Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 0

28/4/2025

Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

28/04/2025

The Chairperson reports that she has perused the minutes of the meeting of the Open Portion of the Council meeting held on Monday, 31 March 2025, finds them to be a true record and recommends that they be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Sherlock

Kitsos                                                   

 That the minutes be signed.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

The minutes were signed.

Sara Callaghan put the following question and was provided with a response by the Chief Executive Officer.

QUESTION 1:

Please can you state how many dog attacks have been reported at South Hobart Oval or at other HCC grounds in the last 12 months?

RESPONSE:

There was one reported dog attack at South Hobart Oval and five on other Council reserves.  There were 33 total dog attacks within the City of Hobart reported over this period.

Andrew Wilson put the following questions and was provided with a response by the Chief Executive Officer.

QUESTION 1:

Does the revenue from hire fees for the Soho Recreation Ground cover the full cost of ground maintenance, or only a percentage of the maintenance costs, with the shortfall having to be funded by rate payers?

QUESTION 2:

Does Council’s vision for future use of the south Hobart Recreation Ground align with Ken and Vicky Morton/South Hobart Football Club’s ambition to build an Indoor Domed Stadium?

QUESTION 3:

Has Council had discussions with the South Hobart Football Club about an alternative, more suitable location for their soccer activities, such as Hom Common or Olinda Grove?

RESPONSE:

There are currently no Council sports grounds that are self-funded.  All require significant additional funding from Council’s budget allocation.

The Council has yet to fully endorse the draft master plan for the South Hobart recreation site which in its current form, doesn’t include domed stadium

We have not had any discussions with the South Hobart Football Club about alternative locations for their club.

Marla Crew put the following question which was taken on notice by the Chief Executive Officer.

QUESTION 1:

Why has the Networking for Harmony meetings been suspended?

Susan Puckett put the following questions which were taken on notice by the Chief Executive Officer.

QUESTION 1:

Has the Council generated any data on the extent of the local community use of the South Hobart Recreation Ground?

QUESTION 2:

Why was the name of the ground changed in 2022 and without any community consultation?

QUESTION 3:

Council staff have suggested on several occasions that mediation occurs between South Hobart Football Club and the community, when will this occur?

Sherlock

Harvey

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 6.2 of the Open Council Agenda of 28 April 2025, be adopted.

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

6.2.1               South Hobart Oval

                        Letter of the Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

6.2.2               Collins Street Trial and Public Meeting

                        Letter of the Director Strategic and Regulatory Services

7.1.     Response to Petition - Aberdeen Street Park - Request for Construction of a Petanque Pitch and Seating

Sherlock

Harvey

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 7.1 of the Open Council Agenda of 28 April 2025, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Council Resolution:

That:

1.      The Council note the request raised in the Petition titled Aberdeen Street Park - Request for construction of a pétanque pitch and seating, marked as Attachment A to item 7.1 of the Open Council Agenda of 28 April 2025.

2.      That Council officers consider options for this request and provide a further report back to the Council for its consideration.

3.      The lead Petitioners be advised of the outcomes of this report.

10.      Draft Integrated Assessment Report for the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Project of State Significance

Note: The following alternative motion was moved rather than the recommendation contained within the officer report.

Dutta

Kitsos

That the submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission in response to the draft Integrated Assessment Report for the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Project of State Significance, marked as item 10, attachment A to the officer report, be amended to include the following updates prior to it being submitted:

(A)    A preamble / introduction be included at the beginning of the submission stating that Council does not support this project being built at this location because the negative impacts outweigh the positives.

The preamble also summarise Council’s consistent concerns which are:

1.      significant damage to places of heritage significance (Hunter Street precinct and the Cenotaph) and Hobart’s heritage tourism brand;

2.      the lost opportunity of what will be an inactive precinct for most of the year in a prime and strategic location for the city;

3.      the significant environmental concerns raised by the EPA in their submission to the TPC;

4.      the impact of the northern road in cutting off community access to the river;

5.      the very poor process that led to this point including the AFL overriding the approved plan for Macquarie Point and the abandonment of the POSS process;

6.      the lack of critical transport infrastructure to support a functional stadium.

(B)    Section on Social and Community issues:

1.      be rewritten to include the perspectives and information from local organisations drawing on the perspectives of the Palawa community, the RSL, the TSO, the City’s Heritage Advisory Committee and other organisations who have provided information on the social and community issues.

2.      This section could also draw on community consultations on the MPDC Precinct Plan as well as community polling that has taken place on this project;

3.      This section should outline and reflect the concerns that the Council have expressed to date about the process to date in the form of decisions and submissions. The anecdotes provided from desktop research about other cities (provided by AEC consulting) provides no local perspectives and does not draw on local research. This is not relevant for this section of the submission;

4.      The section reviewing the economic impact of the proposal include equal coverage of both the studies commissioned by the Council.

(C)    Also that a section be included to explain that due to cost considerations, Council was not able to undertake an in-depth economic study that would have been able to draw on local data.

(D)    Also note that it’s own economic studies were not able to consider and discount relevant matters such as foregone or opportunity costs, i.e. other events that may be harmed, impact on heritage tourism brand, other providers that will lose income (i.e. conference) and alternative uses of the site that may be more frequently used, profitable or productive.

Harvey

Lohberger

That Deputy Lord Mayor Councillor Sherlock be granted an extra three minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Amendment

Sherlock

Lohberger

That:

1.    The submission states that the economic impact information provided in the AEC report adopts Input-Output (IO) modelling, where multipliers used in the assessment were derived from a parent table, in this case, the 2021/22 Australian (national) transaction table (ABS, 2024a), without undertaking any primary data collection in Hobart. And that the AEC report confesses to using an economic modelling that assumes there is no budget constraint in place for residents and no supply side constraints.

2.    Notes that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has stated that while IO multipliers may be useful as summary statistics to assist in understanding the degree to which an industry is integrated into the economy, their inherent shortcomings make them inappropriate for economic impact analysis.

3.    Notes the limitations stated in the AEC report on the negative reliability of Input-Output analysis regarding the potential economic impact to the City.

4.    Includes equal coverage of both the studies commissioned by the Council - the SGS Economics and AEC Report. And note that an economic impact study is not an evaluation tool to demonstrate the cost-benefit analysis of the proposal.

Harvey

Kitsos

That Deputy Lord Mayor Councillor Sherlock be granted an extra two minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

AMENDMENT CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Sherlock

Harvey

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

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Sherlock

Harvey

That the Lord Mayor Councillor Reynolds be granted an extra two minutes to address the meeting.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

SUBSTANTIVE MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Council Resolution:

That the submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission in response to the draft Integrated Assessment Report for the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Project of State Significance, marked as item 10, attachment A to the officer report, be amended to include the following updates prior to it being submitted:

(A)    A preamble / introduction be included at the beginning of the submission stating that Council does not support this project being built at this location because the negative impacts outweigh the positives.

The preamble also summarise Council’s consistent concerns which are:

1.      significant damage to places of heritage significance (Hunter Street precinct and the Cenotaph) and Hobart’s heritage tourism brand;

2.      the lost opportunity of what will be an inactive precinct for most of the year in a prime and strategic location for the city;

3.      the significant environmental concerns raised by the EPA in their submission to the TPC;

4.      the impact of the northern road in cutting off community access to the river;

5.      the very poor process that led to this point including the AFL overriding the approved plan for Macquarie Point and the abandonment of the POSS process;

6.      the lack of critical transport infrastructure to support a functional stadium.

(B)    Section on Social and Community issues:

1.      be rewritten to include the perspectives and information from local organisations drawing on the perspectives of the Palawa community, the RSL, the TSO, the City’s Heritage Advisory Committee and other organisations who have provided information on the social and community issues.

2.      This section could also draw on community consultations on the MPDC Precinct Plan as well as community polling that has taken place on this project;

3.      This section should outline and reflect the concerns that the Council have expressed to date about the process to date in the form of decisions and submissions. The anecdotes provided from desktop research about other cities (provided by AEC consulting) provides no local perspectives and does not draw on local research. This is not relevant for this section of the submission;

4.      The section reviewing the economic impact of the proposal include equal coverage of both the studies commissioned by the Council.

(C)    Also that a section be included to explain that due to cost considerations, Council was not able to undertake an in-depth economic study that would have been able to draw on local data.

(D)    State that the economic impact information provided in the AEC report adopts Input-Output (IO) modelling, where multipliers used in the assessment were derived from a parent table, in this case, the 2021/22 Australian (national) transaction table (ABS, 2024a), without undertaking any primary data collection in Hobart. And that the AEC report confesses to using an economic modelling that assumes there is no budget constraint in place for residents and no supply side constraints.

(E)    Notes that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has stated that while IO multipliers may be useful as summary statistics to assist in understanding the degree to which an industry is integrated into the economy, their inherent shortcomings make them inappropriate for economic impact analysis.

(F)     Notes the limitations stated in the AEC report on the negative reliability of Input-Output analysis regarding the potential economic impact to the City.

(G)    Includes equal coverage of both the studies commissioned by the Council - the SGS Economics and AEC Report. And note that an economic impact study is not an evaluation tool to demonstrate the cost-benefit analysis of the proposal.

(H)    Also note that it’s own economic studies were not able to consider and discount relevant matters such as foregone or opportunity costs, i.e. other events that may be harmed, impact on heritage tourism brand, other providers that will lose income (i.e. conference) and alternative uses of the site that may be more frequently used, profitable or productive.

11.      Macpoint Stadium POSS - Elector Poll

Lohberger

Sherlock

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 11 of the Open Council Agenda of 28 April 2025, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Council Resolution:

That Council note and receive the report titled ‘MacPoint Stadium POSS – Elector Poll’ and determine not to proceed with an Elector Poll.

12.      2025-26 Fees & Charges - Tasmanian Travel & Information Centre

Sherlock

Harvey

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 12 of the Open Council Agenda of 28 April 2025, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Council Resolution:

That the schedule of Fees & Charges for the Tasmanian Travel & Information Centre, marked as Attachment A to this report, be adopted for the 2025-26 financial year.

13.      Venue Hire Policy

Kitsos

Lohberger

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 13 of the Open Council Agenda of 28 April 2025, be adopted.

Procedural Motion

That the matter be deferred to a Council Workshop for further consideration.

Elliot

Harvey

PROCEDURAL MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Council Resolution:

That the matter be deferred to a Council workshop for further consideration.

14.      Annual Plan Progress Report for the period ending 31 March 2025

Harvey

Kitsos

That the recommendation contained within the officer report, marked as item 14 of the Open Council Agenda of 28 April 2025, be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Council Resolution:

That the Council note the 2024-25 Annual Plan Progress Report for the period ending 31 March 2025, marked as Attachment A of item 14 of the Open Council Agenda of 28 April 2025.

Bloomfield

Lohberger

That the motion be adopted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Council Resolution:

That:

1.   Council resolves to challenge the normalisation of abuse against elected members and officers and uphold exemplary standards of public and political debate in all it does.

2.   Council further resolves to pledge support for the Local Government Association of Tasmania’s Lift the Tone campaign. In supporting the pledge Council commits to:

·     Promoting civility in public debate.

·     Refraining from abusive language and behaviour online or in person.

·     Encouraging others to engage respectfully.

Minutes (Open Portion)

Council Meeting

Page 1

28/04/2025

Harvey

Sherlock

That the information contained in the following questions without notice be received and noted.

MOTION CARRIED

VOTING RECORD

Council Resolution:

That the information contained in the following responses to questions without notice, be received and noted.

Question:           I noticed that there were different agenda issued for April 2025 meeting is that correct?

Response:         The Chief Executive Officer advised that he is not in a position to discuss the reasons for two different agendas being published.

Question:           Has a petition been received with appropriate numbers for Collins Street.

Response:         The Chief Executive Officer confirmed that a petition for Collins Street Elector Poll had not been received and that the time frame has now lapsed.

Question:           Is it possible to be provided with a high level summary of the 21 Right to Information (RTIs) requests submitted by Council Members?

Response:         No, the Manager Legal and Corporate Governance advised Councillors making RTI requests do so as private citizens. As there are only twelve Elected Members, it would be easy to identify who made the requests (even if the information was de-identified).  This would result in a Privacy Act breach.

Question:           Can we get some clarity around:

·         If a member has spoken to an amendment, can they then move another amendment? 

·         when an Officers recommendation is not moved,  can we move an entirely new motion? 

·         When an Officer’s recommendation is moved and fails, do we move a foreshadowed amendment / motions?

Response:         The Manager Legal and Corporate Governance agreed to provide a response in writing via Q&A and will discuss further with members at a  workshop.

Question:           Can the Chief Executive Officer give priority to addressing the incident relating to the terrible comments / hate posts being made by an individual.  As raised by Mala Crew during Public Questions?

Response:         The Chief Executive Officer advised that the matter is currently being investigated and a response will be provided as soon as possible.

Question:           Are we any closer to being able to provide a Right to Information disclosure log on our web site?

Response:         The Manager Legal and Corporate Governance advised that we are about to undertake user acceptance testing and aim to have this completed by the end of the financial year.

Question:           I understand that Professor Snell is doing a review of the Right to Information process – will Council be making a submission?

Response:         The Manager Legal and Corporate Governance advised that Officers have met with both Professor Snell and Professor McCormick (co-Chair) of the project.

Question:           Can elected members be notified when an agenda has been republished?

Response:         The Chief Executive Officer agreed to providing notification if an agenda is republished.

Question:           Councillor Posselt published part of an agenda on Twitter, that was later removed.  Why did Councillor Posselt have access to information that isn’t on ‘our agenda’.

Response:         The Chief Executive Officer advised that he is not at liberty to discuss the reason for republishing the agenda at this time.

Question:           Did the agenda have a particular question that was asked and later removed?

Response:         The Chief Executive Officer advised that he is not at liberty to discuss the reason for republishing the agenda at this time.

Question:           Can you tell us a bit more about why the RTI disclosure log would not be a Privacy Breach, i.e providing Council with a high level summary of the 21 RTI requests would be considered a Privacy Breach? 

Response:         The Manager Legal and Corporate Governance advised that RTI disclosure log is a compilation of the description of information requests made by a number of people and organisations.  There is no identifiable information included in the log that would be able to ‘reasonably’ identify the applicant.   Whereas providing information on RTI information requests, just submitted by elected members, can reasonably lead to the identification of the individual elected member making the request.  That would lead to a Privacy Breach.

Question:           Are we up to a new stage or point in relation to the ferry terminals and Lord Beach Jetty as I note there has been a lot of interest in the media?

Response:         The Chief Executive Officer advised that Lord Beach was identified as the preferred option.  Officers were undertaking further community engagement which is now complete and Council will be provided with a report on the outcome of the engagement in the next few weeks.

AYES

NOES

Lord Mayor Reynolds

Deputy Lord Mayor Sherlock

Zucco

Harvey

Dutta

Kelly

Elliot

Bloomfield

Lohberger

Kitsos