, and given that the final decision will be made by the Tasmanian Planning Commission: 

That:

1.    The Council write to all members of the upper house to consider a select committee to inquire and determine whether or not the UTAS move into the CBD and the conversion of the current Sandy Bay campus into a mixed use zone is to the benefit or otherwise of the residents, businesses, students and the general community of greater Hobart and Tasmania.

2.    “A report be provided that addresses the following;

(i)        The consultation, the steps and decisions and reports that both the UTas and the City Council have taken to date from 2015

(ii)       Effect on amenity or otherwise on the residents of Sandy Bay and other inner city suburbs.

(iii)      Effect on the CBD businesses,

(iv)      Effect on traffic flow and parking in the CBD and in Sandy Bay and other inner city suburbs

(v)     The short and long term ramifications to the budget of the City

(vi)    The capital expenditure on infrastructure by the City Council that is required and over what period.

3.    Council write to UTAS seeking that the UTAS immediately initiate and undertake a Community engagement process similar to the Councils Community engagement framework and policy regarding the UTAS move into the CBD and the conversion of the current Sandy Bay campus

4.    The recent petition seeking a public meeting is dealt with as a matter of urgency

Zucco

Coats                                                                                                                          

That Alderman Briscoe be granted an additional three minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Zucco

Behrakis

That Councillor Harvey be granted an additional two minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Zucco

Dutta                                                                                                                           

That Alderman Behrakis be granted an additional two minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Behrakis

Dutta

That Alderman Thomas be granted an additional three minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Behrakis

Burnet

That Councillor Dutta be granted an additional three minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Dutta

Behrakis

That the Deputy Lord Mayor Councillor Burnet be granted an additional three minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 1 of the motion.

MOTION LOST
CLAUSE ONE

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 2 of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
CLAUSE TWO

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 3 of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
CLAUSE THREE

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 4 of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
CLAUSE FOUR

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

Given the level of public concern that has been raised with elected members of the Hobart City Council, and given that the final decision will be made by the Tasmanian Planning Commission: 

That:

1.    A report be provided that addresses the following;

(i)        The consultation, the steps and decisions and reports that both the UTas and the City Council have taken to date from 2015.

(ii)       Effect on amenity or otherwise on the residents of Sandy Bay and other inner city suburbs.

(iii)      Effect on the CBD businesses.

(iv)      Effect on traffic flow and parking in the CBD and in Sandy Bay and other inner city suburbs.

(v)       The short and long term ramifications to the budget of the City.

(vi)      The capital expenditure on infrastructure by the City Council that is required and over what period.

2.    Council write to UTAS seeking that the UTAS immediately initiate and undertake a Community engagement process similar to the Councils Community engagement framework and policy regarding the UTAS move into the CBD and the conversion of the current Sandy Bay campus.

3.    The recent petition seeking a public meeting is dealt with as a matter of urgency.

11.      Battery Point Foreshore Walkway

Councillor Dutta

Motion:

“NOTING the proposed development set out in the Sandy Bay UTAS master plan and the potential of up to 2,500 homes and new sporting facilities being built at this location, as part of a long-term plan, and

ACKNOWLEDGING that the Master Plan makes reference to increasing active transport, an e-bike or e-scooter scheme and a "green footbridge" etc.

I move that council seeks advice from the CEO on the best way for Council to revisit and recommit to the Battery Point river walkway.

For this advice to include:

1.    a summary of Council's most recent decisions;

2.    cost of undertaking a new design that would address and negate the concerns raised by the previous walkway design;

3.    the potential of including this design work in 2022/2023 budget estimates and;

4.    potential methods of raising funds for building the walkway via development contributions from the Sandy Bay redevelopment project and other sources.”

Rationale:

“This project had its genesis in the 1990's and it was competently and capably promoted/ advocated by Alderman Jeff Briscoe.

It was approved by the full council 11 vote to 1 and had very strong community support.

Unfortunately the Tasmania's Planning Appeal Tribunal ruled against the Council and in favour of the 11 residents who appealed and this project has been shelved for a number of years.

After the decision of the Tribunal Ald Jeff Briscoe stated that "It could be that we go back to the drawing board to do a redesign with a different application and if it takes more of my time, and aldermen's time, in the next week or so or year or so I think it's really important it fits in with the concept of a walkable accessible city,"

Clearly this statement suggests that council always had intentions to re visit this project and I believe this is the most opportune/appropriate time to do so.

Taking into account the proposed development set out in the UTAS master plan of the potential of 2500 homes, increase of population and traffic it would be expedient/timely to re visit the Battery Point walkway ("boardwalk") project.

In 2019 The Hobart City Deal was signed which has a 10 year partnership between the Australian and Tasmanian Governments, and the Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence and Kingborough councils. It is understood that in the Deal is a commitment of $500,000 to progress the Battery Point Walkway.

It is widely acknowledged that there is a strategic missing link and the development of the Battery Point walkway will be a critical link.

The Battery Point Walkway can become an iconic feature of the city providing an alternative mode of active travel from Sandy Bay to the city.”

References

https://www.visitbrisbane.com.au/information/articles/activities/brisbane-riverwalk?sc_lang=en-au

https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/Experience-Sunshine-Coast/Pathways-tracks-and-trails/Coastal-Pathway

https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/Council/News-Centre/New-Mooloolaba-boardwalk-open-for-walkers-and-runners-101218

https://www.newzealand.com/au/feature/new-plymouth-coastal-walkway/

https://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/facilities-and-recreation/explore-randwick-city/coastal-walkway

http://www.parraparents.com.au/things-to-do/parramatta-river-escarpment-boardwalk/

https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/travel-leisure/barangaroo-foreshore-walk-now-spans-11-kilometres-from-woolloomooloo-to-the-anzac-bridge

https://www.bmd.com.au/projects/townsville-central-park-boardwalk/

https://www.mypacer.com/routes/32840/strand-boardwalk-jezzine-loop-trail-townsville-queensland-australia

https://www.kidsaboutcairns.com/trinity-inlet-waterfront-boardwalk/

Dutta

Briscoe

That the recommendation be adopted with each clause to be taken separately.

Amendment

Zucco

Coats

That clause 1 be amended to read as follows:

1.            a summary of Council's most recent decisions and associated costs;.

AMENDMENT CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put the preamble of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
PREAMBLE

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 1 of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
CLAUSE ONE

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 2 of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
CLAUSE TWO

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 3 of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
CLAUSE THREE

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 4 of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
CLAUSE FOUR

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

NOTING the proposed development set out in the Sandy Bay UTAS master plan and the potential of up to 2,500 homes and new sporting facilities being built at this location, as part of a long-term plan, and

ACKNOWLEDGING that the Master Plan makes reference to increasing active transport, an e-bike or e-scooter scheme and a "green footbridge" etc.

I move that council seeks advice from the CEO on the best way for Council to revisit and recommit to the Battery Point river walkway.

For this advice to include:

1.    a summary of Council's most recent decisions and associated costs;

2.    cost of undertaking a new design that would address and negate the concerns raised by the previous walkway design;

3.    the potential of including this design work in 2022/2023 budget estimates and;

4.    potential methods of raising funds for building the walkway via development contributions from the Sandy Bay redevelopment project and other sources.

12.      Applying Variable (Differential) Rates to Encourage Better Housing Options in Hobart

Deputy Lord Mayor Councillor Burnet

Motion

“This motion looks to address some of the chronic housing shortage the City of Hobart is facing. Recognising both the social and economic implications of the current housing affordability crisis in Hobart,
That:

1.   An urgent report be prepared to determine appropriate 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.”

Rationale:

“There is a significant housing crisis in the municipality of Hobart, as noted by various reputable sources:

1)   There is a chronically low residential vacancy rate of 0.3%, according to the State government’s Housing Dashboard (p.23).

2)   The rental market is unaffordable for many, with high prices and low availability. The Real Estate Institute of Tasmania (REIT) recently stated that during 2021 housing prices in Greater Hobart went up by 25%: “In 2021, Greater Hobart house prices surged to $699,500 (up 24.9%), Launceston $491,000 (up 24.3%), and the North West Centres climbed to $399,000 (up 22.8%).

3)   Hobart’s average rental is the worst of any capital city, making living or continuing to live in Hobart out of reach for a growing number of people, including families, single people, and essential workers. According to SGS Economics Rental Affordability Index, “Hobart is the least affordable capital city in Australia for the average rental households of each city”.

Councils can act to both retain and increase residential housing stock. Under Part 9 of the Local Government Act (1993), local government authorities may set variable (differential) rates on identifiable properties.

Addressing Part 1(a) of the motion:

This rental affordability and housing crisis coincides with an increasing number of conversions of rental properties and whole homes to short stay visitor accommodation, as reported on p. 294 of the City Planning Committee agenda of February 7, 2022. In the 6 months July-December 2021, another 41 houses were converted to whole house visitor accommodation, adding to the overall total of almost 500 residential properties, as described in the following diagram taken from the report.

Currently there is no specific category set by the Valuer General for short stay visitor accommodation to be considered as a variable (differential) rate. Through the Local Government Association of Tasmania, the Break O’ Day Council is seeking endorsement for the Valuer General to create a specific category for holiday rental accommodation.

The report would investigate the benefits and/or effectiveness of applying this specific rate to whole house visitor accommodation residential properties in the Hobart municipality, in order to tackle the extremely restricted housing market in Hobart.

Addressing Part 1(b) of the motion:

There are vacant properties across the Hobart municipality which have been zoned “Residential”. Arguably, empty blocks in these residential zones should be developed for housing. Variable (differential) rates for land not developed can act as a disincentive for landowners to effectively leave land vacant for years.

The report would identify the number and location of these properties and their suitability on which to build various forms of housing. The report would determine what land is suitable for development and that which is inappropriate for various reasons, such as topography or ecological considerations.

The report would also describe ways to deter “land banking”.  Land which is sitting vacant that is allotted for housing should arguably be developed as homes for people, in this current economic climate.

Addressing Part 2 of the motion:

Sometimes incentives are used by all tiers of government as levers to stimulate activity, including development. Rates rebates can act as incentives for stimulating residential development for owner occupiers and commercial developers. There are examples where this is undertaken in other jurisdictions by rebates once housing is developed, such as the City of Charles Sturt in metropolitan Adelaide, and/or in some situations to deter land banking, seen in this example in the City of Adelaide.

The report would also investigate complementary incentives available to the State government that may help frame the best approaches to stimulating more residential properties for the Hobart market.

References

State Government Housing Dashboard data PowerPoint Presentation (communities.tas.gov.au) January 2022, p23

Real Estate Institute of Tasmania media release December 2021 https://reit.com.au/Portals/24/resources/media-releases/REIT%20DEC%202021%20QTY%20Report.pdf?ver=s94koGUGGM27TH77ZC6ItQ%3d%3d

SGS Economics Rental Affordability Index 2021 https://www.sgsep.com.au/assets/main/SGS-Economics-and-Planning_Rental-Affordability-Index-2021.pdf

Rates and Charges Part 9 of the Local Government Act of Tasmania (1993)

Example from the website of the City of Charles Sturt, South Australia residential construction rates rebate Residential Construction Rebate | City of Charles Sturt

City of Adelaide Land Rating Policy June 2021 City-of-Adelaide-Rating-Policy-8-June-2021.PDF (d31atr86jnqrq2.cloudfront.net) p8”

Burnet

Fox

That the recommendation be adopted with clause 1 amended to read as follows:

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

with each clause to be taken separately.

Behrakis

Coats

That Alderman Zucco be granted an additional two minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Amendment

Zucco

Behrakis

That an additional clause be added to read as follows:

3.    That:

a.    The report also consider the use of the Arbitrage system for residential properties that are in turn used for short stay accommodation.

b.    Inconsideration to the deferential rate report consideration be given to the following: 

                           i.        Any individual who use their principle place of residence for short stay accommodation or home business will not be subject to any deferential rating.

                          ii.        Individuals or associated companies who own a residential property that is not their principle place of residence that is being used for short stay accommodation will be subject to a deferential rating.

                         iii.        Individuals who own a personal family holiday home “Defined as a shack” that use it from time to time for short stay accommodation will not be subject to a deferential rate

c.    If a deferential rate is struck the report consider the use of such funds to be used for the homeless and housing.

AMENDMENT LOST

VOTING RECORD

Briscoe

Dutta                                                                                                                           

That Alderman Zucco be granted an additional three minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Briscoe

Dutta

That Alderman Behrakis be granted an additional two minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Motion

Behrakis

Zucco

That the vote for all clause 1a, 1b, and 2 be taken separately.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 1(a) of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
CLAUSE 1(a)

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 1(b) of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
CLAUSE 1(b)

VOTING RECORD

The Lord Mayor then put clause 2 of the motion.

MOTION CARRIED
CLAUSE 2

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

This motion looks to address some of the chronic housing shortage the City of Hobart is facing. Recognising both the social and economic implications of the current housing affordability crisis in Hobart,

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.

13.      Children's Mayor Program

Ref:    Open CCEC 6.1, 3/03/2022

That the Council endorse the continuation of the Children’s Mayor Program in 2022 and ongoing, on a similar basis to the 2021 program, with an annual budget of $1,000 to be included in the Community Planning and Coordinator budget function allocation.

Sherlock

Thomas                                                    That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

14.      Aboriginal Acknowledgement - Front of Town Hall

Ref:    Open CCEC 6.2, 3/03/2022

That Council approval be provided for the installation of the proposed Aboriginal Acknowledgement Project titled ‘I am Country’ by artist Caleb Nichols-Mansell in the gardens at the front of the Town Hall, subject to the works obtaining the required Planning Permit to enable the installation to proceed.

Sherlock

Harvey                                                    That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

15.      The City of Hobart's Role in Supporting the Antarctic Sector

Ref:    Open EDCC 6.1, 3/03/2022

That:   1.    The Council endorses the following actions to broaden its support for the Antarctic sector:

                   (i)      Discussions between the Mayors of Hobart and Christchurch take place in the first quarter of 2022 about how the Antarctic cities might collaborate further.

                   (ii)     The Council considers, as part of the budget process, an allocation of no more than $20,000 per annum to part fund a Hobart based Antarctic Youth Ambassador for two years commencing in 2022-23 (contingent on match funding from another stakeholder). Funding for this role to be included in the Economic Development Budget Function of the 2022-23 Annual Plan.

                   (iii)    The City continues to monitor what is needed to ensure meaningful participation in the City Deal and commits additional resources if required.

                   (iv)    Officers attend the Tasmanian Antarctic Gateway Advisory Committee meeting in March 2022 to discuss the concept of referring to Hobart as a ‘custodian’ rather than ‘gateway’.

                   (v)     The City continues to engage with Antarctic Tasmania and the relevant State Minister to discuss potential membership for the City of Hobart at the Tasmanian Antarctic Gateway Advisory Committee.

            2.    Information arising from enacting (i)-(v) above is included in the discussions and engagement required to develop the Antarctic content for the City’s new economic development strategy.

Thomas

Sherlock                                               That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

16.      International Relations Update

Ref:    Open EDCC 6.2, 3/03/2022

That:   1.    Investigations into potential new relationships with cities Jiri in Nepal, Kochi in India and Incheon (South Korea) to be placed on hold and reviewed as soon as practicable after the 2022 Local Government elections.

            2.    Operational activities relating to existing international relationships to continue online. Officers to undertake local community-based engagement throughout 2022, with minimal to no additional budgetary requirements other than officer time.

            3.    The waste education program being considered for Balibó in Timor Leste, to be placed on hold and reviewed in September 2022.

Thomas

Sherlock                                               That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

17.      Local Government Association of Tasmania General Meeting Motions

That in accordance with Attachment A to item 17 of the Council Agenda of 15 March 2022, the Council endorse the following positions in respect to the motions, to be considered at the Local Government Association of Tasmania General Meeting to be held on Friday, 18 March 2022:

Motions In Support –

(i)      Derelict and Abandoned Buildings (Clarence City Council)

(ii)     Options for Differential Rating – Vacation Rental Properties (Break O’Day Council)

(iii)     Our Watch (Northern Midlands Council)

(iv)    Fringe Benefits Tax – Electric Vehicles (Brighton Council)

(v)     Fire Bunkers (Kingborough Council)

Burnet

Behrakis                                                That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD