Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

22/7/2024

Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

22/07/2024

The Chairperson reports that she has perused the minutes of the meeting of the Open Portion of the Council meeting held on Monday, 24 June 2024 and the minutes of the meeting of the Open Portion of the Special Council meeting held on Wednesday, 3 July 2024, finds them to be a true record and recommends that they be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Harvey

Dutta

                                                                     That the recommendation be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

The minutes were signed.

The Acting Lord Mayor reported that the City of Hobart was presented with an award for Enduring Architecture at the 2024 Tasmanian Architecture Awards. 

The award was awarded to the former architecture firm Hartley Wilson and Bolt for the Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion. 

The award was for building in Tasmania of at least 25 years of age and recognises achievement for the design of buildings of outstanding merit, which remain important as high-quality works of architecture when considered in a contemporary context.

The Sandy Bay Bathing Pavilion is a City of Hobart asset.  It was constructed in 1962 and designed by architect Dirk Bolt an architect at Hartley Wilson and Bolt.  The feature of the construction was the pre-cast concrete façade.

Bolt was considered one of the most influential architects in Tasmania in the 1950s and 1960s.  He was responsible for the design of may influential and iconic buildings across Hobart.

On Thursday 18^th July 2024 the Acting Lord Mayor received the Consul General of China Mr Xinwen Fang.

The Consul General gifted a decorative silk scarf and the City of Hobart gifted Tasmanian-made timber coasters.

Ms Maria Riedl put the following questions to the Council which the Acting Lord Mayor took on notice.

Question 1

Removing car parking on Collins Street is a form of discrimination against those less able to access businesses along that street is it not?  It is not biased, expecting everyone to bicycle, scoot, take unreliable buses etc?

Question 2

Is this council backing the over 70% who do not want UTAS to move into an already concrete and congested CBD?

Question 3

kunanyi has a special, unique place in our city, in Tasmania, surely Council does not seek to clutter it for a private developer?

Mr Mervin Reed put the following questions to the Council which the Acting Lord Mayor took on notice.

Question

Acting Lord Mayor, some time ago the Council resolved to seek public expression of interest, in the sale or lease of the Giblin Street land and quarry that is now not used.

This process culminated in responses from organisations wishing to use the quarry for a range of purposes.

However, the Council at a closed meeting determined that the quarry was needed to relocate a works depot from Self’s Point and subsequently cancelled everything, that had taken place over 18 months.

I now ask that you table the DA, engineering plans, the detailed drawings for the relocated works depot together with a detailed account of its cost of construction, and all the administrative arrangements at the next Council meeting.

The rate payers have a right to know what the cost of this spur of the moment decision taken by the Council, and your progress to date?

Mr Chris Merridew put the following question to the Council.

Question

In a Mercury article dated 22 July 2024, the Council stated that the current arrangements cannot continue i.e. the boxing on the plinth - unless the Council obtains a planning permit of which has all but been ruled out.

The article further stated

“It would also leave the community in a state of limbo on this issue, leaving all those with different views possibly unsatisfied and leave a feeling of the issue being unresolved”, a council officer said in a recent report on the statue.

“This includes the parties that appealed the Council’s decision (to remove the statue).”

The Council has already has a permit to permanently remove the statue, which is not yet active because of the vandalism.

I am confused and would like to know how the Council feels about that conflicting report?

Response:

The Acting Lord Mayor advised that this was a live issue with an item listed for discussion later in the meeting.  Mr Merridew will be advised of that decision in due course.

The Chief Executive Officer tabled a petition from Mr Edwin Johnstone calling on the Council to:

1.    Stop current planned changes to Collins Street.

2.    Locate future northbound and southbound bike lanes in separate streets to minimise disruption.

There were 2231 signatories to the petition.

Dutta

Posselt                                                                                                            

That the petition be receive and noted, referred to the appropriate officer and report returned to the Council.

Attachment

a    Petition - Collins Street Bicycle Lanes - July 2024 ⇨  

10.      Transport Strategy 2024 and Parking and Kerbside Management Plan

POSSELT

LOHBERGER

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 10 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

COATS

DUTTA

That Councillor Posselt be granted an extra three minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

AMENDMENT

KITSOS

DUTTA

That actions A30 and A56 within the implementation plan shown as attachment A of the report be revised to read as follows:

A30

“Support children’s active travel to school, with a focus on safety, through the development of School Active Travel Plans”.

A56

“Continue to advocate for an integrated medium transit solution that aligns with objective of this strategy and the City of Hobart’s vision.”

AMENDMENT CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

ZUCCO

DUTTA

That Councillor Elliot be granted an extra three minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COATS

DUTTA

That Councillor Elliot be granted an extra three minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COATS

ZUCCO

That Councillor Harvey be granted an extra three minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

ZUCCO

COATS

That Alderman Bloomfield be granted an extra three minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

ZUCCO

BLOOMFIELD

That Councillor Coats be granted an extra three minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

PROCEDURAL MOTION

COATS

BLOOMFIELD

That the item be deferred to allow the current governance review being undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer to be concluded.

PROCEDURAL MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

SUBSTANTIVE MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That:

1.         Council endorse the Hobart Transport Strategy 2024 marked as Attachment A to item 10 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, to include the following amendments to Action A30 and A56 to read as follows:

A30

Support children’s active travel to school, with a focus on safety, through the development of School Active Travel Plans.

A56

Continue to advocate for an integrated medium transit solution that aligns with objective of this strategy and the City of Hobart’s vision.

2.      Council endorse the Parking and Kerbside Management Plan marked as Attachment B to item 10 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024.

3.      Council notes the responses to the outstanding notice of motions relevant to transport and parking matters in section 4 of the report marked as item 10 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024.

11.      Crowther Statue Update

HARVEY

LOHBERGER

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 11 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That:

1.      Steps are to be taken under planning permit PLN-23-379 for the removal of the Crowther statue and installing temporary signage.

2.      Once the balance of the Crowther statue is removed from the plinth, steps are taken to repair and restore the statue to enable the permit conditions to be fully complied with.

12.      South Hobart Sustainable Community Inc (South Hobart Community Garden) - Lease Renewal

KITSOS

LOHBERGER

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 12 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That:

1.      The Council grant a lease of the area at 136 Wentworth Street, South Hobart, shown in the plan marked as Attachment A to item 12 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, to the South Hobart Sustainable Community Incorporated for a term of five years. The rent for the lease is to be not less than $100 (GST exclusive) per annum.

2.      The Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and agree to the final terms of the lease.

3.      The reduced rental be recorded in the Council’s Annual Report in accordance with the Council’s policy ‘Leases to Non-Profit Organisations’.

13.      2023-24  Annual Plan - Final Report for the Financial Year

LOHBERGER

HARVEY

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 13 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Council note the 2023-24 Annual Plan final report for the year ending 30 June 2024, marked as attachment A to item 13 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024.

14.      Proposed Delegation - TasWater Selfs Point Treatment Plant

LOHBERGER

KITSOS

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 14 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Director City Life be delegated to determine planning application PLN-23-746, made on behalf of TasWater, for the land at 10, 10A, 12 and 12A Selfs Point Road, New Town for Sewerage Treatment Plant Upgrade.

15.      Procurement Strategy Performance Report for the Period Ending 30 June 2024

COATS

LOHBERGER

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 15 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the report titled ‘Procurement Strategy Performance Report for the Period Ending 30 June 2024’, marked as item 15 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be received, noted and made available from the City’s website.

16.      Proposed Motion - Local Government Association Tasmania General Meeting

POSSELT

BLOOMFIELD

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 16 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Council supports the motion set out in Attachment A to item 16 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, as proposed by the Burnie City Council that:

(a)     the local government sector calls upon the State Government to amend its Pensioner Rates Remission Guidelines to benefit pensioners who receive an eligible card within a financial year, post the 1st July.

17.      Lease Arrangements - 22 Creek Road

POSSELT

LOHBERGER

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 17 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That 

1.         The Council resolve by absolute majority to overturn its decision of 29 April 2024, being:

“The Chief Executive Officer be given the authority to negotiate with Stepping Stones Children’s Services the terms and conditions of the lease, for a term of three years together with a two-year option.”

2.         The Council resolve:

(a)      To grant a lease of the facility at 22 Creek Road, Lenah Valley, to Stepping Stones Children’s Services for a term of five (5) years together with a five (5) year option, subject to no objections being received during the statutory public advertising period required under s.178 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas).

(b)      Should any objections be received during the public advertising period outlined above, a further report will be provided to the Council.

(c)      To otherwise delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and agree to the final terms of the lease.

18.      2024-25 Fees and Charges - Fees for Community Liability Pack

HARVEY

KITSOS

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 18 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That:

1.      Council amend its existing fee in its 2024-25 fees and charges booklet for Part B of the City’s Community Liability Pack insurance policy for uninsured hirers and permit holders from $33.95 (incl GST) to $44.00 (incl GST) to reflect the Community Liability Pack insurance renewal.

2.      Council amend its existing fee in its 2024-25 fees and charges booklet for Part A of the City’s Community Liability Pack insurance policy for uninsured hirers of Council owned or controlled facilities from $14.35 (incl GST) to $15.00 (incl GST) to reflect the Community Liability Pack insurance renewal.

3.      Council amend its public liability insurance excess for uninsured hirers and permit holders from $1,000.00 to $500.00 to reflect the Community Liability Pack insurance renewal.

19.      Code of Conduct Determination Report
Helen Burnet v Councillor Louise Elliot

ZUCCO

BLOOMFIELD

That the recommendation contained within the report of the Chief Executive Officer, marked as item 19 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Council receive and note the Code of Conduct Determination Report in respect to a complaint lodged by Helen Burnet against Councillor Louise Elliot, shown as Attachment A to item 19 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024.

20.      Halls Saddle

Motion:

“That the Hobart City Council:

1.   Determine that the Halls Saddle site (220 Waterworks Road, Ridgeway) should be included in the proposed State Government Strategic Review of kunanyi/Mt Wellington despite the fact that the site is outside the current Wellington Park boundary.

2.   Agree that the site should be considered for the provision of value adding uses and/or infrastructure such as a transport and/or visitor hub (etc), as part of its current review of kunanyi/Mt Wellington.

3.   Delegate to the CEO to write and directly liaise with the Department of State Growth, to request that Halls Saddle be included in the Review’s Terms of Reference

4.   Delegate to the CEO to write or personally liaise with the Wellington Park Management Trust to include Halls Saddle in their review of the Wellington Park Management Plan.

5.   Request the CEO to arrange to hold an open day at Halls Saddle to highlight to the wider public the huge size and convenient location of the site, and its potential value for kunanyi/Mt Wellington.”

Rationale:

This motion welcomes the State government’s review of management and funding for kunanyi/Mt Wellington. We note that the Wellington Park Management Trust has done excellent work over the past 30 years in helping to manage and oversee the mountain park, but it has been underfunded and is unable to deliver the current upgrades required on the mountain. This motion notes the value of the assets managed by the Hobart City Council (HCC) on kunanyi/Mt Wellington is around $85 million, and that HCC ratepayers are ultimately liable for significant depreciation costs on these assets of around two million dollars per annum.

We also note that the HCC ratepayers are also funding the majority of all maintenance and upgrade works on kunanyi/Mt Wellington, to the tune of around three million dollars per annum, but that HCC ratepayers make up less than 15% of the current users on the mountain. It has been widely discussed that there are currently serious traffic congestion and parking issues on the road to The Springs and to the pinnacle, and that other infrastructure, such as toilets, is also being overwhelmed by a huge rise in tourist numbers in recent years.

It is conceivable that a large proportion of Tasmanians may not be aware of the Halls Saddle site, despite many of us regularly driving past the site entrance on the road to Fern Tree. It is understood that historically the Hobart City Council has supported the establishment of a new transport hub at Halls Saddle, to address the transport congestion issues in the mountain park, especially at The Springs and on the pinnacle. It is noted that Halls Saddle is located just outside the Wellington Park boundary, and is potentially the most appropriate location between Hobart and the Pinnacle for a large new transport hub.

The Halls Saddle site is Council owned and a former quarry site situated just outside the Wellington Park boundary, within the Ridgeway Reserve in the eastern slopes or kunanyi/Mt Wellington. The site is accessed from an existing small car park area where Chimney Pot Road meets the Huon Road.

The cleared area of the site is largely made up of three tiered areas of flat ground. At the rear of the site is a steep escarpment with a higher level of land to the east. Elevated areas of the site offer panoramic views towards kunanyi/Mt Wellington and the surrounding foothills.

The site is adjacent to the Huon Road and is a 10-minute car journey from The Springs and 20-minute drive from The Pinnacle, it has access to electricity and water supply. Preliminary site assessments undertaken in 2020 confirmed the appropriateness of the area for further consideration to be developed as a transport hub, gateway of front door access to Wellington Park and kunanyi/ Mt Wellington.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

Pillar 1: Sense of place.

Pillar 2: Community Inclusion, participation and belonging.

Pillar 5: Movement and connectivity.

Pillar 6: Natural Environment.

Pillar 8: Governance and Civic Involvement.

Outcome:

1.1 Hobart keeps a strong sense of place and identity, even as the city changes.

2.3 Hobart communities are active, healthy and engaged in lifelong learning.

5.2 Hobart has effective and environmentally sustainable transport systems.

6.1 The natural environment is part of the city and biodiversity is conserved, secure and flourishing.

8.1 Hobart is a city that is well governed that recognises the community as an active partner that informs decisions

Strategy:

1.1.1 Work with community & stakeholders to protect and enhance core elements of Hobart identity – kunanyi/Mt Wellington…..- so they are valued as central features of Hobart’s landscape and social fabric.

2.3.1 Provide and progressively enhance a range of quality places and facilities where people can enjoy education, recreation, socialising, heathly living and other activities and events.

5.2.3 Develop, upgrade and maintain the City’s networks of roads, bridges, cycleways, footpaths and walkways.

6.1.3 Protect and enhance Hobart habitats, key natural assets and ecosystems, including wildlife corridors and waterways.

8.1.2 Ensure the needs of the community are well represented through effective advocacy and strong collaborative partnerships with key

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

1.   A development at Halls Saddle would require planning approval under the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

2.   External preliminary opinion is that the concept plans are generally in conformity with the requirements of the planning scheme.

3.   The site is outside Wellington Park and therefore there are no permits or approvals required from the Wellington Park Management Trust.

Policy:

The kunanyi / Mount Wellington - Halls Saddle Visitor Hub - Feasibility Study report focuses on establishing a visitor hub at Halls Saddle. This initiative aims to enhance visitor access to kunanyi / Mount Wellington, Tasmania’s most visited natural attraction. The study finds the Halls Saddle site viable for development, proposing a hub with approximately 285 car parks, a bus interchange, and visitor facilities.

The next steps involve design development, stakeholder and community engagement, and further planning to secure external funding opportunities and advance the project.

Financial Implications

1.    Should the decision be made to build a Halls Saddle Visitor Hub, funding in the order of $5.7M will be required.

2.    At present there is no capital allocation for this project in the10-Year Capital Works Program.

3.    Alternative options to the City funding the built infrastructure in full may be available. Potential concessions to a long-term lessee who could fully or partially fund the construction are one such option. Any exploration or investigation of these alternatives will be detailed in future reports to the Council.

Asset Related Implications

1.    Should the Halls Saddle development eventuate, it would be a new asset and incur new ongoing maintenance costs.

LOHBERGER

KITSOS                                                                       That the motion be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Hobart City Council:

1.   Determine that the Halls Saddle site (220 Waterworks Road, Ridgeway) should be included in the proposed State Government Strategic Review of kunanyi/Mt Wellington despite the fact that the site is outside the current Wellington Park boundary.

2.   Agree that the site should be considered for the provision of value adding uses and/or infrastructure such as a transport and/or visitor hub (etc), as part of its current review of kunanyi/Mt Wellington.

3.   Delegate to the CEO to write and directly liaise with the Department of State Growth, to request that Halls Saddle be included in the Review’s Terms of Reference

4.   Delegate to the CEO to write or personally liaise with the Wellington Park Management Trust to include Halls Saddle in their review of the Wellington Park Management Plan.

5.   Request the CEO to arrange to hold an open day at Halls Saddle to highlight to the wider public the huge size and convenient location of the site, and its potential value for kunanyi/Mt Wellington.

21.      Respect and Appreciation of Staff

Motion:

“That the Hobart City Council affirms the following:

A sincere appreciation for staff, who serve the residents and visitors of Hobart in a professional and capable manner.

Respect for City Officers and their unique training, expertise and knowledge that results in expert advice being provided to elected members for decision making.

Recognition that City Officers work to implement decisions of the council made at the strategic level and that individual projects are a reflection of actions within strategic documents elected members endorse.

Condemns commentary and debate that brings the city into disrepute, targets city officers, causes offense or bullies/harasses any individual.

Work with the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) and other interested councils to develop and run a public facing campaign to promote City Officers and the expertise/qualities they bring to the city in concert with a public education campaign that promotes respectful conduct and debate in public discourse.”

Rationale:

City officers (staff) are critical to the functioning of The City of Hobart. They perform crucial tasks such as maintaining sports ovals, compliance, customer service, collecting rubbish, city cleansing, leadership, training, construction, fabrication, arboriculture, planning and administration and much more. In addition, they provide their expertise in good faith to build a city and initiate activities consistent with strategic decisions made by the Council.

It is important that the popularly elected Council recognise that the majority of the work in The City of Hobart is performed by City Officers and from time to time formally recognise the input they have into the functioning and good governance of the city.

Unfortunately, debate on various matters in the public realm leads to Council Officers feeling undervalued, unsupported and vilified for simply doing their job: enacting the decisions of this council. This is especially true of commentary on social media, where aggressive and demeaning language is too often used against both staff and elected members. This is unacceptable and presents a work health and safety risk to our people in this organisation. It also risks unacceptably high staff turnover, which is inherently bad for the city. Our people, their experience and expertise matter.

This motion serves to recognise City Officers for their work and formally thank them for what they do. It also asks that the City of Hobart work with other councils and LGAT to promote the good work City officers undertake in their daily duties. It further seeks to provide education through a public facing campaign on principals of respectful conduct and debate.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion

The personal backlash that is often received by our elected members, and, in some cases even our staff, is not something anyone deserves and not representative of the type of community we all aspire to be.

Our elected members take the responsibility of making decisions that affect the lives of the Hobart community very seriously. These decisions can range from local policies to significant developmental projects, often sparking diverse opinions and harmful commentary online, however, this type of abuse is not something anyone deserves and not acceptable.    

Council officers have been engaging with LGAT specifically around the development and roll out of a dedicated campaign calling out online abuse towards elected members.   This is in response to elected members, continuing to receive a high-level of interest and backlash from the community and also some highly vitriolic comments on their social media platforms..

The Local Government Association in the UK rolled out a dedicated campaign in 2021, which was called ‘Debate not Hate: Ending abuse in public life for Councillors. It was a call for change, raising public awareness of the role of councillors in their communities, encouraging healthy debate and improving the responses and support for local politicians facing abuse and intimidation.

LGAT are currently working with an external provider on how a similar campaign can be adopted in Tasmania and what this might look like.   Council officers will commit to keeping elected members informed on the progress.

Whilst this campaign is specifically for elected members, Council officers will discuss with LGAT whether staff can be included in any public facing campaign.

Further, noting the City of Clarence recent motion calling for the development and delivery of a community awareness campaign, aimed at addressing poor behaviour and conduct towards both councillors and council staff, which sought coordination with LGAT and other councils across the State, to ensure consistency and collaboration across the sector.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

Pillar 8: Governance and Civic Involvement

Outcome:

8.2.10: Attract, retain and invest in a high performance, diverse, values-led, and engaged workforce.

8.2.11: Foster a positive and supportive organisational culture that prioritises the health, safety and wellbeing of staff, elected members and volunteers.

Strategy:

Capital City Strategic Plan 2023

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

NA

Policy:

NA

Financial Implications

1.      Unknown at this point in time, to be determined at a later stage.

POSSELT

LOHBERGER                                                            That the motion be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the Hobart City Council affirms the following:

1.    A sincere appreciation for staff, who serve the residents and visitors of Hobart in a professional and capable manner.

2.    Respect for City Officers and their unique training, expertise and knowledge that results in expert advice being provided to elected members for decision making.

3.    Recognition that City Officers work to implement decisions of the council made at the strategic level and that individual projects are a reflection of actions within strategic documents elected members endorse.

4.    Condemns commentary and debate that brings the city into disrepute, targets city officers, causes offense or bullies/harasses any individual.

5.    Work with the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) and other interested councils to develop and run a public facing campaign to promote City Officers and the expertise/qualities they bring to the city in concert with a public education campaign that promotes respectful conduct and debate in public discourse.

22.      Addressing Council Values

Motion:

“That the Council:

1.   Note that we have had a messaging platform of ‘Hobart respects all’ since 2019 and as an organisation are committed to be against discrimination.

2.   Note that we have recently had a special item on behalf of the Council publicly apologising for directly breaching the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 and being found as an organisation to have engaged in direct discrimination.

3.   Note the current process to develop Council’s Aboriginal Commitment Action Plan has identified that there is a view that the Hobart City Council is not considered a culturally safe place for Aboriginal people.

4.   Note how there have been direct motions singling people out for different treatment due to health conditions and that menopause is a personal private matter that staff shouldn't have to talk to their employer about.

5.   Note that the Welcoming and Inclusive Hobart portfolio committee is to help oversee the commitments under the 2019-2029 strategic plan, including pillar 2 “Community inclusion, participation and belonging”. As part of this, the portfolio committee is to oversee the Hobart respects all 2.0 campaign as well as the Aboriginal Development Action Plan.

6.   Calls on the Hobart City Council to apologise for the culture of allowing such discrimination to take place and for this to be noted in the summary media of this meeting.

7.   Calls on Council staff to provide a report outlining recommendations for our governance arrangements to help oversee an improved culture of being welcoming and inclusive of all.”

Rationale:

It is noted that there have been multiple instances recently where Hobart Council has been reported to have either directly engaged in discrimination or has overseen culture and workplace environments that don’t align to our strategic plan and ambition of being welcoming and inclusive.

It was shocking to hear that we are not a culturally safe place for Aboriginal people to work.

Likewise, to have menopausal women isolated for special treatment when Menopause literally means an end to your personal identity.   It is an intensely personal point of life where one recognises the loss of childbearing ability.  Acknowledging that a huge potential of your personal self has disappeared for good is overwhelming on a good day.  Being reminded of it on a constant basis in your workplace with the suggested posters on the walls is cruel to those who are still grieving the change. It becomes potentially discriminatory when your superiors are also continually reminded by same that post-menopausal women 'need additional support' for normal biological maturity as it supplies negative influence in and connotations which are unfair and discriminatory.

This motion simply asks that we note the current situation the council finds itself in, apologises, and asks for a report to come back recommending any changes so that it hopefully doesn’t occur going forward.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion

The Council’s involvement in the blocking of the room booking and RTI processes have been well documented, and apologies have been issued to Louise Elliot for the wrongdoing that occurred. The Council is acting to address the cultural issues that contributed to these occurrences last year through the One Hobart Cultural Development Program, together with specific training on Discrimination being delivered by Equal Opportunity Tasmania.  It is anticipated that through these initiatives we will see a move to a more constructive organisational culture.

In respect to work that is occurring on the Aboriginal Commitment Action Plan, it is clear that the organisation is on a journey and is working with the local Aboriginal community to ensure that we are a culturally safe work environment. It is through work such as this that we can make changes within the workplace to ensure that everyone feels safe and included.

In respect to the Council’s motion relating to menopause, reflecting on the discussion by Elected Members in the Chamber at the time the motion was raised, the discussion is not considered to be targeted or disrespectful.  Indeed, Elected Members were seeking to address the issue with an understanding and desire to achieve positive outcomes for women during this time of their lives.  It’s fair to say that the City recognises the personal nature of menopause and its impact on women and is responding to the Council’s agreed motion with care and sensitivity.  In this regard, the City is now actioning the specific items of the resolution through an integrated Wellness Program which is expected to be released next year.

Aside from the matter of the room booking, for which apologies have been issued, it would difficult to draw a conclusion that a broader apology is warranted.

An update on the One Hobart Cultural Development Plan is provided below.

Update One Hobart Culture Plan

The One Hobart Culture Plan has the main tenets of inclusion and belonging and community impact at its core and underpins a number of key Frameworks that have been developed.  It is important that there is a holistic approach to all people and culture initiatives, strategies and policies to ensure a cohesive and best practice approach to improving culture, behaviour, performance, inclusion and belonging and work health and safety.

“Where to from here” workshops

“Where to from here workshops” are being held across the organisation. These workshops enable Managers and employees to have conversations about the culture plan, the components of the One Safe Framework and their interpretations of what this means in their context. 

The workshops are being delivered by the Organisational Development team to Managers leading teams.  These workshops will continue over the next 12 months to assist in the One Hobart Culture Plan and the Leadership Development Program embed a positive culture across our organisation. 

One Hobart Capability Framework

The One Hobart Capability Framework is aligned to the Culture Plan aims and the Leadership Development Program and enables Managers and Supervisors to have conversations around behaviour expectations and how Managers can better support employees through training and development and coaching opportunities. 

Leadership Practise Follow Up workshops will be rolled out over the next 12 months to Managers and Supervisors to continue to embed the learnings from the Leadership Development Program and to assist all leaders in recognising and developing talent, promoting and modelling positive behaviour and team collaboration, sharing learnings and maximising formal and informal training and development.

Diversity Equity and Inclusion Framework

The Diversity, Equity and Inclusion framework is currently being developed and it is anticipated that a draft framework will be ready by November 2024. The framework will focus on inclusion and wellbeing for all employees and an increased capacity by the City to adapt and accommodate employees regardless of the dimension of diversity. The Organisational Development team will work with the Diversity Council, key internal and external stakeholders and academia to develop a best practise model.

One Safe Framework

One Safe Framework will be developed to ensure staff wellbeing and psychological safety of employees covering both development and prevention. This framework will also intersects with the Culture Plan

Induction

The induction refresh is being finalised ready for roll out in August. All new Managers and Supervisors will be enrolled in training in respect of the One Hobart Culture Plan, the Leadership Development Program and other activities relating to performance and behaviour improvement.

Success Planning App

A further iteration of the Success Planning App which replaces the Performance Management Review process has been completed.  The App is used to manage performance and includes goal setting and behaviour and performance review.  This App has been rolled out to the indoor workforce over the previous 12 months and a working group will be established in August to design a pragmatic approach in reviewing performance with our outdoor employees.

Leadership Development Program

The Leadership Development Program is currently being designed for in-house delivery to Supervisors from August through to December this year with additional cohorts undertaking this program through to June 2025.  This program will be available to all Managers and Supervisors.  A more streamlined, pragmatic approach to leadership with the outdoor workforce will be designed and rolled out to all Supervisors who primarily have outdoor work crews.  Focus will be on performance and behaviour and team collaboration.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

Pillar 2: Community Inclusion, Participation and Belonging

Pillar 8: Governance and Civic Involvement

Outcome:

2.1: We celebrate Tasmanian Aboriginal Community, Heritage and Culture

2.4: We are informed and always learning

2.5: We are healthy, joyful and content

8.1: We are strong in our ethics

Strategy:

A City for all – Community Inclusion and Equity Framework.

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

Work, Health and Safety Act

Policy:

Social Inclusion Policy 2020

Financial Implications

1.      N/A

BLOOMFIELD

COATS                                                                       That the motion be adopted.

COATS

ELLIOT

That Alderman Zucco be granted an extra two minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

POSSELT

BLOOMFIELD

That Councillor Coats be granted an extra two minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

POSSELT

KITSOS

That Councillor Dutta be granted an extra three minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

The motion was lost.

23.      Save UTAS Signage Franklin Square

Motion:

“That Council support ‘Respect the vote, Save UTAS’ signage being placed upon (or near) the plinth in Franklin Square until such time that an alternative plan for the empty plinth is ready for implementation.”

Rationale:

Franklin Square is a prominent, public place in Hobart. There is currently an empty plinth in the Square, where the bronze statue of Dr Crowther once stood. The plinth will likely be empty for an extended period. During this time this public space should be used for the benefit of the community. 

There is currently a community campaign underway to ‘Save UTAS’. The Save UTAS movement is ongoing and has broad support, evidenced by the 74 percent result in the Hobart elector poll.

As this is a prominent spot, and one of the Council's functions under the local government act is to “promote and represent the interests of the community”, it is seen as appropriate that this public space be used to convey this important community messaging.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion

1.         It is noted that there is a report on the Crowther statue and the options for the Council in terms of next steps, on this agenda.

2.         Placement of a “Save UTAS” banner in Franklin Square would require planning approval in that this is a new sign.

3.         If it was proposed to place the sign on the plinth itself, this may not be supported from a heritage point of view. If the sign was placed next to the plinth and was proposed on a temporary basis, it is likely this could be supported, subject to reviewing any representations made by the community. Given that the proposal would be on Council land, it would be considered by the Planning Committee and would not be officer delegated.

4.         Like the Crowther statue, any application would prompt the consideration by the Council both as landowner and as planning authority. While the elector poll was a process to obtain input from the public on specific issues relating to the University of Tasmania, this did not extend to the proposed sign. The Council as landowner may utilise the statutory planning process as a way to obtain further public feedback, although the feedback may be limited to planning issues. Further consultation could be arranged, if that is preferred.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

8 Governance and Civic Involvement

Outcome:

8.1 Hobart is a city that is well governed that recognises the community as an active partner that informs decisions.

Strategy:

8.1.1 Build community trust through the implementation of effective civic leadership, ethical conduct and responsible governance processes that ensure accountability, transparency and compliance with all legislated and statutory requirements.

8.1.2 Ensure the needs of the community are well represented through effective advocacy and strong collaborative partnerships with key stakeholders and all levels of government.

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Policy:

n/a

Financial Implications

1.      The cost of a planning application would not be significant. A consultant may be required to prepare and support this application.

2.      The cost of a sign would depend on what was proposed.

ELLIOT

COATS                                                                       That the motion be adopted.

Pursuant to regulation 16(8) (a) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 the motion was withdrawn by agreement of the mover and the seconder.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

The motion was withdrawn.

24.      Engaging Developers and Promoting Development

Motion:

“That the Council:

1.   Note that Hobart has the lowest commercial vacancy rate among all CBD’s in Australia as recently reported by the City of Hobart and the Lord Mayor, and that this low vacancy rate leads to higher rents for commercial property.

2.   Note that Hobart has very low vacancy rates for residential property and that this low vacancy rate leads to high rents which are impacting on cost-of-living pressures for renters.

3.   Note that the 2021-2023 Affordable Housing and Homelessness Commitment gave an undertaking to “ADVOCATE The City will collaborate with business, community and the sector to advocate for positive change, where appropriate, in order to address local and regional affordable, social housing and homelessness issues. “ 

4.   Note that Hobart has many underdeveloped sites, including open air car parks and empty sites across the CBD. 

5.   Note that under the developer contact register the chair of the Housing and Homelessness committee has never met with a single developer, the Deputy Mayor has never met with a single developer and that the Lord Mayor has only ever met with the developer behind the stadium 2.0 proposal.  None of the three bothered to meet with the developers behind the recent Argyle Street homelessness shelter proposal.

6.   Call upon council officers to prepare a report outlining a strategy for better engagement with the developer sector.”

Rationale:

The laws of supply and demand matter for the delivery of affordable property, both commercial and residential.  Hobart residents and businesses deserve a market where supply of property results in reasonable prices so that they can conduct their affairs without burdensome cost pressures.  It is staggering that in the current rental crisis, and with commercial properties in Hobart so tight that we have the lowest vacancy rate of all CBD’s in the country, our leadership team aren’t even meeting with developers.  This is happening despite multiple underutilised sites within the Hobart CBD. 

Council needs to come up with a new strategy and approach given the failure of the current one.  As we require new property, commercial and residential, to be built then we need to work with the development sector.

Administration Response to Notice of Motion

Discussion

1.     The CEO and Directors of City Life and City Futures have been engaging in a series of meeting with developers over the past few of months to understand where there are opportunities for improvements from their perspectives. These meeting are ongoing, and have already been fruitful in identifying future actions.

2.     An immediate action which has been identified is the need to hold regular developer forums, which is in the process of being organised. The need for a forum such as this has also been identified as part of the ongoing work of the Housing & Homelessness Portfolio Committee.

3.     Another idea other is the need for a development ‘concierge’ type service to assist larger, more complex development applications to be managed by the Council and the Position Description for the new Economic Development Manager has been updated to include this type of approach.

4.     We are also in the process of initiating greater upfront engagement with developers who have proposals that involve heritage listed buildings/sites, following feedback from the development industry over recent months.

5.     Further, the Manager Development Appraisal and Director City Life meet with industry representative groups for feedback on our processes. This includes the Property Council, Housing Industry Association, Building Designer Association of Australia, and Architects Institute of Australia. Where there are systemic issues identified that we are able to address, we adjust our processes as appropriate.

6.     From a broader perspective, a significant amount of strategic planning is currently being undertaken, including the Central Hobart Plan (endorsed and implementation commenced), North Hobart Neighbourhood Plan (approved for consultation on draft), Sandy Bay and Mount Nelson Neighbourhood Plan (still being developed, having received significant input on early ideas) and the Inner North East Neighbourhood Plan (in the early stages of development). Each of these plans is an opportunity for developers to provide feedback on what is feasible and achievable in the context of future development and how development could contribute to the future of City.

7.     Finally, the Urban Design Advisory Panel explore residential options in the context of “pre-application” meetings, when designs are at an early stage. Feedback from developers on a number of projects has been that commercial or other development is more feasible than residential in the current economic climate.

8.     The CEO and Acting Director City Life have had questions raised from several developers as to whether the Council would be willing to offer rates waivers or discounts as an incentive for developers to construct further residential development. This has not yet been explored or costed in any detail, but a report could be provided to the Council with options and the financial implications.

9.     The present and future work is about engaging collaborative and productively with developers, other parts of Government and the community to deliver on the social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes in line with the Hobart – A Community Vision for Our Island Capital.

Strategic, Legislative and Policy Implications

Capital City Strategic Plan

Pillar:

7 Built Environment

Outcome:

7.1 Hobart has a diverse supply of housing and affordable homes.

Strategy:

7.1.1 Identify issues and pursue opportunities to address homelessness and housing affordability.

7.1.2 Advocate for increased housing supply including social and affordable housing delivered through a range of supported accommodation models.

7.1.3 Advocate for legislative and other tools that support increased supply of housing, including social and affordable housing.

7.1.4 Identify and leverage City-owned assets that could support beneficial social and affordable housing outcomes.

7.1.5 Monitor and respond to research and trends that may impact housing supply.

Legislation and Policy

Legislation:

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Policy:

n/a

Financial Implications

1.    The actions mentioned above do not involve significant financial implications. For example, a developer forum may have some minor catering or venue hire.

KELLY

BLOOMFIELD                                                           That the motion be adopted.

COATS

BLOOMFIELD

That Alderman Zucco be granted an extra minute to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COATS

POSSELT

That Councillor Dutta be granted an extra two minutes to address the item.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

MOTION LOST

VOTING RECORD

Note: Councillor Lohberger abstained from the vote.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

The motion was lost.

25.      RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

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

HARVEY

LOHBERGER                                                                                                               

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 25 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the following response to questions without notice be received and noted:

Memorandum of the Chief Financial Officer 4 July 2024.

26.      QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

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

File Ref: 13-1-10

Question:    Does the Council send out a litter patrol or similar after a large rain event to review and remediate the state of the Hobart Rivulet downstream from the McRobies waste facility, this may include rubbish removal or cleaning of debris after these events?

Answer:       The Acting Director City Life advised that this does occur and it has been a change in process after a previous weather event last October.

26.2    Councillor Coats - Social Media - Graphic Postings

Question:    What are the requirements if we were to put up a post or virtual sign or a graphic to our social media page and what process would we need to do that?

Answer:       The Chief Executive Officer took the question on notice.

26.3    Councillor Coats - Milk Supplies

Question:    Noting that $120k was spent on the milk supply contract and it expires end of July this month.  How much of this is then on sold as part of commercial operations at the Council run café?  Does this also cover other milk purchases?

Answer:       The Director City Enablers took the question on notice.

26.4    Councillor Coats - KPMG Contract

Question:    We had a contract with KPMG to provide P23/28 – Information, Systems and Data Architecture Services, $150k – this ran out in June 2024, can we be provided with a summary of outputs received and if this contract is being looked at to be rolled over?

Answer:       The Director City Enablers advised that we have only just entered into this contract so we are still in the process of engaging with KPMG to get the product. We would expect to receive this later in the financial year, it is in regards to the Council’s IT strategy.

26.5    Councillor Coats - Neighbourhood Plans - Costs

Question:    We have spent $149k on a neighbourhood plan development with MGS architects for North Hobart Neighbourhood plan, a Melbourne based firm, yet for Sandy Bay we spent $154k for Urbis, a Sydney based firm and for the Inner North- East neighbourhood plan we have spent $180k with Ethos Urban, a Sydney firm. What is the total cost for Council for these plans/projects and how much in kind/in house do we do ourselves? Also an update on where all three of these are currently at? We have chosen to go with different contractors for each one but does this run the risk of the plans not being compatible, has any consideration been given to do them as a total?

Answer:       The Director City Futures took the question on notice.

26.6    Councillor Coats - Summary of Contractors for Business Management

Question:    Can we have a summary breakdown of the ‘Business Management’ contractors component as detailed in the response given to Cr Posselts previous question on Consultancy Costs. The total consultancy services costs were listed as 3.3M, of that how much related to Business Management Contracts?

Answer:       The Director City Enablers took the question on notice.

26.7    Councillor Coats - Aboriginal Programmes - Webpage

Question:    Can the aboriginal programs webpage be updated and have published on it all the more recent reports? Only 2022 is published at the moment.

Answer:       The Acting Director Connected City advised that the website will be updated.

26.8    Councillor Coats - Compliments and Complaints Report

Question:    Previously the Finance and Governance Committee was provided a compliments and complaints report. This has lapsed.  Could we be provided a summary of compliments and complaints for the year to date?

Answer:       The Acting Director Connected City advised that this would be subject of a report to the Council.

26.9    Alderman Bloomfield - Salamanca Market - Profit and Loss

Question:    The Salamanca Stallholders are concerned that they have not been provided with a copy of the profit and loss as promised and that they missed the quarterly meeting?

Answer:       The Chief Executive Officer advised that officers have met with the stallholders last week and the reason for the delay was due to the staff member with responsibility in the area resigning. We now have an acting person in the role so a meeting will be rescheduled which will enable these matters to be worked through with stallholders.

26.10  Councillor Posselt - Contractor Services

Question:    In relation to the answer provided on contractor services costs can the Chief Executive Officer advise if this is a reasonable ball park figure or is this outside a reasonable range of expenditure of this type?

Answer:       The Chief Executive Officer advised that this is a reasonable amount and not excessive. However it is acknowledged that it is of interest to the community and our practices have changed to better report on these types of expenditure.

26.11  Councillor Posselt - Salamanca Market - Merchandise Opportunities

Question:    As part of a previous Salamanca Stallholder item before the Council, the issue of merchandising opportunities were discussed and it was discovered that the Council was receiving $23K in the sale of tote bags sold through the Council’s stall as part of a cost recovery exercise. Can the Council be updated on where those merchandising opportunities are at?

Answer:       The Chief Executive Officer took the question on notice.

27.      Questions Taken on Notice During Debate

POSSELT

COATS

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 27 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

COUNCIL RESOLUTION:

That the register of questions arising during debate, marked as Attachment A, to item 27 of the Open Council Agenda of 22 July 2024 be received and noted.