NOTIICE OF MEE ETING hereby giv ven that an n Ordinary y Councill meeting of the Devvonport City Councill Notice is h will be held in the Council Cha ambers, on n Monday 23 May 20 016, comm mencing at 6:30pm. he public a at 6:30pm. The meetiing will be open to th QUA ALIFIED PERS SONS dance with h Section 65 of the Local Go overnmentt Act 19933, I confirm m that the e In accord reports in this agen nda conta ain advice e, informattion and recommen ndations given by a person w who has the t qualifications o or experie ence nece essary to give such advice,, informatio on or recom mmendatio on.
Paul Westt GENERAL MANAGER R 016 18 May 20
June 2016 M Meeting Infrastructure e Works & evelopmen nt De Community Services Council Mee eting
Da ate 14 4 June 2016 6
Commence C ement Time e 6:00pm
20 0 June 2016 6 27 7 June 2016 6
6:00pm 6:30pm
AGENDA FOR AN ORDINARY MEETING OF DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY 23 MAY 2016 AT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 6:30PM Item
Page No.
1.0
APOLOGIES ............................................................................................... 1
2.0
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST ........................................................................ 1
3.0 3.1
PROCEDURAL............................................................................................. 2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES .................................................................................. 2
3.1.1
Council meeting - 26 April 2016 .................................................................................................... 2
3.2
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ...................................................................................................................... 3
3.2.1
Responses to questions raised at prior meetings ....................................................................... 3
3.2.2
Questions on notice from the public ........................................................................................... 9
3.2.3
Question without notice from the public .................................................................................. 23
3.3
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM ALDERMEN ............................................................................................ 26
4.0
PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS ................................................................ 27
5.0
REPORTS ................................................................................................ 28
5.1
Independent Living Units - Rating Arrangements (D417640) ................................................. 28
5.2
Land at 260 Steele Street, Devonport - Application from Devonport Choral Society Inc (D419294) ................................................................................................................... 38
5.3
Community Survey Results (D407138) ........................................................................................ 42
5.4
Independent Review of Waterfront Hotel Concept (D419500) ............................................ 92
5.5
TasWater - External Funding Proposal - Freezing of Dividends (D419916) ......................... 146
5.6
LIVING CITY Reference Group Minutes 28 April 2016 (D419919) ......................................... 153
5.7
Building Material Salvage (D419921) ....................................................................................... 157
6.0
INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 161
6.1
General Manager's Report - May 2016 (D408091) ................................................................ 161
6.2
Workshops and Briefing Sessions held since the last Council meeting (D417860) ........... 172
6.3
Mayor's Monthly Report (D418076)........................................................................................... 174
7.0
SECTION 23 COMMITTEES ....................................................................... 176
7.1
Planning Authority Committee Meeting - 2 May 2016 (D418119)....................................... 176
7.2
Governance and Finance Committee Meeting - 16 May 2016 (D420098) ...................... 179
8.0
CLOSED SESSION - CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS .............................................. 186 Out Of Closed Session ................................................................................ 187
9.0
CLOSURE .............................................................................................. 187
PAGE 1 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
Agenda of an ordinary meeting of the Devonport City Council to be held at the Council Chambers, Fenton Way, Devonport on Monday, 23 May 2016 commencing at 6:30pm. PRESENT Present Chair
Ald S L Martin (Mayor) Ald A L Rockliff (Deputy Mayor) Ald C D Emmerton Ald G F Goodwin Ald A J Jarman Ald J T Keay Ald L M Laycock Ald J F Matthews Ald L M Perry
Apology
√
IN ATTENDANCE All persons in attendance are advised that it is Council policy to record Council Meetings, in accordance with Council’s Audio Recording Policy. The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s website for a minimum period of six months. Members of the public in attendance at the meeting who do not wish for their words to be recorded and/or published on the website, should contact a relevant Council Officer and advise of their wishes prior to the start of the meeting.
1.0
APOLOGIES
The following apology was received for the meeting. Ald Perry
2.0
Leave of Absence
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
PAGE 2 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
3.0
PROCEDURAL
3.1
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
3.1.1 COUNCIL MEETING - 26 APRIL 2016 RECOMMENDATION That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 April 2016 as circulated be confirmed.
PAGE 3 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
3.2
3.2.1
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Members of the public are invited to ask questions in accordance with the following resolution of Council (Min Ref 54/16): 1.
Public participation shall take place at Council meetings in accordance with Regulation 31 of the Local Government (meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015.
2.
Public participation will be the first agenda item following the formal motions; Apologies, Minutes and Declarations of Interest.
3.
A maximum period of time of 30 minutes in total will be allowed for public participation.
4.
A maximum period of time of 3 minutes will be allowed for each individual.
5.
A member of the public may give written notice to the General Manager 7 days before an ordinary meeting of Council of a question to be asked at that meeting.
6.
A member of the public will be entitled to ask questions relating to the activities of Council, giving an explanation that is necessary to give background to the question and ask supplementary or follow up questions relating to that specific matter that may come to light as a result of the answer.
7.
Questions do not have to be lodged prior to the meeting, however they would be preferably provided in writing.
8.
A question by any member of the public and an answer to that question are not to be debated.
9.
The Chairperson may refuse to accept a question. If the Chairperson refuses to accept a question, the Chairperson is to give reason for doing so.
Responses to questions raised at prior meetings Meeting held 26 April 2016 Reproduced below is the response dated 28 April 2016 to Mr Malcolm Gardam’s question: “I refer to the questions you asked at the Council Meeting on Tuesday 26 April 2016 and provide the following responses: Q1
Putting aside all the perceived benefits (some real but most estimates), can Council please provide a stand alone quantitive risk assessment demonstrating the chance of success in realising the primary objective of establishing a retail driven, remodellisation of a retail precinct, including provision of documented evidence of both successful and failed projects of a similar nature, that the Council assessment is based on?
A.
LIVING CITY was initially developed from the ground up, by examining the strengths and opportunities that Devonport and the North West of Tasmania present, rather than copying another project. Council engaged Renaissance Planning Pty Ltd to complete a comprehensive investment strategy that examined population, retail and strategic location opportunities for Devonport, by comparing the region to Australian averages. This work involved analysis of a number
PAGE 4 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
of existing reports and studies including retail economic impact assessments. The strategy prepared by Renaissance was then subsequently reviewed and refined by development consultants Planning + Infrastructure Pty Ltd, (P+i) to ensure sustainability of the concept. Subsequently Council engaged economic consultants HillPDA to undertake a Regional Benefits Analysis and Cost Benefits Analysis, providing Council with independent advice with respect to the ongoing economic boost the project was likely to provide to the region. The primary purpose of the Project is not to maximise return on investment, but to transform ond activate Devonport, facilitating economic and employment growth without pIacing undue strain on Council financial resources. Q2
Concessions of below market value sale of Council owned properties and rate rebates or waivers advantaging future developers will be of ratepayer concern. But in the immediate can Council confirm that no concessions associated with receipt of the State and Federal grants were accepted in relation to the producing existing or future income streams or grants?
A.
It is confirmed that no concessions were associated with the receipt of the Federal Government Grant under the Stronger Regions Program. It is a straight grant arrangement. In relation to the State Government contribution to the project it is being made on the basis that the LINC and Service Tasmania will have tenancy in the new civic building for a 50-year rent free period. The land on which the current LINC building is situated will transfer to Council once the new building is complete for $1.00. The State Government will be required to pay normal outgoings associated with their tenancy of the building. The arrangement with the State Government has been built into the funding model for LIVING CITY.
Q3
Acknowledging that Devonport is the highest indebted and levies the third highest rates in Tasmania and with a shortfall of approximately $30M in State and Federal grants money, should Council not be able to secure the loan from the normal loan sources available, to Local Government, what collatoral will Council be offering to a commercial lender if the balance sheet, minus the $11M allocated to LIVING CITY Stage 1 cash reserves is inadequate?
A.
Security for loans taken out by Local Government are usually a charge over the rates. It is proposed that any loan taken out will likely be secured in this manner.
Q4
It is noted that in Item 10 of the P+i Risk Register it states that a “development budget contingency amount of 5%� is included. Can Council confirm the value of this contingency and if it is within the $70.5M budget allowance?
A.
Yes the total value of the project includes the contingency allowance.
Q5
How many voting ratepayers are there in Devonport?
A.
Devonport municipal area has approximately 18,450 electors.�
PAGE 5 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
Meeting held 26 April 2016 Reproduced below is the response dated 28 April 2016 to Mr Trevor Smith’s question: “I refer to the questions you asked at the Council Meeting on Tuesday 26 April 2016 and provide the following responses: Q1
Could you please tell me the number of Ratepayers who replied to your proposal for a Contemporary Arts Centre, within the Devonport Entertainment and Convention Centre? What has been the outcome of this proposal?
A.
A report on the feedback received relating to community consultation on the Feasibility Study to relocate the Devonport Regional Gallery (DRG) from its current location at 45 Stewart Street to within the existing Devonport Entertainment and Convention Centre (DECC) was provided to Council at its meeting on 21 March 2016. Included within this report were the details of the consultation process undertaken including that a total of 29 submissions were received during this period. Council at the meeting on 21 March determined: That Council note the report regarding the relocation of the Devonport Regional Gallery and provision of a new performing arts theatre and: 1.
note the feedback provided as part of the public consultation period; and
2.
consider funding Stage 1 of the project as part of Council’s budget deliberations.
Q2
Devonport is the focus of tourist activity each day of the week, with holiday makers coming off the Spirit of Tasmania. Why hasn’t the provision been made for the tourists, with their caravans and mobile homes to park in the City Centre, in a designated area? Why has this important issue been left out of the latest Parking Strategy? You actively state that you want the tourists to stop in this LIVING CITY. This report would have cost thousands of dollars to produce.
A.
Council has acknowledged that there is a need to review the provision of parking for caravans and mobile homes in the City. Council at its meeting on 26 April determined to ask for a staff report on the future provision of parking for larger vehicles including caravans and motorhomes within close proximity of both the Devonport and East Devonport business districts. In relation to your comment that parking for caravans and motorhomes had been left out of the Parking Strategy, I refer you to Page 14 of the said Strategy which identifies the following: 6.3
LIVING CITY Implications: Significant changes to the parking layout also provides an opportunity to review campervan, caravan and trailer parking within the CBD and explore private car park monitoring opportunities for expansion of Council’s existing regulatory role.
PAGE 6 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
Further on Page 23 under the Parking Strategy Action Plan the following reference is made: Objective
Action
6. Ensure adequacy of parking supply following finalisation of Living City hotel and retail development plans
Review caravan parking
Timeframe campervan, and trailer
Completion June 2017
Priority by
M
Q3
In the latest Parking Strategy document, it mentions the Cash-in-lieu Policy. With regard to the proposed Retail Development, as part of LIVING CITY, what charges per parking space not provided will be paid to the Council? Will this be a once off payment or paid yearly? What will be the total number of spaces charged by the Council for stages 2 and 3 of LIVING CITY? Will this be disclosed to the Ratepayers of Devonport now, or swept under the carpet like most issues with this Project?
A.
Currently under the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 there is a CBD Car Parking Exemption Zone. It is proposed that the CBD Exemption Zone be reviewed as part of the transition to the proposed new Statewide Planning Scheme. This will address the section of your question relating to provision/cash-in-lieu relating to LIVING CITY developments. Any cash-in-lieu requirements would usually be a onceoff and form part of a development approval process. The reference to cash-in-lieu in the Parking Strategy relates to the provision of parking for developments which occur outside of the current CBD Exemption Zone.”
Meeting held 26 April 2016 Reproduced below is the response dated 28 April 2016 to Mr Peter Stegmann’s question: “I refer to the questions you asked at the Council Meeting on Tuesday 26 April 2016 and provide the following responses: Q1
The LIVING CITY funding model indicates that $1.55M will be generated from rent and car parking fees. The cost of finance is listed at $1.4M per annum. In how many years do Council expect to have this debt repaid?
A.
30 years.
Q2
What is the source of finance to repay the majority of debt in the first 10 years? Because there is very little money to pay the principle off if you are only generating $1.55M and it is costing you $1.4M per annum to finance it.
A.
Council has previously released its projected cashflow as part of the funding model for LIVING CITY. The modelling provided was based on two scenarios; ‘Proceed as Planned’ and ‘Worse Case’. Both these documents indicate the principal repayment of loans. An important aspect of LIVING CITY is that there will not only be increased income from leasing arrangements and car parking sources, but also from growth in the rates base. With all new developments
PAGE 7 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
there is a natural growth in the rate base which occurs (no different to new homes built each year). Council will also likely divest itself of some of the properties it has acquired to facilitate LIVING CITY and income derived from these sales will likely be used to pay down debt. In addition Council has worked diligently over the last 3 years to reign in its operational expenditure. This has resulted in the General Rates essentially being maintained at the 2013/14 level without any material impact on the delivery of services to the community. Council has generated operating surpluses in recent years and will strive to continue to do so in the future. From these operational surpluses Council will have cash available to meet any shortfall in the direct income generated from LIVING CITY, to meet its prinicipal repayment obligations until such time that all Stages of LIVING CITY have been successfully implemented.” Meeting held 26 April 2016 Reproduced below is the response dated 28 April 2016 to Mr Bob Vellacott’s question: “I refer to the questions you asked at the Council Meeting on Tuesday 26 April 2016 and provide the following responses: Food Pavilion Ambassador Q1
This being so who was responsible for agreeing to this nonsense?
A.
The Council by formal resolution.
Food Pavilion Ambassador Q2a Am I correct in assuming that one of the conditions of service in the Ambassador’s confidential contract is to make on radio disparaging remarks about ratepayers who oppose aspects of the LIVING CITY Project? A.
No.
Q2b If it is not the Ambassador’s role, what action will Council take to ensure that ratepayers who may have an opposing view are not subjected to ridicule from the paid Council Food Pavilion Ambassador? A.
Mr Milbourne is entitled to his opinion and can express it to whomever he pleases. His role as Ambassador does not preclude him from expressing his personal opinions.
LIVING CITY Stage 1 Funding Model Q1
How much will all this extra propaganda cost?
A.
The table below outlines the costs of the recent activity by Council to promote the LIVING CITY project: Item
$
Garbage truck magnets
2,274.47
Flyer (Printing & Distribution)
3,189.43
PAGE 8 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
Radio Advertising
3,024.00
Press Advertising
1,689.77
TOTAL
$10,177.67
Q2
Was this amount budgeted for?
A.
Not specifically (although there is a marketing budget under the LIVING CITY program area for materials and contracts which is where the cost will be allocated).
Q3
If Council has a paid advertisement in the Advocate will it provide in plain English free from Consultants jargon how the 830 new employment opportunities and an extra $112M will be injected into the city?
A.
Council’s resolution at the meeting (subsequent to your question) was: 2.
Note the current actions taken to inform the community of the facts relating to LIVING CITY and endorse the placement of a paid advertisement in the local newspaper which specifically responds to each of the matters raised within the signed ‘forms’.
The advertisement will be in accordance with Council’s direction. Q4
Will Council; to ensure transparency and to demonstrate that you believe in fair play extend the privilege and give equal funding to others to put alternative points of view?
A.
No.
LIVING CITY Loan Q1
As of this date has Council received verification that the $39M loan has been approved and if not when do you expect it will be approved?
A.
No the loan has not yet been approved. The expected date for completion of the loan process is not known at this time.
Q2
Who has Council approached for the loan?
A.
All major banks and TasCorp.
Q3
When is the work now scheduled to start?
A.
When contractual arrangements are finalised and all required funding arrangements have been secured.
Q4
Before work commences, will Council make available to ratepayers a basic schedule of the various demolitions and major construction work to be started, and completion dates?
A.
The community will be kept informed of the schedule of works to be undertaken including expected timing.
Q5
Would Council concede because State and Commonwealth money is being provided not only Devonport ratepayers but also others including those from other municipalities should be able to have input and have their concerns recognised?
PAGE 9 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
A.
Council has received and considered feedback from a range of interested stakeholders (not just Devonport ratepayers) and will continue to do so as the project proceeds.”
Meeting held 16 May 2016 - Governance & Finance Committee Reproduced below is the response dated 17 May 2016 to Mr Peter Stegmann’s question: “I refer to your question at the Governance and Finance Meeting on Monday 16 May 2016 which was taken on notice. The question was a follow up to a prior question (answered at the meeting) and specifically requested details of how many parties have expressed a genuine interest in investing in LIVING CITY. In responding I can advise that there have been numerous confidential discussions with interested parties. As to whether any of these discussions will lead to private investment in the project is too early to speculate. Council‘s current focus is on Stage 1 which is the catalyst which will allow Stages 2 and 3 to proceed and is where the private investment is anticipated. As an example of the interest, recently you would be aware that Errol Stewart publically endorsed LIVING CITY and indicated an interest in investing in the future hotel. Confidential discussions continue with other parties and will be publically disclosed at the appropriate time.”
RECOMMENDATION The responses to questions taken on notice at the April Council and the May Governance and Finance Committee meetings be noted. 3.2.2
Questions on notice from the public
MR RAY CHAPLIN - LIVING CITY The following question on notice was received from Mr Ray Chaplin on 26 April 2016: “I would be grateful if this correspondence and Council’s response was recorded in the agenda and minutes of the next Council meeting. I wish to submit for your consideration and response the following factual details and subsequent questions resulting from Council statements regarding the Living City project contained in the Agenda for the Ordinary meeting of Council to be conducted tonight, February 26th 2016. I refer Council to page 14 of this agenda and the statement made: “Although Council notes your observations in relation to the team engaged by and supporting Council it disagrees with your summation that it has failed the due diligence test” In reply to this unsupported statement please find the following information and evidence in regard to Council’s basic understanding of the role and requirement of due diligence in association with business planning and development investment. Due Diligence Is a comprehensive investigation or audit of a potential business investment. It serves to confirm all material facts impacting upon the financial viability of business decisions.
PAGE 10 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
It refers to all possible “duty of care” that responsible persons should reasonably be expected take before entering into business agreements which could materially affect associated stakeholders. For some unexplained, beyond comprehension, reason the Devonport City Council appears to believe it is exempt from conducting the most basic professionally recognised and adopted due diligence business planning process in regard to Living City despite public statements that the Project carries “significant risk”. Factual examples of due diligence failures include but are not limited to: (1)
Failure of Council to undertake any validation of the HillPDA economic estimates to confirm the stated outcomes being communicated by council to justify the borrowings for Stage 1. HillPDA requirements to validate estimated Economic Outputs in terms of 830 post construction jobs created and $112 million annual economic input.
Please note the statement included above
PAGE 11 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
“The actual estimation of visitor growth (including extra spend by locals and intrastate travellers) can only be determined through a series of business case feasibility studies as the next level of detailed analysis which Living City will require” Councils’ response to this requirement was without explanation as to why “Council did not consider it necessary to undertake further validation of the HillPDA assessment” Paul West February 29th 2016 (2)
Failure of Council to conduct an independent quantitative in – market end user demand study for the 800 delegate conference and meeting facility Council is fully aware that the Launceston City Council deemed it prudent to conduct an independent preliminary in market demand study before proceeding to a comprehensive viability study for their 500 – 700 seat conference facility (Which indicated the project was not going to be viable for a number of very logical reasons which included insufficient direct mainland flight access, a lack of sufficient 4 – 5 star hotel beds to accommodate large (300+) delegate conferences and Tasmania’s very small share of the National Conference market. This is a perfect example of a competent quantitative due diligence process which is undertaken by all professional business investment planning organisations. By comparison the Mayor and Deputy Manager of the Devonport City Council in a meeting on February 3 2016 advised the writer that Council had not undertaken any such in market demand investigative process and had only held discussions with some industry groups. In addition the Acting Mayor Annette Rockcliff on behalf of the Alderman was quoted in the Advocate on April 5th 2016 as follows:“With no other hotel or conference facilities on the North West Coast suitable of hosting business conferences, given Devonport’s access to the interstate market through both the Spirit of Tasmania ferry and Devonport Airport we believe there is an exciting opportunity here” (an unsubstantiated opinion). A written statement by an Alderman to a Devonport rate payer claimed that there was demand for an 800 delegate capacity conference facility.
When challenged, the Alderman was unable to validate the statement and conceded that the $7 million investment was actually best suited to conferences in the 200 – 300 delegate range and various smaller meetings/functions.
PAGE 12 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
After conducting its own due diligence the only potential investor in Stage 1 of Living City the Gateway Group withdrew its expression of interest in either pursuing investment in or operating the Conference facility. (3)
Failure of Council to conduct an independent quantitative in market end user demand study for the seven day a week Food pavilion including operators that can only sell Tasmanian products. The Mayor and Deputy General Manager of the Devonport City Council advised in a meeting on February 3 2016 that Council had not undertaken any independent in market end user demand study for the Food Pavilion or Market place and had only held discussions with potential stakeholders. As it is actual paying customers that will ultimately determine the success or failure of the food pavilion and fresh Tasmanian food market only customer focussed research not stakeholder discussions can validate the likely financial viability of this key catalyst for the entire Living City Project. Instead Council has attempted to mislead the community by publishing “precedent” examples in support of the investment to be made in the Food Pavilion and Market place. The “precedents” for the Living City Food Pavilion also FAIL the Due Diligence test because upon investigation they either no longer exist or bear no comparable commercial business relationship to the market situation in Devonport. Therefore the following claimed “precedents” provide no basis for a substantive financial viability validation whatsoever. Devonport Living City – Marketplace Seven day marketplace selling Tasmanian produce only - proposed as a major economic and tourism driver “PRECEDENTS” PUBLISHED BY COUNCIL TO JUSTIFY CONCEPT AND ASSOCIATED INVESTMENT (1)
Besikitas Fish Market – Istanbul Besikitas is renowned as the most affluent district in Turkey Besikitas has a population of 188,783 Market trades 7 days a week
(2)
New Amsterdam Market - New York New Amsterdam Market closed permanently on June 21, 2014 Crowd on final day of trading was 6,000 New York has a population of 8,491,079 Market traded on Sunday’s 11am – 4 pm
PAGE 13 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
(3)
Torvehallerne - Copenhagen Population of Copenhagen is 1,992,114 Market comprises 60 stalls Market trades 7 days a week
(4)
Kingston Market – Canberra Population of Canberra is 386,000 Primarily an arts and craft market not a farmers/fresh foods market Market opens Sundays 10am to 4 pm
Other major Australian fresh food markets (5)
Queen Victoria Market – Melbourne Population of Melbourne is 4,400,000 600 Market stalls including general merchandise Market trades 5 days per week (Closed Mondays and Wednesdays)
PAGE 14 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
(6)
Adelaide Central Market Population of Adelaide is 1,300,000 80 market stalls predominantly food related Market trades 5 days per week (Closed Mondays and Sundays)
(4)
Failure of Council to validate evidence cited that the Living City Project team had proven expertise by way of successful examples of comparable size, complexity and level of risk as the Living City Project. The following question was asked of the Devonport City Council in correspondence of March 3 2016.
Â
Council response only referred to previous projects undertaken by their lead project consultants as providing such evidence by way of proven examples of project management success (a number of which verified this). However the only two Projects referred to that were of any comparable nature but were significantly smaller, of less complexity and a fraction of the estimated $250 million cost of Living City cited by Council were the Moree Gateway and Forbes Homemaker Centre Projects conceived, developed and managed by the lead project consultants engaged by Council. Both of these projects have not met the expectations of the Councils and Communities concerned and therefore cannot be claimed to be verified examples of proven expertise and competencies to deliver successful projects of comparable size, scale, complexity and risk as Living City.
PAGE 15 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
(5)
Failure of Council to undertake an independent Risk Management assessment to ensure all reasonable duty of care risk mitigation requirements have been completed. A one hour Power Point presentation was made to the Mayor and Deputy General Manager on February 3 2016 which explained need for and the process of business investment risk mitigation. The presentation included five case study examples of similar investment levels to Living City that had all failed because due diligence had not been completed and risk assessment not undertaken. Subsequent to this meeting Mr Brian Whitefield, Director of Risk Management Partners wrote to the Devonport City Council on March 13 2016 and also outlined the role and reason for Risk Assessment as a very important requirement in the business investment decision making process. There can be no doubt that Council has been made fully aware and should understand the value and process of Business Investment Risk Assessment is as a mandatory requirement in minimising project failure and associated investment losses. Please note the following statement from Council which indicates that that a risk management plan has been developed for the Living City Project (Page 243 of the Agenda for the ordinary meeting of the Devonport City Council held on Tuesday April 26 2016). RISK IMPLICATIONS There is no doubt that the LIVING CITY strategy is not without risk. The scale of what Council has embarked upon is challenging and there is no wonder that some people have raised concerns regarding the various components of the project including the issues outlined in the ‘prayer’ of the ‘forms’. Unfortunately there will always be differing views when embarking on a project of this size and scale and trying to get a consistent and factual message out into the community can be challenging. A risk management plan has been developed for the project which identifies the major risks and proposed mitigation strategies. A copy of the risk register has previously been provided formally to Council on its public agenda. This statement is a further example of Council misleading the Community by communicating to it that a Risk Mitigation Assessment Plan is in place when in fact no independent Business Investment Risk Assessment has ever been planned or undertaken. I refer Council to the P+i produced Devonport Living City Risk Matrix and Risk Register which Council suggests identifies major risks and mitigation strategies. This document has been prepared by a vested interest stakeholder and is focused upon identifying risk and mitigation strategies to ensure the living City Project is able to proceed. The document is in no way (nor can it replace the requirement) for an independent business investment risk mitigation assessment, the purpose of which is to maximize the chances of business investment projects like Living City, being likely to succeed.
PAGE 16 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
If the Alderman read the left hand column (The Risk – What can happen) on pages 1-12 of the P+i Risk matrix they will note that every risk identified relates to circumstances which would prevent the Living City Project proceeding. There is no reference to identifying the specific risks of the type included in sections 1 - 5 of this correspondence that would prevent the Living City succeeding. By relying upon the P+i document as validation that all reasonable risk mitigation and duty of care has been undertaken the Council yet again fails the due diligence test. Summary Given the mutually agreed high level of risk and the substantial public borrowings now required in contrast to previous Council published public assurances that Living City would not be reliant on ratepayer funding the following is contended:It would be reasonable for any Devonport Ratepayer to expect that Council would undertake all possible due diligence, transparency and risk mitigation including: (1)
Council to undertake validation of the HillPDA economic estimates required by the consultants to confirm the stated outcomes being communicated by Council to justify the borrowings for Stage 1.
(2)
Council to conduct an independent quantitative in – market end user demand study for the 800 delegate conference and meeting facility.
(3)
Council to conduct an independent quantitative in market end user demand study for the seven day a week Food pavilion including operators that can only sell Tasmanian products.
(4)
Council to validate evidence cited that the Living City Project team had proven expertise by way of successful examples of comparable size, complexity and level of risk as the Living City Project.
(5)
Council to undertake an independent Risk Management assessment to ensure all reasonable duty of care risk mitigation requirements have been completed.
Questions A Council statement made in section (5) reads “Unfortunately there will always be differing views when embarking on a project of this size and scale and trying to get a consistent and factual message out into the community can be challenging” I ask Council to explain to rate payers why, if Council is confident it has completed all due diligence, has been totally transparent with its constituents and has factual evidence to support the statements it makes, would there be any challenge to “trying to get a consistent and factual message out to the community?” I also ask Council what was the criteria used to arrive at the conclusion it has passed the due diligence test in regards to Living City business investment risk mitigation standards? Based upon the factual evidence provided herein the Devonport City Council’s unsupported subjective opinion that “Council disagrees with your summation that it has failed the due diligence test” is contested. However in doing so if Council would like to demonstrate by way of factual evidence and not hubris that the assertions made are not examples of a basic failure of due diligence of Council I will withdraw these statements and apologise to Council and the Project Management team.
PAGE 17 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
DISCUSSION Mr Chaplin has provided a significant amount of correspondence to Council previously, all of which has been responded to. Mr Chaplin continues to raise concerns about Council’s decisions in relation to LIVING CITY. In relation to his latest correspondence dated 26 April 2016 it is proposed that Mr Chaplin be advised of the following: “In reply to your Question on Notice provided to Council on 26 April 2016, and all of your prior correspondence to which responses have been provided, Council notes that you continue to have concerns with its decisions in relation to LIVING CITY. At the outset you should note that Council is satisfied with the approach undertaken to the implement LIVING CITY. Whilst Council acknowledges that there may be more than one valid path to implementation of an economic stimulus and employment generation package such as this it has determined its route. The approach adopted by Council has, so far, attracted investment from both the Federal and the State Governments, in excess of $22 million. In this sense, the approach taken by Council must be acknowledged as effective. These funds will be spent in the local economy with consequential flow on benefits felt in the broader community. Similarly, Council’s commitment to the project and contribution of funding, from its own sources including future borrowings, will also be expended during the construction phase activity of Stage 1. Economic modelling shows expenditure on construction is felt throughout the area in which it occurs, as a flow on economic benefit. As previously noted, Council is focussed on achieving broad consistency of the project with the overall objectives of economic stimulus, employment growth, and positive transformation of the City. Council believes there is broad community acceptance of the need for change. It has consulted widely, and is comforted by the acceptance of the strategy and of the transformation of the City to a must-see tourist destination. Council refutes your allegations that it has failed to properly consider the project. Council has previously responded to your concerns in relation to estimates of future economic impact, and conference usage; (items 1 and 2 in your letter). In relation to the Food Pavilion, Council will proceed with this element of the project when it is satisfied that the interest shown or commitments made by future users of the facility, is sufficient. Council places reliance on the level of commitment of tenants in the Food Pavilion and is comforted by the progress already made by the project team in this area of activity. Council’s decision is not based on precedents, and it is regrettable that you have chosen to draw this inference in your correspondence. Council further takes exception to your allegations that the team supporting Council lacks “proven experience”. Your references to Projects & Infrastructure (P+i), fail to acknowledge that its principals, Dr Rob Woolf and Grant Hirst, both have undertaken projects well beyond the scope of LIVING CITY. Specifically, Dr Woolf was, prior to establishing P+i, an executive Director at Rothschild, a registered Bank, and head of the bank’s projects division for many years. Projects for which Dr Woolf was principally responsible include Victoria’s new prisons project, resolution of the Collins Class submarine contract, and others. These two examples are both in excess of $1 billion in delivered value.
PAGE 18 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
Similarly, Grant Hirst was, prior to joining P+i, head of property at Woolworths Limited, responsible for over 200 projects in that company, and subsequently a director at Westfield Limited. During his time at Westfield, Grant was principally responsible for establishment of Westfield in New Zealand - again, a project in excess of $1 billion. P+i is supported by a substantial design and development team, with over 50 professionals working on the project; architects, interior design, quantity survey, civil engineering, structural, mechanical and electrical, hotel and tourism consultants, retail market/demand, geotechnical, heritage etc. Council is more than comfortable with the current performance of the team engaged to progress the LIVING CITY vision. Council has determined that it cannot continue to respond to the same questions (asked in a different form) over and over again. On this basis unless you have new issues please be advised any further questions will be answered simply by reference to previous responses.” MR MALCOLM GARDAM - LIVING CITY The following questions on notice was received from Mr Malcolm Gardam on 13 May 2016 (note the background to this letter was correspondence from Mr Gardam dated 4 May 2016 and a response from the Acting General Manager dated 6 May 2016 – both provided as an attachment: “Reference my letter to you dated 4th May 2016 and the DCC response from the Acting General Manager dated 6th May 2016. Unfortunately, the DCC response raises more questions than answers. In the DCC response dated 6th May it is stated that “analysis of other CBD revitalisations” and “extensive market research” has occurred. Q1
Please provide list of the “other CBD revitalisations” that were assessed and the report name(s) and author(s) that contained the advice/recommendations that were presented to the Aldermen.
Q2
Please provide list of the “extensive market research” that were assessed and the report name(s) and author(s) that contained the advice/recommendations that were presented to the Aldermen.
The response also states that “robust scrutiny” has taken place and somehow the securing of $23m of State and Federal funding is “further testament to the credentials of the proposal”. I put it to you that this is misleading as the $10m from State Government is seriously eroded by rent free occupation of the new library/LINC and Service Tasmania premises plus design and construct costs. In addition the funding fell $30m short of the $50m allocated for government funding in the former funding model and hardly an exciting outcome for ratepayers. Q3
In terms of “robust scrutiny” has Council undertaken a totally “independent” review that the “Living City concept” will deliver a revitalised CBD (by independent I refer to an entity that has not and will not participate in any commercial role associated with Living City development, design or delivery).
The statement that “Your claim of a $39m “blowout” is misinformed” is staggering. I can only assume the statement is aligned with the funding model publicly released for the first time in February 2016 as amended to take up the shortfall from the former funding model (perhaps resulting from a $20m increase in construction costs and the $30m government funding shortfall) by injection of Council cash reserves of $11m
PAGE 19 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
and further ratepayer borrowings of $39m. Whichever way you look at it this is a blowout in required ratepayer borrowing. Q4
Is the DCC statement above referring to the current funding model and based on the funding splits therein?
The P+i Devonport Living City Risk Register and Risk Matrix provided with report to Council - 22 February 2016 is dated 10 March 2016 and therefore somewhat confusing. Q5
If the answer to Q4 is in the affirmative, please provide a copy of the previous Risk Register assessed against the former funding model so that Council’s assessment of the changed risk profile from massively increased ratepayer borrowing contained in the new funding model can be gauged.
Another statement is “The next phase of investment is in design, approvals and development of Stage 1 buildings” Q6
Please confirm the budget allocation for this phase, who will undertake this work and if that cost is already included in the $70.5m project cost.
I also reject the statement that I somehow concur with “financial risk should not focus solely on the ability to repay debt but also on the outcomes of the overall objectives.” The point I was making was that the focus should be on the consequences of a failure to deliver the primary objective of revitalising the CBD area and failure of that objective will potentially financially cripple Devonport for decades. (Not to be assessed on providing a building stimulus or any other perceived benefits - unless a flow on from a sure thing winning initiative for Devonport those activities lie with Government.) A lot of talk about the future of our children and grandchildren but I am sure we all hope that future is not paying for debt on more debt. You advised that the risk register was “drafted by Council’s development consultants, Projects & Infrastructure Pty Ltd (P+i)” and namely Dr Rob Woolf and Grant Hirst. Q7
Was this Risk Register “independently” reviewed? (refer my previous definition of “independent”)
Q8
Was the Risk Register workshopped and included attendance by the Aldermen?
In terms of Council’s risk assessment of the likely success in revitalising the CBD, being the primary objective, I remain confused as to what Council is actually saying. On the one hand a response to a previous query stated that “LIVING CITY was initially developed from the ground up, by examining the strengths and opportunities Devonport and the North West of Tasmania present, rather than copy another project” giving the impression that there are no other comparable projects to assess against. On the other hand it is also stated that there has been an “analysis of other CBD revitalisations”. Q9
Please advise as to whether the risk assessment to determine the chances of achieving the primary object of revitalising the CBD area is based on nothing (being a cutting edge concept complete with all the inherent risks of such a proposal) or actually based on “analysis of other CBD revitalisations.
Q10 Has Council assessed the suitability of P+i to deliver LIVING City by thorough assessment of P+i’s previous projects including successes and failures to deliver revitalised CBD areas?
PAGE 20 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
On the Council’s expected design and construct phase can you also please advise as to the following: Q11 Has Council secured the additional loans required to proceed? Q12 Has a contract or written advice as to intent to award or similar been provided to the preferred Contractor? Q13 If Q11 is in the negative what activities are continuing in the absence of the loan(s)? Q14 Did Council engage an appropriately qualified “independent estimator” to assess value for money in regards to tenders received and if so who? Q15 As Council may consider “reducing the project scope as part of the ongoing value management discussions with the preferred builder and architect’s…..” has or will Council engage an appropriately qualified “independent estimator” to ensure probity and value for money resulting from any scope changes? Q16 If Q15 is in the negative who performs this role on behalf of Council and what are their competencies and qualifications? I noticed an advertisement for not for profit organisations to submit an interest in demolishing the existing Council Chambers in exchange for the material. Q17 How does Council intend to manage the occupational health and safety aspects of the Work Health and Safety Legislation in regards to this proposal? I again apologise for imposing on your time but considering that millions of dollars have already been expended on Living City then answers to these questions should already be known to Council. I await your response.” DISCUSSION In relation to his latest list of questions dated 13 May 2016 it is proposed that Mr Gardam be advised of the following: Q.1 Please provide list of the “other CBD revitalisations” that were assessed and the report name(s) and author(s) that contained the advice/recommendations that were presented to the Aldermen? A.
The planning of LIVING CITY has extended over five years and is not confined to a specific report or author. It has involved ongoing investigation of what has and hasn’t been successful in other locations. Examples that have been reviewed include the new Dandenong Library, which has successfully increased community engagement, learning and social inclusion outcomes in an area faced with similar socioeconomic challenges as Devonport. The “Grounds” in Alexandria, Sydney which has been successful in establishing a market and food environment closely connected to local producers with hands on experiences. Also Bendigo’s transformation based on arts, food and culture over the last 10 years has been closely followed.
Q.2 Please provide list of the “extensive market research” that were assessed and the report name(s) and author(s) that contained the advice/recommendations that were presented to Aldermen? A.
Again, the research and planning Council has undertaken has occurred over many years and is not confined to one report or author. Council has engaged extensively with major retailers, property developers, hotel operators, the
PAGE 21 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
community, consultants, industry groups and numerous others as part of the decision making processes. Q.3 In terms of “robust scrutiny” has Council undertaken a totally “independent” review that the “Living City concept” will deliver a revitalised CBD (by independent I refer to an entity that has not and will not participate in any commercial role associated with Living City development, design, or delivery)? A.
At the outset you should note that Council is satisfied with the approach undertaken to implement LIVING CITY. Whilst Council acknowledges that there may be more than one valid path to implementation of an economic stimulus and employment generation package such as this, it has determined its route over a considerable period. Council has engaged specialist advice to assist it in pursuing LIVING CITY. Throughout the process various elements of the project plans have been verified by independent analysis.
Q.4 Is the DCC statement above referring to the current funding model and based on the funding splits therein? A.
No
Q.5 If the answer to Q4 is in the affirmative, please provide a copy of the previous Risk Register assessed against the former funding model so that Council’s assessment of the changed risk profile from massively increased ratepayer borrowing contained in the new funding model can be gauged? A.
N/A
Q.6 Please confirm the budget allocation for this phase, who will undertake this work and if that cost is already included in the $70.5M project cost? A.
The maximum budget allocation for Stage 1 is $70.5M all inclusive.
Q.7 Was the Risk Register “independently” reviewed? (refer to my previous definition of “independent”) A.
Council have a robust risk management framework within the organisation. This includes dedicated risk management staff and a whole of organisation risk committee. Council also have an Audit Panel which include independent members. All of these individuals and committees have played a role in managing risk associated with LIVING CITY, including reviewing the risk register to which you refer.
Q.8 Was the Risk Register workshopped and included attendance by the Aldermen? A.
There have been regular detailed Workshops held to update Council on all aspects of LIVING CITY. The risk register would have been discussed in a number of these briefings. A copy of the risk register was also formally provided to Council through its meeting processes.
Q.9 Please advise as to whether the risk assessment to determine the chances of achieving the primary object of revitalising the CBD area is based on nothing (being a cutting edge concept complete with all inherent risks of such a proposal) or actually based on “analysis of other CBD revitalisations”?
PAGE 22 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
A.
Whilst analysing other revitalisation projects has contributed knowledge and data that has assisted in decision making it has not by any means been the only consideration in determining the direction Council has chosen to take. Council is of the view that the strategy that has been developed for LIVING CITY is the right one at this time. Council has previously acknowledged that there are inherent risks with this strategy but on balance believes it will in the long term provide the impetus for future private investment in Devonport as part of Stages 2 and 3 of LIVING CITY.
Q.10 Has Council assessed the suitability of P+i to deliver Living City by thorough assessment of P+i’s previous projects including successes and failures to deliver revitalised CBD areas? A.
Yes
Q.11 Has Council secured the additional loans required to proceed? A.
Council has received a formal offer from the ANZ Bank to provide the necessary finance for Stage 1 to proceed.
Q.12 Has a contract or written advice as to intent to award or similar been provided to the preferred Contractor? A.
Yes - Council continues to work through a Value Management process with the Builder to ensure that the project can be delivered within the maximum budget set in the funding model.
Q.13 If Q11 is in the negative what activities are continuing in the absence of the loan(s)? A.
N/A
Q.14 Did Council engage an appropriately qualified “independent estimator” to assess the value for money in regards to tenders received and if so who? A.
Yes - Council have engaged a qualified quantity surveyor as part of the project team to advise on cost management issues.
Q.15 As Council may consider “reducing the project scope as part of the ongoing value management discussions with the preferred builder and architect’s….” has or will Council engage an appropriately qualified “independent estimator” to ensure probity and value for money resulting from any scope change? A.
See question 14
Q.16 If Q15 is in the negative who performs this role on behalf of Council and what are their competencies and qualifications? A.
N/A
Q.17 How does Council intend to manage the occupational health and safety aspects of the Work Health and Safety Legislation in regards to this proposal? A.
In the same way as it currently manages its existing Workplace Health and Safety obligations. The building contractors will also be required to comply with the necessary legislative obligations.
RECOMMENDATION That in relation to the correspondence received from Mr Ray Chaplin (Brand Focus) and Mr Malcolm Gardam regarding the LIVING CITY Project, Council note the responses proposed as outlined in the agenda report and authorise their release.
PAGE 23 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
Attachment 1 - Correspondence from Mr Malcolm Gardam dated 4 May 2016
PAGE 24 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
PAGE 25 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
Attachment 2 - Response from Acting General Manager dated 6 May 2016
PAGE 26 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
3.2.3
Question without notice from the public
3.3
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM ALDERMEN
At the time of compilation of the agenda no questions on notice from Aldermen were received.
PAGE 27 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
4.0
PLANNING AUTHORITY MATTERS There are no items in this agenda to be considered by Council in its capacity as a Planning Authority.
ITEM 4.0
PAGE 28 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
5.0
REPORTS
5.1
INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS - RATING ARRANGEMENTS File: 32101 D417640
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.3.1
Review and amend governance structures, policies and procedures to adapt to changing circumstances
SUMMARY This report is provided to assist Council in finalising its position in relation to the future rating arrangements for independent living units established by not-for-profit age care providers.
BACKGROUND A report on the issue was provided to Council’s Governance and Finance Committee on 15 March 2016. The recommendation subsequently supported by Council at its meeting on 21 March (GFC08/16 refers) was as follows: That that the report of the General Manager relating to the rating arrangements for independent living units be received and noted and that: 1.
2.
Council consult with the aged care providers regarding its intention to: (a)
withdraw the 100 per cent remission/exemption from the General Rate for independent living units managed by a not-for-profit/charitable institution with effect from the 2016/17 financial year.
(b)
phase in at 20 per centre per year the levying of the general rate on aged care providers over the next five financial years for all existing independent living units;
(c)
require any units under construction or proposed in the future to be charged the full General Rate from time of valuation.
following feedback from the aged care sector a further report be provided to Council for consideration prior to the finalisation of the 2016/17 budget.
A copy of the report is provided as an attachment.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS An outline of the statutory requirements were previously advised to Council in the report to the Governance and Finance Committee on 15 March 2015.
DISCUSSION As a result of Council’s decision correspondence was forwarded to the affected Aged Care Providers. This letter included an offer to meet with them to discuss the issue further and to provide background information. A meeting was held with a representative of Karingal (Baptcare) as well as attending at a Board Meeting at Meercroft. Both organisations indicated they would be providing a formal written response to Council to allow the matter to be finalised at the 23 May Council meeting.
ITEM 5.1
PAGE 29 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
A copy of the responses received from the two impacted services has been provided as attachments to this report. The proposal by Council to phase-in the application of full general rates over a 5-year period would result in approximately a $5,000 increase in year 1 for both the operators. The comments made that a number of the residents are on some form of government benefit would indicate that applications for a rate remission could be made on their behalf as part of the Commonwealth funded pensioner remission scheme. Contact was made with two southern councils in relation to what they have done in relation to the rating of independent living units. Both indicated that they advised the operators of their intentions in July 2015 that full rates would be applicable from 1 July 2106. The proposal by Council to phase-in the full charging of general rates over a 5-year period is some way takes into account the concerns raised by the operators. Meercroft have recently advertised units and a copy of their advertisement is attached for information purposes.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The impacted aged care providers were advised of the Council’s decision and the likely result it may have on them from a financial perspective.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are currently two main aged care providers in Devonport that would be impacted by any change to the remission/exemption arrangements in place. Between them there are in excess of 75 separate independent living units. At present the value of the exemption/remission provided on the General Rate amounts to around $54 - $64,000 depending on how it is applied. To reduce the impact of the removal of the exemption/remission it is recommended to Council that the move to payment of full rates on independent living units be phased in over a period of 5 years, (ie 20 percent per year) commencing with the 2016/17 financial year.
RISK IMPLICATIONS Council may be criticised for addressing this issue and imposing rates on independent living units. Conversely it would be likely criticised for providing a rate exemption when it is clear that it is not applicable. Continuing to provide either a remission or exemption would be at odds with what others have to pay.
CONCLUSION It is recommended to Council that it advises the independent living unit operators that it has determined to proceed with the removal of the rating exemption over a 5-year period commencing in 2016/17.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Copy of Report - GFC - 15 March 2016
2.
Baptcare (Karingal) Response
3.
Meercroft Care Inc
4.
Meercroft Units Advertisement
ITEM 5.1
PAGE 30 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
RECOMMENDATION That Council in relation to rating arrangements for independent living units confirm it will: (a)
withdraw the 100 per cent remission/exemption from the general rate for independent living units managed by a not-for-profit/charitable institution with effect from the 2016/17 financial year.
(b)
phase in at 20 per centre per year the levying of the general rate on aged care providers over the next five financial years for all existing independent living units;
(c)
require any units under construction or proposed in the future to be charged the full General Rate from time of valuation.
Endorsed By:: Position:
Paul West General Manager
ITEM 5.1
PAGE 31 Copy of Report - GFC - 15 March 2016
4.8
ATTACHMENT [1]
INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS - RATING ARRANGEMENTS File: 32101 D409964
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.3.1
Review and amend governance structures, policies and procedures to adapt to changing circumstances
SUMMARY
This report is provided to assist Council in considering the current and future practice in relation to providing rate exemptions/remissions to independent living units that are developed and/or managed by the aged care / not-for-profit sector.
BACKGROUND
There has been ongoing debate within local government for some time in relation to the provision of rate exemption/remission to independent living units which are owned by Churches, Charitable Organisations or Aged Care Providers. At a recent Local Government of Tasmania (LGAT) General Meeting an item was listed on the agenda relating to this issue. The background comments provided within that report is relevant to the matter before Council. A copy of this report is provided as an attachment for the information of Aldermen.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
The relevant sections of the Local Government Act 1993 which is applicable to this matter are: Section 87. Exemption from rates (1)
All land is rateable except that the following are exempt from general and separate rates, averaged area rates, and any rate collected under section 88 or 97: (d)
land or part of land owned and occupied exclusively for charitable purposes
Section 129. Remission of rates (1)
A ratepayer may apply to the council for remission of all or part of any rates paid or payable by the ratepayer or any penalty imposed or interest charged under section 128.
(2)
An application is to be – (a)
made in writing; and
(b)
lodged with the general manager.
(3)
A council, by absolute majority, may grant a remission of all or part of any rates, penalty or interest paid or payable by the ratepayer.
(4)
A council, by absolute majority, may grant a remission of any rates, penalty or interest paid or payable by a class of ratepayers.
(5)
The general manager is to keep a record of the details of any remission granted under this section.
DISCUSSION
Council has in the past considered that properties owned by not-for-profit/charitable aged care facilities met the requirement of Section 87 of the Local Government Act 1993 and therefore they have been considered as exempt from the general rate. The advice now available would indicate that this has in fact been an incorrect assumption in relation to independent living units that have been developed within the aged care sector. When considering aged care facilities, there would appear to be four main groupings:
ITEM 5.1
PAGE 32 Copy of Report - GFC - 15 March 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
(i)
those operated by not-for-profit organisations (religious based, etc);
(ii)
those operated by privately owned organisations;
(iii)
residential accommodation (aged care homes); and
(iv)
independent living accommodation. The independent living may be a unit within a complex or a separate dwelling within the grounds of a complex. Aged care providers may also develop separate dwellings in residential areas.
In response to an ageing population, there has been a marked increase in the number of independent aged care accommodation development in Tasmania. There has been some activity in Devonport which is only likely to increase as time passes, particularly with the ‘baby boomer’ generation nearing retirement. It is difficult to justify the current inconsistency with regards to the rating treatment of the aged:
a self funded retiree living at home is not entitled to any rate remission or exemption;
an eligible pensioner living at home is entitled to a State funded remission up to 30 percent on the general rate (capped at $288);
should either of the above examples move to a nursing home operated by a not-for-profit organisation they would indirectly benefit from the current 100 per cent remission/exemption provided by Council to that nursing home;
Should either of the first two examples move to an independent living unit currently owned by a not-for-profit/charitable institutions in Devonport they would benefit from the current 100 per cent remission/exemption provided to the owner of the property.
Is it appropriate for this inconsistency to be maintained? Whilst it is appropriate for Council to provide some assistance through either a remission or exemption to a bone-fide nursing home, why if a person chooses to move to an independent living unit in a residential complex, should they benefit from a rate remission/exemption that is not provided to a person living independently in a private house/unit? This report is not seeking to create an issue with charitable aged care providers for the valued services they provide within the community. It is to clarify and acknowledge that at present the aged living in independent living units owned and/or operated by the not-for-profit/charitable sector have a distinct advantage over those who own their own home/unit or are in the private rental market.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
No community consultation has occurred in relation to this report. It is proposed that if Council accepts the recommendation provided that a period of consultation would occur with the aged care providers that would currently be impacted by any decision reached by Council.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are currently two main aged care providers in Devonport that would be impacted by any change to the remission/exemption arrangements in place. Between them there are in excess of 75 separate independent living units. At present the value of the exemption/remission provided on the General Rate amounts to around $54 - $64,000 depending on how it is applied. To reduce the impact of the removal of the exemption/remission it is recommended to Council that the move to payment of full rates on independent living units be phased in over a period of 5 years, (ie 20 percent per year) commencing with the 2016/17 financial year. If Council is not supportive of the recommendation then the way in which the independent living units operated by the aged care sector will need to change with applications being required in the future for a rate remission for the independent living units included within their developments.
ITEM 5.1
PAGE 33 Copy of Report - GFC - 15 March 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
RISK IMPLICATIONS
The issue of exemptions/remission has received considerable media attention in Southern Tasmania recently. There is likely to be a level of concern and potentially public debate on the issue once it becomes known that the matter is under consideration by Council.
CONCLUSION
At the LGAT General Meeting it was agreed: 1.
That Members note recent case law which suggests that although a property may be owned by a charitable institution, occupancy by private residents is not a charitable purpose; and
2.
That Members agree to take a common and equitable approach to the rating of independent living units which takes as a core assumption that private residential occupancy is not a charitable purpose and is not exempt from general rates.
The matter is raised to gauge Council’s views on potentially phasing in the charging of rates for independent living units associated with the aged care sector. There have been recent court rulings that would justify the removal of any future remission/exemption being provided. Considering the ageing population and the likely increased need and/or desire for aged care options it is timely that the matter is addressed by Council. Should Council support the proposed withdrawal of the 100 per cent remission/exemption from the General Rate for independent living units managed by a not-for-profit/charitable institution with effect from the 2016/17 financial year, it would be suggested that it would be appropriate to progressively phase out over a 5-year period the benefit currently provided.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Rating of Residential Properties Owned by Charities
RECOMMENDATION That it be recommended to Council that the report of the General Manager relating to the rating arrangements for independent living units be received and noted and that: 1.
2.
Author: Position:
Council consult with the aged care providers regarding its intention to: (a)
withdraw the 100 per cent remission/exemption from the General Rate for independent living units managed by a not-for-profit/charitable institution with effect from the 2016/17 financial year.
(b)
phase in at 20 per centre per year the levying of the general rate on aged care providers over the next five financial years for all existing independent living units;
(c)
require any units under construction or proposed in the future to be charged the full General Rate from time of valuation.
following feedback from the aged care sector a further report be provided to Council for consideration prior to the finalisation of the 2016/17 budget.
Paul West General Manager
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.1
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 34 Baptcare B (Ka aringal) Respo onse
ATTTACHMENT [2 2]
ITEM 5.1
PAGE 35 Meercroft M Ca are Inc
ATTTACHMENT [3 3]
ITEM 5.1
PAGE 36 Meercroft M Ca are Inc
ATTTACHMENT [3 3]
ITEM 5.1
PAGE 37 Meercroft M Uniits Advertisem ment
ATTTACHMENT [4 4]
ITEM 5.1
PAGE 38 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
5.2
LAND AT 260 STEELE STREET, DEVONPORT - APPLICATION FROM DEVONPORT CHORAL SOCIETY INC File: 10290 D419294
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 4.7.2
Encourage and provide information and opportunities for active participation in community life
SUMMARY Council has received a request from the Devonport Choral Society Inc. regarding the large shed at the property located at 260 Steele Street, Devonport (former Parks depot). The Society is seeking a long term storage solution and has identified that this Council property may suit their needs.
BACKGROUND Council has a lease with Crown Lands Services for land at 260 Steele Street, Devonport which in part includes the Splash Aquatic Centre land as well as the former parks depot. Council leases the property by virtue of a ten year lease which expires on 31 July 2021.
At Council’s meeting on 23 November 2015 it determined (Min. 228/15 refers): “That Council note the report regarding 260 Steele Street, Devonport and determine to consider allocating funds in the 2016/17 budget to provide internal separating walls in the buildings to create community storage areas.” Council has subsequently received a request from the Department of Education and has resolved to lease the front offices and sheds on the site to the Department to enable them to run their SPACE Learning Program. The lease provides exclusive access to the front two offices and sheds and shared use of the meeting room/toilet facilities joined to the larger storage shed at the back of the site (but not the actual storage shed itself). The Department are aware that Council is looking at community storage options for the storage shed and that the adjacent meeting rooms and toilet facilities would potentially be shared with others.
ITEM 5.2
PAGE 39 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
The Devonport Repertory Society currently have permission to temporarily use the large shed for storage on the understanding that Council will be considering longer term arrangements, once the 2016/17 budget has been adopted. The Devonport Choral Society have written to Council (copy attached) seeking to use the storage shed. Should Council choose to lease the property to the Choral Society, it is understood that the Repertory Society and the Choral Society would jointly use the facility on a shared basis. In discussions with the groups it has been confirmed that the two organisations wish to obtain exclusive use of the full shed along with shared access to the meeting room, toilet facilities and outdoor areas.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Council must comply with its obligations contained within the Crown Land Services lease. The Crown would need to give approval for the property to be sub-leased to the Devonport Choral Society.
DISCUSSION Council have previously resolved to consider converting the storage shed at 260 Steele Street into community storage facility and an allocation has been made within the draft 2016/17 operational budget to establish compounds within the shed to separate potential tenants. The request from the Choral Society involves use of the full shed and therefore would eliminate the need for Council to undertake any building modifications to create separate storage spaces. It provides a solution for the Choral and Repertory Societies who have been seeking a long term storage option for some time since a previously shared space within a shed on the Wenvoe Street carpark site was demolished. The requested lease arrangement would prevent Council from providing storage for other community groups within the shed, however the current demand for such is unknown.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT No community engagement has been undertaken as a result of this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Under the Council’s ‘Community, Childcare & Commercial Lease Policy’ adopted on 22 June 2015, Section 5.1 states: Community Groups The amount payable for community groups will be reviewed annually, and form part of Council’s Fees and Charges. This rate will commence at a peppercorn rental (if demanded). Taking into account the Policy and the community purposes of both the Choral and the Repertory Society it is suggested that a peppercorn rental be applied for the first year of occupation. The rental for Year 2 be set at $500, Year 3 at $1,000 and years 4 and 5 be $1,500. By applying a rental ensures that the both organisations are contributing something by way of rental and therefore are treated consistently with sporting clubs and other groups where they have dedicated occupancy of a space. The purpose of the peppercorn rental in year 1 allows the groups to meet any costs associated with preparing the space for their use. ITEM 5.2
PAGE 40 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
The Society would be responsible for electricity costs, basic maintenance requirements along with any Council approved improvements or modifications required to the premises. By co-locating with the Repertory Society the two organisations would be jointly responsible for the rental. Currently Council provides an annual grant (partnership agreement) of $5,000 for storage and construction venue hire costs for the Choral with this agreement concluding on 30 June 2016. If Council agrees to the proposal as recommended it should be noted that the partnership agreement will subsequently lapse as at 30 June 2016 as it will no longer be relevant. The remaining contents of the partnership agreement may be addressed as part of negotiated contracts with the Devonport Entertainment and Convention Centre.
RISK IMPLICATIONS Council has not sought interest from other community groups who potentially may also wish to lease the space and therefore risk potential public criticism for entering into a lease with the Choral Society. However it is noted that the current demand for such storage is unknown and Council do not currently have any other interested parties.
CONCLUSION The Devonport Choral society in conjunction with the Devonport Repertory Society are seeking a long term storage location and are seeking Council approval to use buildings at 260 Steele Street. The buildings have been identified for storage for community groups and the request would appear to be a reasonable use for the site.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Letter From Devonport Choral Society - Storage Facilities - 260 Steele Street
RECOMMENDATION That Council determine to offer the Devonport Choral Society Inc and the Devonport Repertory Society joint occupancy of the large storage space located on the land known as 260 Steele Street, Devonport subject to: 1.
Crown Lands Services approval of a sub-lease;
2.
entering into a lease for a period of five years (in line with Council’s lease policy for sporting clubs and community groups) noting a rental of: Year 1
Nil
Year 2
$ 500
Year 3
$1,000
Years 4 & 5
$1,500
3.
the finalisation of the lease being subject to normal building and planning approvals;
4.
the Choral Society acknowledging that its Partnership Agreement with Council will cease on 30 June 2016.
Author: Position:
Matthew Atkins Deputy General Manager
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.2
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 41 Letter L From Devonport Choral Society - Storage Fac cilities - 260 Steele S Street
ITEM 5.2
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
PAGE 42 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
5.3
COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS File: 31360 D407138
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 4.7.1
Develop and implement a Community Development Framework that strategically strengthens community ties and opportunities
SUMMARY To present Council with the results from the 2015 Devonport Community Survey.
BACKGROUND At its meeting held on 24 August 2015, Council resolved (Min 174/15 refers): That it be recommended to Council to undertake a Devonport Community Survey, as method of community benchmarking and gathering quantitative community data, using the attached survey process. The Devonport Community Survey was designed to seek feedback on the community in areas not covered in the census; asking about health, life satisfaction, transport, arts, sport, personal safety, resident engagement, food security, water conservation, employment and general household demographics. The survey was conducted throughout late 2015 with a closing date of Monday 7th December 2015.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Development of this project through community engagement and collaboration is in accordance with Section 20 of the Local Government Act 1993; 20.
Functions and powers (1)
(2)
In addition to any functions of a council in this or any other Act, a council has the following functions: (a)
to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community;
(b)
to represent and promote the interests of the community;
(c)
to provide for the peace, order and good government of the municipal area.
In performing its functions, a council is to consult, involve and be accountable to the community.
DISCUSSION The attached document provides detailed results from the Devonport Community Survey initiated and undertaken by Council. Key outcomes include:
Total Respondents:
452;
Total Valid Responses:
394;
Statistical significance with a confidence level of 95% (+-5) achieved;
The main concerns for Devonport residents included: o
Food Security; ITEM 5.3
PAGE 43 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
o
Negative impact of increased cost of living;
o
Suitability of the local community for teenagers;
o
Participation rates in Arts and Cultural activities; and
o
Improved lighting of walkways and footpaths.
Overall the community is satisfied with the performance of Council; and
The community had high level of satisfaction about their life and circumstances as a whole.
The current results provide Council with a vital benchmark of the community’s needs and wellbeing at the commencement of LIVING CITY. Surveying the community at regular intervals will assist Council to measure the success of plans and actions implemented and more importantly allow Council to monitor and measure community wellbeing as major projects such LIVING CITY are implemented.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT There has been broad engagement with the community in the form of the Devonport Community Survey. Statistically, from the population of 24,651 with a confidence level of 95% (+-5) 378 responses were required to be statistically significant. The survey attracted 452 responses of which 394 were valid, and as such the survey achieved statistical significance.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS It is expected that information contained in the report will assist with more targeted and responsive allocations of funding, which better address community needs and expectations through evidence based planning and program delivery.
RISK IMPLICATIONS
Legal Compliance All data collected and stored is managed in a manner compliant with Personal Privacy Protection Policy and internal policies that enforce an individual’s right to personal information protection, in accordance with the Personal Information Protection Principles as outlined in Schedule 1 of the Personal Information Protection Act 2004.
Consultation and/or Communication There is a minor risk that the online report will be inaccessible to some Devonport residents. The report will available in a downloadable print friendly format and be made available in hard copy at a number of key locations, however this will not be a highly advertised.
CONCLUSION The 2015 Devonport Community Survey provides important information on Devonport resident’s wellbeing. It has provided invaluable data which will enable Council to benchmark Devonport both longitudinally, against other Australian local government areas and has provided data to support Council to comprehensively plan and develop targeted programming to support evidence based community need.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Community Survey Results V1.0 ITEM 5.3
PAGE 44 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
RECOMMENDATION That the results of the 2015 Devonport Community Survey be received and noted
Author: Position:
Brooke de Jong Community and Development Manager
Cultural
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.3
Shane Crawford Executive Manager Corporate, Community & Business Services
PAGE 45 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
2015 Devonport Community Survey Results Introduction Council’s Community Development and Engagement team initiated a Community Survey across the LGA collecting information across a number of health and wellbeing questions to assist in determining the community’s sense of wellbeing. The Devonport Food Connection provided additional funding to support the project. It was determined to use the questions developed and utilised in the Victorian Community Wellbeing Indicators Survey and then later used by LGAQ across QLD Local Governments to measure community wellbeing. An additional ten (10) questions were included to obtain further local insight, context and measures across the following areas, participation in sport and recreation, participation in arts and culture, food security, and an open commentary field regarding perceived personal safety and the three (3) things the respondent would change about Devonport. Statistically, from a population of 24,651 with a confidence level of 95% (+-5) we required 378 responses to be statistically significant. The survey achieved 394 responses out of a total of 452 that can be confirmed as Devonport residents. In this report, we show Devonport results alongside those of Queensland, in addition to a breakdown of South East QLD, Regional cities and Rural results, to give some depth of comparison to our own LGA scoring. The percentage result is in a format that can be compared against Victorian results displayed in that manner. Devonport is a Regional city, hence we directly compare to those responses initially via colourising appropriate columns of data, however include the full spectrum responses from QLD in each section as a further comparison. Responses are ranked from 1 (worst) to 5 (Best). An average response of 3 is Fair Only. As per LGAQ/ACELG Community Wellbeing Indicators: “This allows the results to be measured in a number of ways. For example, the percentage giving satisfied or very satisfied ratings provides a measure of wellbeing. The higher the result, the better the wellbeing status of the community on that measure. It is also possible to develop a mean score out of a possible maximum of 5 based on the spread of the results from “very unsatisfied” to “very satisfied”. An average score across all indicators can then be produced to provide a simple measure of overall community wellbeing. “ Utilising the same scoring mechanism, we can categorise elements of the survey into 5 sections to summarise scores in each, as well as a total health and wellbeing score for the city.
ITEM 5.3
PAGE 46 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
Theme Score 1.0 Healthy, safe and inclusive communities How would you rate the opportunity for social interaction within your local community’s public spaces? How would you rate the suitability of your local community for:
young children
teenagers
seniors
3.82 2.92 3.6
76.4% 58.4% 72.0%
4.05 4.19 3.6
81.0% 83.8% 72.0%
3.48
69.6%
2.96
59.2%
3.41
68.2%
3.81
76.2%
3.58
71.6%
4.05 3.43
81.0% 68.6%
3.44
68.8%
4.24
84.8%
3.79
75.8%
3.2 3.05 3.04
64.0% 61.0% 60.8%
2.33
46.6%
3.31
66.2%
2.99
59.8%
How would you rate the level of support available to you from:
friends
family
neighbours How would you rate access to buildings and services in your local community for people with a physical disability? How would you rate your level of involvement in your local community as a volunteer or member of a community organisation? How safe do you feel when you are outside and alone in a public place in your local community? How satisfactory is your ability to access the internet whenever you need to?
Average for Theme “Healthy, safe and inclusive communities”
2.0 Culturally rich and vibrant communities How adequate are the opportunities in your local community for you to effectively engage in:
sport and recreation
art and cultural activities How strongly do you agree or disagree that your local community is welcoming of people from different cultures? Thinking about your life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole?
Average for Theme “Culturally rich and vibrant communities”
3.0 Dynamic resilient local economies If ‘working’ then: do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
my work is not too demanding and stressful
my work and family life do not interfere with each other
I have good job security How would you rate the impact on your household from the increasing costs of living? How would you rate the impact on your household’s finances of your current rental or mortgage payments?
Average for Theme “Dynamic resilient local economies”
ITEM 5.3
PAGE 47 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
4.0 Sustainable built and natural environments How do you rate the parks, reserves and open spaces in your local community for:
3.89 4.09 3.55
77.8% 81.8% 71.0%
3.51 3.81
70.2% 76.2%
3.01 3.45 3.70
60.2% 69.0% 74.0%
3.86
77.2%
3.54 3.45 3.47 3.61
70.8% 69.0% 69.4% 72.2%
3.40
68.0%
3.55
71.0%
Average for Theme “Democratic and engaged communities”
3.48
69.6%
Average for all questions
3.52
70.4%
upkeep
accessibility
facilities
How do you rate the availability in your local community of :
bikeways
walking paths How would you rate the adequacy of the following services in your local community in terms of your needs and wellbeing:
public transport
health services
education How satisfactory is your ability to access private or public transport to meet your daily mobility requirements? How satisfied are you with efforts being made in your local community:
to protect and conserve the natural environment
to provide a socially inclusive environment
to provide a liveable built environment
Average for Theme “Sustainable built and natural environments”
5.0 Democratic and engaged communities How satisfactory is the way your local council provides opportunities for your voice to be heard on issues that are important to you? How would you rate the overall performance of your local council in delivering an appropriate range and quality of services relevant to your household’s needs?
ITEM 5.3
PAGE 48 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
Statistical Notes The Score given each category across the population is found to be statistically significant at 95% ±5 The 95% is chosen by convention. We have an accuracy of ± 5%, and our questions using an interval scale of 5, thus: If we conducted this survey 20 times, 19 out the 20 times (95%), we would expect the mean score to lie within ±5%, or 0.25, of the mean score found when we conducted the survey. Only a number of sub categories achieved something relatively significant listed in hierarchy below, a similar explanation under each for clarity: Females: 95% ±6 If we conducted this survey 20 times, 19 out the 20 times (95%), we would expect the mean score to lie within ±6%, or 0.3, of the mean score found when we conducted the survey. Males: 95% ±9.1 If we conducted this survey 20 times, 19 out the 20 times (95%), we would expect the mean score to lie within ±9.1%, or 0.455, of the mean score found when we conducted the survey. That’s close to a half a point either side of the mean. Age 35-49: 95% ±10 If we conducted this survey 20 times, 19 out the 20 times (95%), we would expect the mean score to lie within ±5%, or 0.5, of the mean score found when we conducted the survey. That is half a point either side of the mean. Age 25-34: 90% ±10 If we conducted this survey 20 times, 18 out the 20 times (90%), we would expect the mean score to lie within ±10%, or 0.5, of the mean score found when we conducted the survey. That is half a point either side of the mean. Age 50-59: 90% ±10 If we conducted this survey 20 times, 18 out the 20 times (90%), we would expect the mean score to lie within ±10%, or 0.5, of the mean score found when we conducted the survey. That is half a point either side of the mean
ITEM 5.3
PAGE 49 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
Transport, Health and Education 1. How would you rate the adequacy of the public transport in your local community in terms of your needs and wellbeing? Score 62.08% Full Population Answer Options
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
5.5%
5.5%
5.5%
5.5%
10.6% 20.6% 35.2% 6.9% 21.2%
13.80% 21.80% 18.40% 9.20% 14.80%
12.00% 20.40% 22.00% 15.60% 9.20%
16.70% 30.70% 14.00% 2.00% 22.70%
14% 16.7% 30.7% 14% 2% 22.7%
Total
3.10
2.75
3
2.66
2.66
Sex Results It is not clear as to why the discrepancy with results in this category between male and female respondents. Female Male 3.38 2.87
Age Results Results show a marked drop for both the 18-24 and 85+ age brackets. 12 to 17 3.5
18 to 24 2.12
25 to 34 3.14
35 to 49 3.98
50 to 59 3.39
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.09
70 to 84 3.61
85+ 2
PAGE 50 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
2. How would you rate the adequacy of the Health Services in your local community in terms of your needs and wellbeing? Score 69.02% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
3.54%
6.60%
5.20%
8.00%
8.00%
10.40% 25.00% 45.58% 12.39% 3.10%
11.20% 25.60% 39.40% 16.20% 1.00%
11.20% 24.80% 37.60% 20.80% 0.40%
8.00% 24.00% 48.70% 9.30% 2.00%
16.00% 30.00% 30.00% 15.00% 1.00%
3.45
3.48
3.58
3.44
3.28
Sex Results It is not clear as to why the discrepancy with results in this category between male and female respondents. Female Male 3.79 3.23
Age Results Results show a drop in the 35-49 age brackets. 12 to 17 3.06
18 to 24 3.56
25 to 34 3.36
35 to 49 2.93
50 to 59 3.56
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.85
70 to 84 3.79
85+ 3.5
PAGE 51 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
3. How would you rate the adequacy of the Education Services in your local community in terms of your needs and wellbeing? Score 74.05% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
5.75% 18.81% 46.90% 18.81% 8.85%
1.20% 4.60% 25.00% 41.00% 13.00% 15.20%
1.60% 4.80% 24.00% 37.60% 19.60% 12.40%
0.00% 4.00% 28.00% 43.30% 4.70% 20.00%
2.00% 5.00% 23.00% 46.00% 9.00% 15.00%
3.70
3.71
3.79
3.61
3.65
Devonport 0.88%
Sex Results It is not clear as to why the discrepancy with results in this category between male and female respondents. Female Male 4.02 3.53
Age Results Results show a marked drop in the 85+ age brackets. 12 to 17 4.06
18 to 24 3.57
25 to 34 3.87
35 to 49 4.16
50 to 59 3.73
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 4.03
70 to 84 4.20
85+ 2.00
PAGE 52 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
4. How adequate are the opportunities in your local community for you to effectively engage in Sport and Recreation? Score 81.00% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
3.00% 7.00% 19.00% 44.20% 18.40% 8.40% 3.74
2.80% 7.60% 18.00% 44.00% 17.60% 10.00% 3.73
3.30% 4.70% 22.00% 48.00% 16.00% 6.00% 3.73
3.00% 9.00% 17.00% 39.00% 24.00% 8.00% 3.78
0.91% 3.40% 13.38% 49.21% 25.85% 7.26% 4.05
Sex Results This is a definitively positive report on residents’ perception of opportunities of engagement in sport and recreation. Female Male 4.12 3.98
Age Results Results are consistently fair to satisfactory and above across age groups. 12 to 17 4.13
18 to 24 4.31
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.71
3.99
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
4.10
60 to 69 4.37
70 to 84 4.29
85+ 3.5
PAGE 53 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
5. In the last 12 months were there any times that you accessed or undertaken sports and recreation events or activities in Devonport? The following does not contain Queensland results as this question was added to better understand the Devonport population accessing of sport and recreation. Score 63.55% Full Population Answer Options Never Sometimes Monthly Fortnightly Every week Never
Devonport 23.13% 32.65% 6.35% 4.76% 33.11% 23.13% 3.18
Total Sex Results Female Male 3.08 3.12
Age Results 12 to 17 2.63
18 to 24 3.56
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.26
3.70
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
3.03
60 to 69 2.63
70 to 84 2.11
85+ 4.50
PAGE 54 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
6. In the last 12 months were there any times that you accessed or undertaken sports and recreation events or activities outside of Devonport? The following does not contain Queensland results as this question was added to better understand the Devonport population accessing of sport and recreation. Score 49.07% Full Population Answer Options Never Sometimes Monthly Fortnightly Every week Never
Devonport 38.32% 45.58% 4.31% 4.54% 7.26% 38.32% 2.45
Total Sex Results Female Male 1.87 2.79
Age Results 12 to 17 3.25
18 to 24 2.80
25 to 34
35 to 49
2.16
3.00
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
1.89
60 to 69 1.84
70 to 84 1.69
85+ 3.00
PAGE 55 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
7. How adequate are the opportunities in your local community for you to effectively engage in Arts and Culture? Score 68.50% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
1.63% 7.91% 27.44% 38.37% 8.60% 16.05% 3.43
4.40% 11.80% 31.60% 33.60% 9.60% 9.00% 3.35
4.40% 12.00% 33.20% 34.00% 9.20% 7.20% 3.34
4.00% 12.00% 34.70% 32.00% 5.30% 12.00% 3.26
5.00% 11.00% 23.00% 35.00% 17.00% 9.00% 3.53
Sex Results Female Male 3.48 3.39
Age Results Results are consistently fair to satisfactory and above across age groups. 12 to 17 3.00
18 to 24 2.94
25 to 34 3.30
35 to 49 3.67
50 to 59 3.59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.69
70 to 84 4.21
85+ 3.00
PAGE 56 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
8. In the last 12 months were there any times that you accessed or undertaken Art and Culture events or activities in Devonport? The following does not contain Queensland results as this question was added to better understand the Devonport population accessing of arts and culture. Score 39.84% Full Population Answer Options Never Sometimes Monthly Fortnightly Every week
Total
Devonport 29.53% 56.51% 8.14% 3.72% 2.09% 1.99
Sex Results Female Male 1.91 1.98
Age Results 12 to 17 1.81
18 to 24 1.74
25 to 34 1.78
35 to 49 2.25
50 to 59 1.99
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 2.22
70 to 84 2.14
85+ 2.00
PAGE 57 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
9. In the last 12 months were there any times that you accessed or undertaken Art and Culture events or activities outside of Devonport? The following does not contain Queensland results as this question was added to better understand the Devonport population accessing of arts and culture. Score 36.73% Full Population Answer Options Never Sometimes Monthly Fortnightly Every week
Total
Devonport 31.63% 58.37% 7.21% 1.86% 0.93% 1.84
Sex Results Female Male 1.86 1.81
Age Results 12 to 17 1.69
18 to 24 1.86
25 to 34 1.82
35 to 49 1.93
50 to 59 1.88
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 1.85
70 to 84 1.67
85+ 2.00
PAGE 58 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
10. How do you rate the sports grounds and recreation centres in your community for upkeep? The following does not contain Queensland results as this question was added to better understand the Devonport population. Score 79.17% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport 1.44% 2.15% 10.05% 52.39% 25.12% 8.85% 3.96
Sex Results Female Male 4.16 3.99
Age Results 12 to 17 4.50
18 to 24 4.25
25 to 34 3.65
35 to 49 3.76
50 to 59 4.10
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 4.28
70 to 84 4.13
85+ 3.00
PAGE 59 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
11. How do you rate the sports grounds and recreation centres in your community for accessibility? The following does not contain Queensland results as this question was added to better understand the Devonport population. Score 77.12% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport 0.24% 2.39% 9.81% 52.15% 25.36% 10.05% 3.86
Sex Results Female Male 3.93 3.95
Age Results 12 to 17 4.19
18 to 24 3.99
25 to 34 3.86
35 to 49 3.41
50 to 59 4.15
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 4.41
70 to 84 4.33
85+ 2.50
PAGE 60 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
12. How do you rate the sports grounds and recreation centres in your community for facilities? The following does not contain Queensland results as this question was added to better understand the Devonport population. Score 74.60% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport 0.48% 3.35% 16.51% 54.78% 13.88% 11.00% 3.73
Sex Results Female Male 3.92 3.70
Age Results 12 to 17 3.88
18 to 24 3.79
25 to 34 3.53
35 to 49 3.28
50 to 59 3.87
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 4.15
70 to 84 3.84
85+ 3.50
PAGE 61 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
13. How do you rate the parks, reserves and open spaces in your community for upkeep? Score 77.82% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
0.96% 3.83% 14.35% 50.48% 28.47% 1.91% 3.89
2.20% 5.60% 25.00% 44.60% 20.40% 2.20% 3.77
2.80% 3.20% 19.20% 43.20% 31.20% 0.40% 3.97
1.30% 6.00% 39.30% 46.00% 4.00% 3.30% 3.47
2.00% 11.00% 18.00% 46.00% 18.00% 5.00% 3.71
Sex Results Female Male 4.14 3.62
Age Results 12 to 17 3.50
18 to 24 3.81
25 to 34 3.89
35 to 49 4.01
50 to 59 4.01
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 4.29
70 to 84 4.11
85+ 3.50
PAGE 62 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
14. How do you rate the parks, reserves and open spaces in your community for accessibility? Score 81.73% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
1.20% 2.39% 11.96% 53.11% 28.95% 2.39% 4.09
1.40% 5.40% 21.80% 47.80% 21.40% 2.20% 3.84
2.00% 3.60% 18.40% 44.00% 31.20% 0.80% 4
0.70% 5.30% 32.70% 52.00% 5.30% 4.00% 3.58
1.00% 10.00% 14.00% 51.00% 21.00% 3.00% 3.84
Sex Results Female Male 4.34 3.75
Age Results 12 to 17 3.69
18 to 24 3.83
25 to 34 3.91
35 to 49 4.37
50 to 59 4.16
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 4.39
70 to 84 4.35
85+ 4.00
PAGE 63 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
15. How do you rate the parks, reserves and open spaces in your community for facilities? Score 70.94% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
1.44% 4.78% 24.16% 51.91% 14.59% 3.11% 3.55
1.60% 10.00% 30.40% 41.00% 14.20% 2.80% 3.58
1.60% 10.40% 28.40% 36.00% 22.40% 1.20% 3.68
1.30% 6.70% 37.30% 47.30% 3.30% 4.00% 3.47
2.00% 14.00% 25.00% 44.00% 10.00% 5.00% 3.48
Sex Results Female Male 3.76 3.32
Age Results 12 to 17 2.94
18 to 24 3.61
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.31
3.90
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
3.87
60 to 69 3.88
70 to 84 3.86
85+ 3.00
PAGE 64 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
16. How would you rate the opportunity for social interaction within your local community's public spaces? Score 71.54% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
0.74% 3.92% 28.19% 54.66% 8.58% 3.92% 3.58
2.60% 6.80% 29.70% 41.10% 12.40% 7.40% 3.58
3.60% 8.00% 32.40% 35.60% 12.00% 8.40% 3.48
0.70% 3.40% 25.50% 53.00% 13.40% 4.00% 3.78
3.00% 9.00% 29.00% 37.00% 12.00% 10.00% 3.51
Sex Results Female Male 3.74 3.39
Age Results 12 to 17 3.00
18 to 24 3.51
25 to 34 3.51
35 to 49 3.77
50 to 59 3.81
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.82
70 to 84 3.69
85+ 3.50
PAGE 65 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
17. How do you rate the availability in your community of bikeways? Score 70.21% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
3.68% 8.09% 27.45% 35.78% 17.40% 7.60% 3.51
16.00% 15.20% 25.00% 25.60% 9.20% 9.00% 2.96
16.00% 14.00% 22.40% 28.00% 12.00% 7.60% 3.06
12.70% 20.00% 32.70% 25.30% 1.30% 8.00% 2.81
21.00% 11.00% 20.00% 20.00% 14.00% 14.00% 2.94
Sex Results Female Male 3.66 3.33
Age Results 12 to 17 4.19
18 to 24 2.67
25 to 34 3.42
35 to 49 3.77
50 to 59 3.39
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.60
70 to 84 4.06
85+ 3.00
PAGE 66 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
18. How do you rate the availability in your community of walking paths? Score 76.24% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
2.70% 4.41% 18.63% 45.59% 27.70% 0.98% 3.81
13.60% 13.60% 25.60% 32.60% 12.00% 2.60% 3.16
11.60% 10.40% 24.80% 35.20% 15.60% 2.40% 3.34
14.00% 19.30% 29.30% 30.00% 4.70% 2.70% 2.92
18.00% 13.00% 22.00% 30.00% 14.00% 3.00% 3.09
Sex Results Female Male 3.95 3.67
Age Results 12 to 17 4.31
18 to 24 3.50
25 to 34 3.77
35 to 49 3.93
50 to 59 3.77
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 4.13
70 to 84 4.08
85+ 3.00
PAGE 67 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
19. How satisfied are you with efforts being made in your local community to protect and conserve the natural environment? Score 70.88% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
2.94% 6.13% 18.63% 52.45% 12.50% 7.35% 3.54
2.40% 9.40% 33.80% 39.80% 11.00% 3.60% 3.49
1.60% 9.20% 32.00% 40.40% 14.00% 2.80% 3.58
2.00% 8.00% 40.70% 39.30% 4.00% 6.00% 3.38
5.00% 12.00% 28.00% 39.00% 14.00% 2.00% 3.46
Sex Results Female Male 3.75 3.50
Age Results 12 to 17 3.88
18 to 24 3.21
25 to 34 3.79
35 to 49 3.49
50 to 59 3.57
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.38
70 to 84 4.04
85+ 3.00
PAGE 68 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
20. How satisfied are you with efforts being made in your local community to provide a socially inclusive environment? Score 69.02% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
1.47% 6.13% 25.25% 45.83% 6.62% 14.71% 3.45
1.20% 10.20% 33.20% 38.80% 4.40% 12.20% 3.4
1.20% 11.20% 29.20% 40.00% 6.40% 12.00% 3.45
0.70% 8.00% 35.30% 39.30% 1.30% 15.30% 3.39
2.00% 11.00% 40.00% 35.00% 4.00% 8.00% 3.3
Sex Results Female Male 3.71
3.25
Age Results 12 to 17 3.50
18 to 24 3.31
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.40
3.73
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
3.40
60 to 69 3.70
70 to 84 3.58
85+ 3.00
PAGE 69 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
21. How satisfied are you with efforts being made in your local community to provide a liveable built environment? Score 69.31% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
1.23% 7.60% 27.21% 46.81% 8.58% 8.58% 3.47
0.60% 7.20% 29.20% 37.20% 5.60% 20.20% 3.5
0.40% 8.00% 26.80% 42.00% 6.80% 16.00% 3.56
0.70% 5.30% 31.30% 24.00% 2.00% 36.70% 3.34
1.00% 8.00% 32.00% 45.00% 8.00% 6.00% 3.54
Sex Results Female Male 3.63
3.27
Age Results 12 to 17 3.38
18 to 24 3.55
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.50
3.74
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
3.41
60 to 69 3.42
70 to 84 3.73
85+ 3.00
PAGE 70 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
22. How would you rate the suitability of your local community for young children? Score 76.40% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
0.75% 6.73% 25.69% 44.14% 13.22% 9.48% 3.82
2.80% 9.60% 28.40% 41.80% 11.00% 6.40% 3.52
3.60% 9.60% 30.40% 40.00% 12.00% 4.40% 3.49
2.00% 9.30% 29.30% 42.00% 8.00% 9.30% 3.49
2.00% 10.00% 22.00% 46.00% 13.00% 7.00% 3.63
Sex Results Female Male 3.81
3.71
Age Results 12 to 17 3.63
18 to 24 3.90
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.65
4.02
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
3.61
60 to 69 3.91
70 to 84 4.33
85+ 3.50
PAGE 71 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
23. How would you rate the suitability of your local community for teenagers? Score 58.59% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
3.49% 19.95% 40.90% 20.95% 3.49% 11.22% 2.93
9.20% 18.20% 36.60% 25.40% 4.20% 6.40% 2.97
9.60% 21.20% 38.00% 23.20% 4.00% 4.00% 2.9
7.30% 13.30% 33.30% 34.00% 2.70% 9.30% 3.13
11.00% 18.00% 38.00% 18.00% 7.00% 8.00% 2.9
Sex Results Female Male 3.01
2.90
Age Results 12 to 17 3.44
18 to 24 2.57
25 to 34
35 to 49
2.73
3.37
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
2.77
60 to 69 3.09
70 to 84 3.47
85+ 2.00
PAGE 72 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
24. How would you rate the suitability of your local community for seniors? Score 72.04% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
0.50% 4.99% 23.19% 46.88% 10.47% 13.97% 3.60
2.80% 9.40% 29.80% 40.40% 15.60% 2.00% 3.58
2.80% 7.20% 32.80% 39.20% 15.20% 2.80% 3.58
2.00% 10.00% 26.70% 46.00% 14.00% 1.30% 3.61
4.00% 14.00% 27.00% 35.00% 19.00% 1.00% 3.52
Sex Results Female Male 3.74
3.53
Age Results 12 to 17 3.06
18 to 24 3.97
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.65
3.79
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
3.61
60 to 69 3.79
70 to 84 3.94
85+ 3.00
PAGE 73 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
25. How would you rate the level of support available to you from friends? Score 80.90% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
0.25% 2.99% 13.22% 45.14% 33.92% 4.49% 4.05
1.20% 2.80% 9.20% 37.80% 48.00% 1.00% 4.3
2.00% 4.00% 10.00% 37.60% 45.20% 1.20% 4.21
0.70% 2.00% 7.30% 32.00% 56.70% 1.30% 4.44
0.00% 1.00% 10.00% 47.00% 42.00% 0.00% 4.3
Sex Results Female Male 4.33
3.77
Age Results 12 to 17 3.69
18 to 24 3.83
25 to 34
35 to 49
4.08
4.06
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
4.19
60 to 69 4.14
70 to 84 4.38
85+ 4.00
PAGE 74 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
26. How would you rate the level of support available to you from family? Score 83.75% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
2.24% 3.99% 10.47% 40.90% 39.15% 3.24% 4.19
3.40% 3.00% 7.60% 29.00% 55.00% 2.00% 4.32
4.80% 2.40% 5.60% 29.20% 56.40% 1.60% 4.32
0.70% 4.70% 8.00% 28.70% 55.30% 2.70% 4.37
4.00% 2.00% 12.00% 29.00% 51.00% 2.00% 4.23
Sex Results Female Male 4.32
4.05
Age Results 12 to 17 4.13
18 to 24 4.42
25 to 34
35 to 49
4.13
4.01
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
4.22
60 to 69 4.14
70 to 84 4.46
85+ 4.00
PAGE 75 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
27. How would you rate the level of support available to you from neighbours? Score 72.04% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
1.25% 9.23% 24.69% 44.14% 13.97% 6.73% 3.60
5.60% 4.20% 19.00% 33.80% 37.00% 0.40% 3.93
6.00% 5.20% 18.00% 33.20% 37.20% 0.40% 3.91
6.70% 3.30% 21.30% 32.00% 36.70% 0.00% 3.89
3.00% 3.00% 18.00% 38.00% 37.00% 1.00% 4.05
Sex Results Female Male 3.70
3.46
Age Results 12 to 17 3.31
18 to 24 3.44
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.36
3.69
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
3.75
60 to 69 3.71
70 to 84 4.06
85+ 3.50
PAGE 76 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
28. How would you rate access to buildings and services in your local community for people with a physical disability? Score 69.55% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
2.00% 8.23% 26.18% 35.91% 5.49% 22.19% 3.48
5.20% 9.60% 33.40% 38.00% 8.20% 5.60% 3.37
4.80% 8.00% 40.80% 31.60% 7.20% 7.60% 3.31
5.30% 10.00% 24.70% 48.70% 7.30% 4.00% 3.44
6.00% 13.00% 28.00% 38.00% 12.00% 3.00% 3.39
Sex Results Female Male 3.44
3.48
Age Results 12 to 17 3.50
18 to 24 3.77
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.29
3.68
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
3.40
60 to 69 3.45
70 to 84 3.74
85+ 3.00
PAGE 77 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
29. How strongly do you agree or disagree that your local community is welcoming of people from different cultures? Score 68.71% Full Population Answer Options Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
3.00% 11.50%
2.80% 10.00%
4.40% 10.80%
Regional QLD Cities 0.70% 6.70%
32.75% 38.50% 6.75% 7.50% 3.44
27.20% 41.80% 13.80% 4.40% 3.57
34.40% 28.40% 15.20% 6.80% 3.42
19.30% 62.70% 9.30% 1.30% 3.74
QLD Rural 2.00% 13.00% 21.00% 44.00% 17.00% 3.00% 3.65
Sex Results Female Male 3.50
3.41
Age Results 12 to 17 3.75
18 to 24 3.36
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.00
2.87
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
3.30
60 to 69 3.45
70 to 84 3.75
85+ 4.00
PAGE 78 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
30. How would you rate your level of involvement in your local community as a volunteer or member of a community organisation? Score 59.16% Full Population Answer Options Not involved at all Very limited involvement Some involvement Actively involved Very actively involved Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
17.50%
40.60%
35.20%
Regional QLD Cities 56.70%
22.50% 25.25% 17.50% 14.75% 2.50% 2.96
18.80% 20.00% 13.60% 6.80% 0.20% 2.26
19.20% 23.60% 13.20% 8.40% 0.40% 2.4
16.00% 10.70% 10.70% 6.00% 0.00% 1.93
QLD Rural 30.00% 22.00% 25.00% 19.00% 4.00% 0.00% 2.41
Sex Results Female Male 2.81
3.17
Age Results 12 to 17 3.50
18 to 24 2.77
25 to 34
35 to 49
2.83
3.33
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
2.84
60 to 69 2.99
70 to 84 3.40
85+ 2.00
PAGE 79 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
31. How safe do you feel when you are outside and alone in a public place in your local community? Score 68.22% Full Population Answer Options Very unsafe Unsafe Fair only Safe Very safe Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
1.25% 6.75% 31.00% 46.50% 14.00% 0.50% 3.41
4.80% 7.20% 23.40% 38.00% 25.00% 1.60% 3.72
4.00% 4.80% 23.20% 38.80% 28.00% 1.20% 3.83
Regional QLD Cities 7.30% 11.30% 24.70% 38.00% 18.00% 0.70% 3.48
QLD Rural 3.00% 7.00% 22.00% 36.00% 28.00% 4.00% 3.82
Sex Results Female Male 3.29
3.53
Age Results 12 to 17 3.38
18 to 24 3.85
25 to 34
35 to 49
3.44
3.01
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
3.77
60 to 69 3.37
70 to 84 3.98
85+ 2.50
PAGE 80 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
32. Thinking about your life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole? Score 84.81% Full Population Answer Options
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Very unsatisfied Unsatisfied Fair only Satisfied Very satisfied Don't know
2.00% 1.25% 12.25% 45.75% 37.75% 1.00% 4.24
0.6% 2.6% 9.8% 40.6% 46.2% 0.2% 4.30
0.8% 3.6% 12.0% 35.2% 48.4% 0.0% 4.27
Total
Regional QLD Cities 0.7% 0.7% 6.7% 40.0% 52.0% 0.0% 4.42
QLD Rural 0.0% 3.0% 9.0% 55.0% 32.0% 1.0% 4.18
Sex Results Female Male 4.38
4.02
Age Results 12 to 17 4.13
18 to 24 4.19
25 to 34
35 to 49
4.17
4.33
50 to 59
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
4.14
60 to 69 4.26
70 to 84 4.71
85+ 4.00
PAGE 81 Community Survey Results R V1.0
ATTACH HMENT [1]
33. What is yo our current status? Of thosse that resp ponded to o the surveyy, the follo owing is the e breakdow wn of curre ent status. Queenslan nd figures have been n supplied for some context, c ho owever since they do o not include full time e students or ‘other’ of little value other th han interesst. Answe er Options Workin ng full time Workin ng part time e Unemp ployed Home duties Retired d Incapa acitated Full tim me student Other
Devo onport
QLD Total
SEQ
34.75% 21.00% 2.25% 10.00% 16.25% 2.75% 4.75% 8.25%
35.30% 16.40% 3.60% 13.80% 27.90% 3.00% * *
31.60% 16.00% 4.00% 11.20% 33.20% 4.00% * *
*d data was nott provided in QLD tables
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
Region nal QLD Citties 44.00% % 9.30% % 2.00% % 14.00% % 29.30% % 1.30% % * *
QLD D Rural 31.30% 28 8.30% 5..10% 20 0.20% 12 2.10% 3..00% * *
PAGE 82 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
34. My work is not too demanding and stressful Asked of those that responded that they were working full time or part time in question 33. Score 64% Full Population Answer Options Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree/Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
6.45% 28.32%
10.50% 25.20%
6.70% 22.70%
Regional QLD Cities 17.50% 28.80%
26.52% 32.97% 5.73% 3.2
25.60% 30.60% 8.10% 3.01
31.10% 30.30% 9.20% 3.13
13.80% 37.50% 2.50% 2.79
QLD Rural 8.50% 25.40% 30.50% 22.00% 13.60% 3.07
Sex Results Female Male 3.18 3.15
Age Results 12 to 17 3.50
18 to 24 3.19
25 to 34 2.83
35 to 49 3.39
50 to 59 2.94
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.41
70 to 84 3.33
85+ 3.00
PAGE 83 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
35. My work and family life do not interfere with each other Asked of those that responded that they were working full time or part time in question 33. Score 64% Full Population Answer Options Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree/Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
5.07% 34.42%
8.5% 22.1% 23.3%
5.9% 19.3% 28.6%
Regional QLD Cities 17.5% 26.3% 16.3%
37.2% 8.9% 3.16
37.0% 9.2% 3.24
40.0% 0.0% 2.79
19.57% 31.16% 9.78% 3.2
QLD Rural 1.7% 22.0% 22.0% 33.9% 20.3% 3.49
Sex Results Female Male 3.07 3.04
Age Results 12 to 17 2.75
18 to 24 3.60
25 to 34 2.73
35 to 49 3.27
50 to 59 2.97
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.76
70 to 84 3.33
85+ 2.00
PAGE 84 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
36. I have good job security Asked of those that responded that they were working full time or part time in question 33. Score 60.70% Full Population Answer Options Strongly disagree Disagree Neither Agree/Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
8.18% 17.84%
8.5% 22.1% 23.3%
5.9% 19.3% 28.6%
Regional QLD Cities 17.5% 26.3% 16.3%
37.2% 8.9% 3.16
37.0% 9.2% 3.24
40.0% 0.0% 2.79
24.16% 33.46% 16.36% 3.04
QLD Rural 1.7% 22.0% 22.0% 33.9% 20.3% 3.49
Sex Results Female Male 3.09 2.99
Age Results 12 to 17 2.50
18 to 24 2.94
25 to 34 3.30
35 to 49 3.50
50 to 59 3.20
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.35
70 to 84 3.50
85+ 2.00
PAGE 85 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
37. How would you rate the impact from the increasing costs of living on your household? Score 46.69% Full Population Answer Options Very badly affected Affected Only a little Does not affect much Does not affect at all Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
11.59% 52.14% 24.18%
21.80% 38.00% 25.40%
21.20% 39.20% 23.20%
Regional QLD Cities 28.00% 32.70% 28.70%
8.56% 2.02% 1.51% 2.33
10.20% 4.40% 0.20% 2.37
12.80% 3.60% 0.00% 2.38
7.30% 3.30% 0.00% 2.25
QLD Rural 14.00% 43.00% 26.00% 8.00% 8.00% 1.00% 2.51
Sex Results Female Male 2.35 2.32
Age Results 12 to 17 2.25
18 to 24 2.36
25 to 34 2.15
35 to 49 2.06
50 to 59 2.43
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 2.70
70 to 84 2.72
85+ 2.00
PAGE 86 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
38. How would you rate the impact of your current rental or mortgage payments on your household's finances? Score 66.11% Full Population Answer Options Very badly affected Affected Only a little Does not affect much Does not affect at all Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
4.03% 37.28% 21.16%
12.20% 19.40% 23.00%
9.20% 20.40% 20.40%
Regional QLD Cities 22.70% 20.70% 26.00%
10.08% 22.42% 5.04% 3.31
16.00% 28.40% 1.00% 3.29
11.60% 37.60% 0.80% 3.48
18.70% 12.00% 0.00% 2.77
QLD Rural 4.00% 15.00% 25.00% 23.00% 30.00% 3.00% 3.6
Sex Results Female Male 3.05 3.35
Age Results 12 to 17 2.88
18 to 24 2.31
25 to 34 2.38
35 to 49 3.35
50 to 59 3.17
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 4.33
70 to 84 4.53
85+ 3.50
PAGE 87 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
39. How satisfactory is the way your local Council provides opportunities for your voice to be heard on issues that are important to you? Score 68.08% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
4.28% 10.58% 28.97% 41.06% 8.06% 7.05% 3.40
10.20% 14.80% 36.60% 25.00% 5.80% 7.60% 3.02
11.20% 15.60% 35.60% 24.80% 7.60% 5.20% 3.02
8.00% 11.30% 40.00% 26.70% 3.30% 10.70% 3.07
11.00% 18.00% 34.00% 23.00% 5.00% 9.00% 2.96
Sex Results Female Male 3.43 3.38
Age Results 12 to 17 3.50
18 to 24 3.14
25 to 34 3.09
35 to 49 3.58
50 to 59 3.26
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.56
70 to 84 4.10
85+ 3.00
PAGE 88 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
40. How would you rate the overall performance of your local Council in delivering an appropriate range and quality of services relevant to your household needs?? Score 71% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport 2.52% 8.82% 28.97% 49.37% 5.29% 5.04% 3.55
QLD Total
SEQ
6.2%
6.8%
Regional QLD Cities 5.3%
13.0% 42.2% 31.2% 5.8% 1.6% 3.18
10.4% 40.0% 34.0% 7.2% 1.6% 3.25
16.7% 46.7% 26.0% 3.3% 2.0% 3.05
QLD Rural 6.0% 14.0% 41.0% 32.0% 6.0% 1.0% 3.18
Sex Results Female Male 3.64 3.41
Age Results 12 to 17 4.00
18 to 24 3.08
25 to 34 3.32
35 to 49 3.63
50 to 59 3.41
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.64
70 to 84 3.82
85+ 3.50
PAGE 89 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
41. How satisfactory is your ability to access the internet whenever you need to use it? Score 76.30% Full Population Answer Options Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
Total
Devonport
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
3.78% 4.79% 14.36% 43.83% 32.49% 0.76% 3.81
4.00% 6.20% 11.00% 29.30% 31.90% 17.60% 3.96
3.60% 8.00% 8.80% 29.20% 33.60% 16.80% 3.98
3.30% 3.30% 16.00% 28.00% 33.30% 16.00% 4.01
6.10% 6.10% 9.10% 31.30% 25.30% 22.20% 3.82
Sex Results Female Male 4.17 3.69
Age Results 12 to 17 4.13
18 to 24 3.62
25 to 34 3.92
35 to 49 2.84
50 to 59 3.97
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 4.34
70 to 84 4.21
85+ 3.50
PAGE 90 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
42. How satisfactory is your ability to access private or public transport to meet your daily mobility requirements? Score 77.16% Full Population Answer Options
Devonport
Very unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Fair only Satisfactory Very satisfactory Don't know
5.29%
Total
7.05% 15.11% 38.04% 19.40% 15.11% 3.86
QLD Total
SEQ
Regional QLD Cities
QLD Rural
7.40% 7.20% 28.80% 31.60% 21.40% 3.60% 3.55
6.80% 6.80% 26.80% 30.40% 27.60% 1.60% 3.66
9.30% 6.00% 46.00% 28.00% 6.00% 4.70% 3.16
6.00% 10.00% 8.00% 40.00% 29.00% 7.00% 3.85
Sex Results Female Male 3.89 3.71
Age Results 12 to 17 3.56
18 to 24 4.44
25 to 34 3.67
35 to 49 4.08
50 to 59 3.70
Notes:
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.93
70 to 84 3.98
85+ 3.50
PAGE 91 Community Survey Results V1.0
ATTACHMENT [1]
43. In the last 12 months were there any times that you ran out of food &/or money to buy more? Score 15.39% (95% ±5) This is with females reporting at 13.8% (95% ±6) and males at 19% (95% ±9.1), with weighting of survey results based on sex, age and income levels[1]. For ages 35-49, our highest response area and the only age range to have a reasonable statistical significance (95% ±8.5), we see 17.3% as the level of food insecurity. 77% of respondents that answered positively indicated affordability of foods is the primary indicator, far exceeding other factors. I don’t always have the type of foods I would like to eat because it is
% of positive respondents
Not affordable The quality is not available It is difficult to get to shops The variety is not available Not Applicable
76.71% 5.48% 4.11% 2.74% 9.59%
Full Population Answer Options Yes No
Devonport 5.29% 7.05%
Sex Results Female Male 13.88% 19.07%
Age Results 12 to 17 3.56
18 to 24 4.44
25 to 34 3.67
35 to 49 17.3%
50 to 59 3.70
ITEM 5.3
60 to 69 3.93
70 to 84 3.98
85+ 3.50
PAGE 92 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
5.4
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF WATERFRONT HOTEL CONCEPT File: 32161 D419500
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 2.4.3
Implement initiatives to encourage private investment aligned with the outcomes of the LIVING CITY Master Plans
SUMMARY Horwath HTL have prepared an independent report on the market potential of a hotel within the Waterfront Precinct of LIVING CITY. The report concludes that there is sufficient demand to support up to 200 rooms at a 3.5-4.0 star standard. The report can be used to guide the masterplanning process for the Waterfront Precinct and also as a marketing tool to prospective hotel chains.
BACKGROUND LIVING CITY is an urban renewal project that will transform Devonport and revitalise Tasmania’s North West Region. Council adopted the LIVING CITY Master Plan in September 2014. LIVING CITY will occur in three stages. Stage One includes the creation of a new multipurpose civic building, a multi-storey car park, food pavilion and market square. Stage 2 incorporates a retail precinct feature, new major retailers including a proposed discount department store and additional speciality stores. Stage 3 will deliver a Waterfront Precinct featuring a hotel and green open spaces. A process is currently underway to appoint an architectural team to prepare a masterplan for the precinct, prior to offering a portion of the land for sale to a hotel developer.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS There are no statutory requirements applicable to this report.
DISCUSSION In January, 2016, Council engaged Horwath HTL to provide an independent report on the market potential for a hotel within the Waterfront Precinct of LIVING CITY. Horwath HTL are considered market leaders in Hotel consultancy, and having their support for a project such as this is considered an asset to the marketability of the site to large hotel chains. The report has two purposes: 1.
As a scoping activity for hotel design component of the Waterfront Hotel Masterplan; and
2.
Distribution as a marketing tool to attract hotel developers and operators to the site.
The report concludes that the site is suitable for a proposed hotel with the following attributes:
Full-service hotel with serviced apartment component configuration, aimed at capturing transient accommodation demand ranging from short stay to limited extended stay;
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 93 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
Medium-sized accommodation property, potentially up to 200 rooms or keys to at least meet the capacity implied by the size of Conference and Convention Centre conference facilities;
Upper mid-market to Upscale market positioning (3.5- to 4.0-star) at a high quality standard;
Specific in-house food and beverage facilities and services (such as a breakfast room, bar lounge area, room service), as the nearby Food Pavilion is anticipated to be able to meet all other guest needs;
Associated hotel guest facilities ideally include a moderately-sized gym and indoor leisure centre (pool and sauna), and medium-sized spa;
It is fundamental to the success of the Proposed Hotel that the operator maintains a close relationship with the management and operation of the Food Pavilion and Conference and Convention Centre; and
Demand capture into available rooms, allowing for Tasmanian seasonality factors and the likely ability of a professionally-managed branded hotel operator to typically outperform the average market, to result in a stabilised level of occupancy at 75%; and
Price-positioned to meet the expected budget of the potential corporate, conference, and leisure markets (both domestic and international in all segments), anticipated to result in an ADR (net to the Proposed Hotel) between AU$160 to AU$175 in 2016-dollar value.
A full copy of the final report is attached to this report.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The report’s authors, Horwath HTL spoke to a large range of stakeholders within the Tasmanian Tourism Industry in order to research this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications of the report at this time. However, the findings of the report may contribute to determining the sale price of the land to a private hotel developer in the future. The total cost of the completed report was $11,528.00
RISK IMPLICATIONS
Corporate and Business The report contains a number of disclaimers about how Council and others are to utilise this report.
Financial The financial risks with LIVING CITY are significant and a robust financial model has been developed to inform decisions for the best long term financial outcomes.
Communication/Reputation Council have invested significantly in LIVING CITY and the community expectation that the strategy will be delivered is very high. Council risk enormous reputational damage if the Master Plan is not implemented.
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 94 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
CONCLUSION The report is a good news story for Devonport. It confirms that the Waterfront Precinct is a suitable site for a hotel and that demand will support such. The report provides basic scale and quality information that can be utilised during the masterplan design process.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Independent Hotel Report
RECOMMENDATION That Council receive and note the independent report by Horwath HTL regarding the market potential of a hotel within the LIVING CITY Waterfront Precinct.
Author: Position:
Rebecca McKenna Project Officer Development
Economic
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.4
Matthew Atkins Deputy General Manager
PAGE 95 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 96 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 97 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 98 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 99 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 100 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 101 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 102 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 103 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 104 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 105 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 106 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 107 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 108 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 109 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 110 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 111 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 112 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 113 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 114 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 115 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 116 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 117 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 118 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 119 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 120 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 121 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 122 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 123 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 124 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 125 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 126 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 127 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 128 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 129 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 130 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 131 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 132 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 133 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 134 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 135 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 136 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 137 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 138 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 139 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 140 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 141 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 142 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 143 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 144 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
P AGE 145 Independentt Hotel Reportt
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.4
PAGE 146 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
5.5
TASWATER - EXTERNAL FUNDING PROPOSAL - FREEZING OF DIVIDENDS File: 28434 D419916
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.1.5
Provide leadership to the community by balancing the various needs of industry, business, community, government and the environment
SUMMARY This report is provided to assist Council in considering correspondence from the Chairman of TasWater (refer attached) seeking support for an extended moratorium on the distribution of dividends from the Company.
BACKGROUND In May 2015 as a result of the outcomes of the Economic Regulator’s 2015 Price Determination Investigation, and the financial implications for TasWater, councils through the Representatives Group agreed to freeze distribution returns for the duration of the three year regulatory period commencing 1 July 2015.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS TasWater is an entity established by the State Government under the Water and Sewerage Corporation Act 2012. It is 100 per cent owned by local government.
DISCUSSION At a recent meeting of the Owner Representatives of TasWater consideration of the following motion was requested: That Owner Councils agree to a moratorium on increases in distributions for a further seven years in the event that TasWater secures commitment from the State and Federal Governments to make grants totalling no less than $400M over a ten year period. The agenda papers for the meeting indicated that: Much of Tasmania’s sewage infrastructure is in a poor state with only 33% of the Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) meeting their environmental licence conditions, many of which are not contemporary. Many small towns also continue to be subject to Boil Water Alerts or Do Not Consume Notices. TasWater also has a disproportionate number of assets for the population served. TasWater estimates that to address all of the major rationalisations (in the major population centres of Hobart, Launceston and Devonport), environmental improvements for the sector and upgrades to drinking water systems, an investment of $1.8 billion is required over the next 10 years. This level of investment would enable rationalisation of a number of major STPs thus avoiding significant expenditure in upgrading outdated plants, the provision of safe drinking water to all serviced towns and material improvements in the health of a number of Tasmania’s key rivers.
ITEM 5.5
PAGE 147 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT There has been no community engagement in relation to this matter. There is a level of concern reported in the media from time to time in relation to the state of the infrastructure managed by TasWater. This issue will be considered by all owner councils and the views will obviously be varied.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The impact of the 10 year freeze on Devonport’s Distribution Profile has been provided by TasWater. If agreed the Council would forego any increase in distributions until the financial year commencing 1 July 2026. Devonport’s Distribution Percentage = 5.46% Assuming distributions were to grow each year at the same rate as revenue, being 4% per annum (FY16 – FY18) and then 5% per annum (FY19 – FY21) and 4% per annum (FY22 onwards) the following would be the impact of the ‘freeze’: FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY25
Estimate (no moratorium)
1,704
1,772
1,843
1,935
2,031
2,133
2,218
2,307
2,399
2,495
Moratorium
1,638
1,638
1,638
1,638
1,638
1,638
1,638
1,638
1,638
1,638
(66)
(134)
(205)
(297)
(393)
(495)
(580)
(669)
(761)
(857)
Impact Summary
Total Original Distribution Profile
$20,837,000
10 Year Freeze Distribution Profile
$16,380,000
Shortfall in Distribution Income
$ 4,457,000
Council’s long term financial plan has not factored in an increase in dividend returns above that which is currently received.
RISK IMPLICATIONS The main risk to Council is the forgone revenue it would achieve if the distribution of dividends were not frozen. There is a case for significant capital expenditure on the water and sewerage treatment assets managed by TasWater. Relying on increases in the water and sewerage charges to consumers to fund the capital works, but at the same time increasing distributions to the owner councils may create some concerns in the community.
CONCLUSION The Council obviously has two choices – either agree to the freezing of dividends or not. Any approval should be conditional on TasWater advising that applications for the balance of the capital funding required from the other spheres of Government have been successful. If Council does not support the recommendation provided an alternative it may wish to consider is: That Council in relation to the request from TasWater determines that it does not support the extension of the moratorium on distributions instead Council encourages
ITEM 5.5
PAGE 148 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
TasWater to continue to look for savings from its operations to allow the required capital works to proceed, even if this extends the timeframe of some of the projects. Another alternative may be to support the moratorium for a shorter period than that proposed.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
TasWater Correspondence - 13 May 2016
RECOMMENDATION That Council in relation to the request from TasWater confirm its conditional support for a moratorium on increases in distributions for an additional period of seven years providing TasWater is successful in securing commitment from State and Federal Governments for grant funding totalling no less than $400M over a ten year period.
Endorsed By: Position:
Paul West General Manager
ITEM 5.5
P PAGE 149 TasWater T Corrrespondence - 13 May 2016
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.5
P PAGE 150 TasWater T Corrrespondence - 13 May 2016
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.5
P PAGE 151 TasWater T Corrrespondence - 13 May 2016
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
ITEM 5.5
TasWater T Corrrespondence - 13 May 2016
P PAGE 152
ITEM 5.5
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
PAGE 153 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
5.6
LIVING CITY REFERENCE GROUP MINUTES 28 APRIL 2016 File: 30346 D419919
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 2.4.1
Develop and implement a CBD Master Plan aligned to the key LIVING CITY principles based on community engagement outcomes
SUMMARY This report presents the minutes of the LIVING CITY Community Reference Group meeting held on 28th April 2016.
BACKGROUND The LIVING CITY Community Reference Group met on the 28th April 2016. The Group was established to assist Council in the implementation of the LIVING CITY master plan and involves information sharing, advocacy, project advice and feedback.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS There are no statutory requirements in relation to this report. Reference groups are not a statutory committee recognised by the Local Government Act 1993. They are established for information purposes and allows Council an opportunity to provide and receive information and advice regarding important projects, issues or topics.
DISCUSSION The meeting of the LIVING CITY Community Reference Group provided members with an update on the current status. Discussion was held around the importance of communication, protecting the LIVING CITY vision through the planning scheme, tourism facilities and improving the streetscapes in the southern CBD.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Council has appointed three community members to this Reference Group.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications.
RISK IMPLICATIONS
Political/Governance The LIVING CITY Reference Group’s role is limited to making recommendations to Council for consideration.
Communication/Reputation The Reference Group provides another avenue for Council to keep the community informed of its progress and minimise the risk of inaccurate communication occurring.
CONCLUSION The minutes of the LIVING CITY Reference Group are provided for Council’s information.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Minutes 28 April 2016 ITEM 5.6
PAGE 154 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
RECOMMENDATION That the minutes of the LIVING CITY Reference Group be received and noted.
Author: Position:
Rebecca McKenna Project Officer Development
Economic
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.6
Matthew Atkins Deputy General Manager
PAGE 155 Minutes 28 April 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
LIVING CITY Reference Group Minutes 28 April 2016 Attendees: Mayor Steve Martin (Chair) Tim Hess Stacey Sheehan Paul West Matthew Atkins Dennis Hendriks Rebecca McKenna Apologies: James McKee Ald Leon Perry The Hon Jeremy Rockliff MP Andrew Billing Jodhi Wilkinson 1.0 Meeting Opened. The Mayor opened the meeting at 9.05am and welcomed participants. 2.0 Declarations of Interest No declarations of interest were provided. 3.0 Stage 1 Status Update 3.1 Construction Tender and Value Management Update. Matthew Atkins provided an update on the construction tender and value management process. Fairbrother has been appointed as the preferred contractor and that representatives are working with Council to finalise a Guaranteed Maximum Price contract. 3.2 Finance Update – Paul West provided an update on the project finance options for Stage 1. He confirmed that much of the criticism of the project is related to the level of borrowings, and that Council is working through options to reduce the loan if possible. 3.3 State Government Negotiations –Matthew Atkins stated that finalising the State Government grant deed is a priority for the project. Work is also continuing on a tenancy agreement, finalising design of the State Government spaces and a shared customer service agreement with Service Tasmania. 3.4 Food Pavilion Expressions of Interest– Matthew Atkins updated the group that leasing is progressing, with three official proposals received to date and more in the pipeline. 3.5 Communications Update – Paul West provided an update on the proposed Council response to the recent petition. Paul West and Matthew Atkins also spoke to the announcement today that TasWater intend to establish an office for 130 in the Southern CBD. 4.0 Other Stages 4.1 Stage 2 Update – Matthew Atkins provided an update on discussions with Harris Scarfe on relocating into Stage 2.
ITEM 5.6
PAGE 156 Minutes 28 April 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
4.2 Stage 3 Update – Matthew Atkins spoke about the future architectural firm appointment to produce a masterplan for Stage 3. Matthew Atkins also mentioned that Council had engaged a hotel consultant to provide a paper on demand for accommodation on the site. The hotel report, together with the urban design masterplan will then be used to market the site to hotel groups and developers. 5.0 Future Progress Matthew Atkins stated that Council is hopeful to begin construction this financial year. Construction will begin as soon as finance is secured and a construction contract is signed. 6.0 General Business Tim Hess spoke about the importance of protecting the LIVING CITY vision over the next 2 decades through adequate planning controls. Stacey Sheehan said that the Devonport Chamber of Commerce and Industry suggest that Council employ an economic development officer to liaise between potential investors and Council’s statutory planners. Stacey Sheehan stressed the importance of a robust communication plan through the construction process. She stated that communication should start now. Stacey Sheehan mentioned that the Chamber thinks it is important to continue the Stewart Street beautification to the rest of the Southern CBD, to make sure that they are not left out. Tim Hess spoke on the importance of creating a space for caravan holiday makers close to the centre of town. Some discussion was held regarding whether the showgrounds would be an appropriate location for this. Stacey Sheehan enquired as to whether bike hire could be established as part of living city. Matthew Atkins replied that space could be found if a private operator was interested. The Mayor suggested that a media release from the DCCI Young Professionals Group supporting LIVING CITY would be beneficial. Dennis Hendricks suggested connecting with Tas Leaders in relation to the project. 7.0 Next Meeting The Mayor suggested that the next meeting be set based around Jeremy Rockliff’s diary. Council will liaise and set a date. The Mayor closed the meeting at 9.55am.
ITEM 5.6
PAGE 157 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
5.7
BUILDING MATERIAL SALVAGE File: 28539-04 D419921
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 1.4.1
Promote recycling, re-use and minimisation of waste materials within Council, to the community and businesses
SUMMARY This report is provided to assist Council in its consideration of a local not-for-profit organisation (NFPO) having salvage rights to two buildings scheduled to be demolished as part of the LIVING CITY Stage 1 project.
BACKGROUND Stage 1 of the LIVING CITY project requires the demolition of two buildings being the Council Offices and an old house behind the Devonport Entertainment and Convention Centre at 151 Rooke Street, both of which contain salvageable building materials. Through the tender process it was determined that the most cost effective process for demolition is to demolish and transport the materials to landfill. If the contractors were to salvage materials for resale it would increase the demolition cost in the order of up to $200,000.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS The predominant legislation to which Council must comply in granting salvage rights is the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2012.
DISCUSSION Council recently explored options to allow two of the buildings, the Council Offices located at 44-48 Best Street plus the residential dwelling located at 151 Rooke Street to be stripped of any building materials of value prior to handing the building over to the demolition contractors. The idea of giving a local NFPO the opportunity to salvage any materials and fittings of value prior to demolition to then resell or reuse was discussed at a recent Council Workshop. An Expression of Interest (EOI) process was advertised seeking interest from local NFPO’s who have the capacity to undertake such a salvage process. The scope of the works was determined by the capability of the selected NFPO. Ideally, Council were seeking organisations who had certified building contractors available to be involved. Potentially the NFPO would take as little or as much of the building material as they are capable of which would be determined by Council’s risk assessment team. The site would be made available to the NFPO for up to a period five days, after that time, it will be handed over to the demolition contractor. The overall objective of the EOI process was to identify the respondents who meet the assessment criteria. a.
Adherence to project objectives (weighting 50%) ITEM 5.7
PAGE 158 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
b.
Relevant Experience and Technical Resources (weighting 20%)
c.
Value for money (weighting 20%)
d.
Installation lead time (weighting 10%)
Throughout the EOI process a number of interested local NFPO’s enquired and were sent the brief to consider. The EOI closed on 12 May 2016 at which time no submissions were received. However, a late submission from the Devonport Surf Lifesaving Club (DSLSC) was received on 17 May 2016. The DSLSC did intend to submit their EOI on time but were unable to secure sufficient insurance. After further discussion with Council’s Liability Insurer (LMI) it has been determined that limited insurance coverage will be made available for this salvage process, provided that Council provide supervision resources throughout the process. LMI believe that the exposures of such a project are high and therefore Council needs to weigh up the benefits by way of monetary amounts raised for the community, as against the cost of any claims that may occur during the activities. DSLSC have successfully demonstrated that they generally address all of the required selection criteria as outlined in the brief. They understand the risk management requirements, have volunteer qualified tradesmen and commit to spending any funds raised in purchasing rescue and safety equipment for the community’s benefit.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Council advertised for expressions of interest on 4 May 2016 in the Advocate newspaper.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Council will be required to provide a small number of staff to supervise the salvage process. This would be funded from within the existing salaries and wages budget. All funds received from sale of goods would go directly to the DSLSC to spend towards items of community benefit.
RISK IMPLICATIONS
Workplace Health and Safety Council has discussed at length the risks associated with the salvage process and have contacted LMI (Council’s Liability Insurer) to obtain their view on the associated risks. Council would expect DSLSC to have approximately 15 volunteers on site. All volunteers will undergo a Council volunteer induction plus a site specific induction. Prior to commencing any work on site all services will be disconnected and made safe. Council will provide a number of risk management staff to supervise the volunteers. Plus, the DSLSC will also have suitably qualified people to take on supervisory roles.
Risk Management Practices Any high risk work will only be allowed to be undertaken by suitably qualified people after all standard risk assessment processes have been completed. Also the work will be completed in accordance with the appropriate code of practice i.e. working at heights. If Council is not satisfied that the DSLSC meets the safety requirements, no high risk work will be undertaken. ITEM 5.7
PAGE 159 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
CONCLUSION The DSLSC is a diverse club who give back to the local community in many ways. The DSLSC have a mixed skilled membership base with trade qualified people. Provided Council commit supervision resources to this project, Council officers believe the DSLSC have sufficient experienced members to undertake this project. It is likely that the DSLSC will be able to salvage a significant amount of material from the building, which can be sold to generate funds for community lifesaving equipment.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Devonport Surf Club - EOI - Building Salvage Materials
RECOMMENDATION That Council grant the Devonport Surf Lifesaving Club building material salvage rights to the Council Offices located at 44-48 Best Street and the residential dwelling located at 151 Rooke Street subject to the DSLC providing satisfactory assurance that adequate safety, security and risk measures will be implemented.
Author: Position:
Jamie Goodwin Technical Support Supervisor
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 5.7
Matthew Atkins Deputy General Manager
P PAGE 160 Devonport D Su urf Club - EOI - Building Sa alvage Mate erials
ITEM 5.7
ATTTACHMENT [1 1]
PAGE 161 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
6.0
INFORMATION
6.1
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - MAY 2016 File: 29092 D408091
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.8.2
Ensure access to Council information that meets user demands, is easy to understand, whilst complying with legislative requirements
SUMMARY This report provides a summary of the activities undertaken by the General Manager, 20 April to 17 May 2016. It also provides information on matters that may be of interest to Aldermen and the community.
BACKGROUND The report is provided on a regular monthly basis and addresses a number of management and strategic issues currently being undertaken by Council. The report also provides regular updates in relation to National, Regional and State based local government matters as well as State and Federal Government programs.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Council is required to comply with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and other legislation. The General Manager is appointed by the Council in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
DISCUSSION 1.
2.
COUNCIL MANAGEMENT 1.1.
Attended and participated in a number of internal staff and management meetings.
1.2.
Attended Workshops, Section 23 Committee and Council Meetings as required.
LIVING CITY 2.1.
Attended a meeting of the LIVING CITY Community Reference Group. This Group includes representatives from Council, State Government and community members. An update on the project was provided. Minutes of the meeting are provided to Council on this current agenda.
2.2.
Met with a representative of the State Government to discuss the program for the commencement of works on site.
2.3.
Attended a Council Workshop session with representatives of P+i Group to discuss matters including finance arrangements, updated design (including GMP), funding model update, Horwath report and waterfront and Stage 2 retail designs.
2.4.
Following discussion at the Council Workshop on 2 May the contractor was authorised to commence the works required at the former Harvey Norman building. Council will temporarily relocate to this former retail site, making way for the construction of a new 530 space multi-storey car park, as part of the ITEM 6.1
PAGE 162 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
LIVING CITY Stage 1 development. It is expected that Council will move to the new premises during June with no disruption to Council services planned. The work is being undertaken by local firm Oliver Kelly, as approved by Council at its November 2015 meeting for the contract sum of $190,283.
3.
4.
2.5.
Negotiations have been undertaken with the major banks and the State Government’s lending institution, Tascorp to secure finance for Stage 1 of LIVING CITY. As a result of this process ANZ presented the most attractive terms and following a period of negotiation have now provided Council with a formal letter of offer. The agreement will involve refinancing Council’s existing debt of approximately $20M along with the necessary project funding for Stage 1 (up to $39M). A strategy is being developed to manage Council’s risk with a balance of fixed and variable components within the total facility. The total cost of finance is expected to be under the allocation included within the project funding model.
2.6.
An extensive value management process is underway with Council’s Preferred Contractor, the architects and project team. Significant inroads have been made in identifying cost savings, and the team are confident the final contract sum will be within the project funding model parameters.
2.7.
With finance arrangements and value management close to completion, Council is nearing a position where site works can commence. A ten week early work package at a value of $383,335 has been identified with the Preferred Contractor, which will allow site establishment, demolition and general site preparation to commence while final contract documentation is being prepared. It is anticipated that a start on these works will occur during June following the relocation of the Council offices.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (RESIDENTS & COMMUNITY GROUPS) 3.1.
Met with the local Inspector of Police to discuss the issue of clamped vehicles being left on public streets and metered spaces for extended periods. In recent times there have been a number of vehicles ‘clamped’ by the Police which have then become unsightly and a nuisance. In two instances the vehicles clamped were on metered spaces in the CBD area. Following lengthy discussions arrangements were agreed which allowed the removal of one of the vehicles, now stored at the Spreyton Transfer Station until it is either released by the Police or officially recognised as abandoned. Discussions continue in relation to a long term solution.
3.2.
Attended a meeting of the Meercroft Aged Care Board to discuss the proposal by Council to implement full rating requirements on independent living units.
NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND STATE BASED LOCAL GOVERNMENT 4.1.
Attended a meeting of the Cradle Coast Shared Services Working Group to further progress the proposed study as part of the Minister for Planning & Local Government’s reform agenda. Council has agreed to participate in a shared services study with all Cradle Coast councils and has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the State Government to progress the issue. As a result a public tender process will soon commence to identify the consultants to be engaged to undertake the study on behalf of the councils.
4.2.
Attended the 2016 Local Government Professionals National Congress. This year the theme of the Congress was ‘A new agenda – the changing face of local government”. A number of the sessions focussed on the never ending ITEM 6.1
PAGE 163 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
change that is faced by local government including amalgamations, budgetary constraints (including rate capping in some States), and the challenges in progressing strategic projects or initiatives. There were a number of keynote presentations and breakout sessions. The following provides a summary of some of the sessions attended: Rabia Siddique spoke on how to embrace change in uncertain environments. Rabia has a strong sense of justice and equity which led her to become a criminal and human rights lawyer. As a member of the British Armed Forces she was forced to take on a personal battle against injustice after she returned from a horrifying hostage situation in Basra. After successfully negotiating the release of two SAS soldiers from the Iraqi insurgents, the British authorities buried her achievements, while awarding her male colleague with a Military Cross. In a landmark discrimination case, Rabia fought for justice against the UK Ministry of Defence, and won. She spoke of her personal experience and encouraged people to understand that it takes courage to lead and that life experiences influence outcomes in the future. Prejudice and discrimination should not be tolerated and that there needs to be an ability to commit to social justice and fairness in our everyday lives. People can choose to confront their realities and be prepared to change their narrative but this is an individual responsibility. She encouraged people to protect and preserve both hope and optimism - when it counts be prepared to do something uncomfortable – challenge - lead by example understanding that in some cases ripples become waves. Panel Session focussed on what the main challenges in local government are now and into the future. The Panel consisted of the ALGA President, former CEO of the Melbourne City Council, CEO Reconciliation Australia and President of LG Professionals. It was noted that the recent Federal budget indicated an economic stimulus for local government including the likely removal of freeze on financial assistance grants, a slight increase on roads to recovery funding, and recognition of the value of local government’s contribution to the economy. There were suggestions for exploring ways in which local government could be involved during the election campaign including joint infrastructure MoUs with other peak bodies demonstrating the capacity for local government to work collaboratively across sectors. Diversity and social cohesion is becoming a fundamental core business activity for local government while also focussing on the changing face of towns and cities. Reconciliation action plans are a strategic approach to dealing with diversity and there was discussion on how there are opportunities to imbed them into the way that local government and communities operate. Having engagement and participative democracy is a must in today’s society and there needs to be tools to assist local government in ensuring that this is achieved. Environment and climate change was also discussed as local climate protection activities need to be driven by local government. A suggestion was made that local government need to lead the mitigation agenda and actively deal with any adverse effects it has on the environment including developing risk adaptation strategies by looking 20-30 years forward. Every community is likely to have different expectations and risk tolerances. ITEM 6.1
PAGE 164 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
Digital transformation - a driver for all current governments is the digital age as social media is an area that can give government grief. Councils need to be interactive and look to how to change data to information. Information provision is a critical and growing area for local government and using its data to assist in designing the future is imperative. Looking at opportunities for using data and information for action and driving change including accessing mobile platforms, making data more widely available, developing apps that make the role of local government easier and more accessible not only within councils but also in the community is the way of the future. Is our professionalism up to scratch? The way we approach local government is an ongoing professional challenge to deal with particularly in relation to skills, digital transformation and regional engagement. There is a need for local governments to have effective regional organisations that assist in allowing councils to partner with neighbours and undertake opportunities that provide benefits to all. A major shift in the mindset of local government was suggested where councils may partner not only at the broader State or Federal level but also with the private sector. Presently private partnerships are not done well however it is likely this will be a growth area into the future. International Session - Averil Price from Chelmsford City Council in the UK provided an outline of local government in her country. There are over 400 councils in the UK with varying structures providing over 700 services (both mandatory and discretionary). There has been over a 37 per cent reduction in grants to local government from national government over the last 5 years. During this period the local government workforce has reduced by over 16 per cent with the majority of wages frozen over the same period. The financial future looks bleak but at the same time there appears to be a growing confidence in local government and its ability to take control of its own destiny. Change is the only game in town including wholesale tearing down of professional and organisational silos which aim for financial self sustainably by unlocking and stimulating economic growth. Dan Gregory is the founder and CEO of “The Impossible Institute” a research and training organisation that advises management on what truly drives their customers and employees. His presentation focussed on change management, innovation and ways to inspire the next generation of leaders in local government. We are living in an age of unprecedented change but unfortunately human beings are hard wired to resist change, if for no other reason than change is unknown. Change is happening whether we like it or not and it is more productive to lead and be involved in change than to resist it. The digital revolution is transforming the world we live in however we now have information overload and in some respects are suffering from change fatigue. “People don't lack for information but we lack for clarity – if we create clarity we create certainty”. He talked about business modification and how to create a culture of the willing. Human nature is to fight against change and a natural reflex is for survival type decisions. Keith Suter - is a consultant on strategic planning and a futurist. His presentation focussed on strategic thinking and leadership for the future of local government and, why this is necessary in times of change. Most people only see what they are prepared to see - facts don't necessarily win arguments. Unfortunately we don't live in a fact based world and logic alone does not necessarily win arguments. Most predictions are a waste of time but the planning process is a ITEM 6.1
PAGE 165 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
valuable tool. Moore's Law predicted the power of computers would double every 18 months more than 51 years ago – a prediction that has survived the test of time. Digital disruptions are common place and although we may think we have a clear view of the future this can result in us ignoring issues including being saddled with legacy assets. The internet is revolutionary but it is not utopia. Beware that the Internet was not designed for half the uses we now have and in itself is potentially being blindsided by change. He questioned, what are the health implications of being connected all of the time and is the rise of the “click and flick” generation sustainable? How will robots be incorporated into everyday life in the future and what are the potential job losses as a result of the digital economy. Australia is moving from “mining to wining and dining” with tourism the emerging major economic industry. All of our knowledge is about the past but all of our decisions are about the future. Dr Peter Ellyard is Australia’s most prominent futurist. He spoke on the need for inspirational ideas to shape the future. He reviewed the past and looked to the future. From Cowboy Culture / Modernism (1960) Priority to Nation Individualism Independence Autocracy Humanity against nature Development, production. Consumption, lifestyles Unsustainable Patriarchy Intercultural & inter-religious Intolerance/Hostility Conflict Resolution through Confrontation/Combat Safekeeping through Defence
To the Spaceship Culture / Planetism (2030) Priority to Planet Communitarianism Interdependence Democracy Humanity part of nature Development, production, consumption, lifestyles Sustainable Gender Equality Intercultural & inter-religious Tolerance/Harmony Conflict Resolution through Cooperation/Negotiation Safekeeping through Security
He suggested that we shape the future through six processes: 1.
Leadership – being a purposeful future-maker
2.
Management – being a resilient future-taker
3.
Planning – choosing ends and means to shape futures
4.
Design – creating new forms and functions
5.
Innovation – imagining and building new means to do old things better and new things first – creating ways and wares
6.
Learning – increasing knowledge and capabilities and changing mindsets and beliefs to become more future effective.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The information included above details any issues relating to community engagement.
ITEM 6.1
PAGE 166 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Any financial or budgetary implications related to matters discussed in this report will be separately reported to Council. There is not expected to be any impact on the Councils’ operating budget as a result of this recommendation.
RISK IMPLICATIONS Any specific risk implications will be outlined in the commentary above. Any specific issue that may result is any form of risk to Council is likely to be subject of a separate report to Council.
CONCLUSION This report is provided for information purposes only and to allow Council to be updated on matters of interest.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Action Report on Council Resolutions - May 2016
2.
CONFIDENTIAL - Action Report on Council Resolutions - May 2016
RECOMMENDATION That the report of the General Manager be received and noted.
Author: Position:
Paul West General Manager
ITEM 6.1
Confidential
PAGE 167 Action Report on Council Resolutions - May 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT ON COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - MAY 2016 OPEN SESSION MEETING DATE April 2016
RESOLUTION NO 62/16
63/16
64/16
65/16
RESOLUTION/ITEM
STATUS
COMMENTS
Questions on Notice from the Public Renaming Roundhouse Park - NOM - Ald Goodwin Future Provision of Parking - Larger Vehicles - NOM Ald Jarman AM2016.01 - 1 Friend Street, Stony Rise
Authorised release of proposed response to Mr Ray Chaplin (Brand Focus).
Completed
Letter forwarded.
GM
Workshop be facilitated.
Completed
Workshop held 2 May 2016 and agreed to take no further action at this point in time.
GM
Staff to report on future provision of parking for larger vehicles, including caravans and motorhomes in close proximity to Devonport and East Devonport business districts. Refused to initiate amendment to local provisions of Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 as there is no strategic justification, Conditionally approved application for use and development of land at 31 Dana Drive, Devonport for residential (multiple dwellings x 5). Awarded Contract 1309 to AJR Construct for the tendered sum of $92,274.46 ex GST.
In progress
66/16
PA2016.0049 - 31 Dana Drive Devonport
67/16
Contract 1309 Fourways Car Park Toilet Upgrade By-Law to Amend Devonport City Council Parking By-Law No 1 of 2013 Lease from Crown Land Services Land at Formby Road, Devonport
68/16
71/16
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
TOPIC
DGM
Completed
Applicant advised of decision.
DGM
Completed
Development Permit issued.
DGM
Completed
Contract awarded.
DGM
Authorised affixing of Common Seal.
Completed
Common seal affixed and By-law advertised in the Government Gazette on 11 May 2016.
GM
Authorised execution of Crown Land Services lease for land at Formby Road, Devonport with the requirement of a budget allocation of $30,000 for undertaking safety requirements.
Completed
Executed document returned to Crown. Budget allocation included.
GM
ITEM 6.1
PAGE 168 Action Report on Council Resolutions - May 2016
MEETING DATE April 2016
RESOLUTION NO 72/16
77/16
ATTACHMENT [1]
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
TOPIC
RESOLUTION/ITEM
STATUS
COMMENTS
LIVING CITY Advance Devonport Interest Group - LIVING CITY Message to Aldermen Infrastructure Works & Development Committee Meeting - 11 April 2016
Response to ADIG be provided in accordance with resolution and endorse the placement of paid advertisement in a local newspaper specifically responding to each of the matters raised within the signed ‘forms’.
Completed
Letter sent 27 April 2016.
IWC 6/16
Completed
Contract awarded
Completed
Contract awarded
Completed
Items added Program
Completed
Arrangements being made for placement of new document on website.
Contract 1310 - Mersey Road Footpath Renewal Awarded contract to Civilscape Contracting Tasmania for tendered sum of $113,595 IWC 7/16 Contract 1308 - Pioneer Park Toilet Facility Awarded contract to AJR Construct for tendered sum of $96,809.20 IWC 8/16 Traffic Management Proposals Consider as part of budget deliberations: 1. installation of traffic signals intersection Fenton and Steele Streets; 2. renewal intersection Wright Street & Norton Way 3. installation road humps on William Street 4. installation right turn lane and phasing change - traffic signals - intersection Tarleton and Wright Streets 5. pedestrian and signage improvements William Street, between Bluff Road and North Street. IWC 10/16 Road Network Strategy Update Adoption of Local Government Road Hierarchy Road Network Strategy 2016 be adopted with immediate effect.
ITEM 6.1
GM
Advertisement in the Advocate on 30 April 2016.
to
DGM
Forward
Works
PAGE 169 Action Report on Council Resolutions - May 2016
MEETING DATE April 2016
RESOLUTION NO 78/16
ATTACHMENT [1]
TOPIC
RESOLUTION/ITEM
STATUS
COMMENTS
Community Services Committee Meeting - 18 April 2016
CSC 22/16 Circus Bookings 1. approve existing booking requests for both Loritz and Great Moscow Circus; and 2. introduce six monthly exclusivity period for circus bookings commencing March 2017. CSC 26/16 Reallocation of Capital Expenditure - Sister Cities 20 Year Anniversary Commemorative Seat CP0120 be modified to allow purchase and planting of 20 high (mature) cherry blossoms along Formby Road, commemorating 20 years of friendship between Minamata and Devonport.
Completed
Letter sent to Loritz and Great Moscow Circus.
In progress
Currently with City Infrastructure to deliver the project.
ITEM 6.1
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER EM (CC&B)
EM (CC&B)
PAGE 170 Action Report on Council Resolutions - May 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
 Previous Council Resolutions - still being actioned MEETING DATE March 2016
February 2016
RESOLUTION NO
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
TOPIC
RESOLUTION/ITEM
STATUS
COMMENTS
47/16
Tiagarra - Lease to Six Rivers Aboriginal Corporation
In progress
Draft lease with SRAC for feedback.
GM
54/16
Governance and Finance Committee Meeting - 15 March 2016
a) Receive and note submission provided during 21 day consultation period. b) Authorise the finalisation of 20 year lease (incl sub-lease) to SRAC general in line with normal lease terms and conditions. c) Authorise General Manager to finalise the transfer of built assets to SRAC once lease agreement is finalised. GFC 01/16 Public Wi-Fi Expansion Agreed to proceed with provision of free Wi-Fi services to include the Fourways, East Devonport Shopping Precinct, expanded CBD area and Mersey Bluff within existing budget allocation. GFC 08/16 Independent Living Units Rating Arrangements 1. Council consult with aged care providers regarding its intentions. 2. Following feedback a further report be provided to Council for consideration prior to finalisation of 2016/17 budget. CSC 20/16 Overturn previous decision and provide capital funding for East Devonport Bike Safety Park - transferring previous 2015/16 capital works allocation of $80,000 for the Mall Playground Equipment to this project.
In progress
Equipment on order, aiming for installation prior to 30 June 2016.
GM
Completed
Report on current agenda.
Completed
Allocation included in draft budget contingent on balance funding being identified.
30/16
Community Services Committee Meeting - 15 February 2016
ITEM 6.1
EM (CC&B)
PAGE 171 Action Report on Council Resolutions - May 2016
MEETING DATE
RESOLUTION NO
ATTACHMENT [1]
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
TOPIC
RESOLUTION/ITEM
STATUS
COMMENTS
255/15
State Government Contribution LIVING CITY Stage 1
In progress
Discussions continuing.
227/15
Minutes - AGM 28 October 2015
Completed
Report on Governance & Finance Committee agenda - 16 May 2016.
EM (CC&B)
November 2015
233/15
Harbourmaster’s Cafe
Authorise General Manager to finalise negotiations with the State Government generally in accordance with its offer received on 7 December 2015 and sign the grant deed and lease agreement once negotiations are complete. In relation to the motion passed at the AGM that Council advertise to seek expressions of interest from those ratepayers who have paid rates for 50 years plus to ascertain whether there is sufficient interest in such an event being organised. Authorise a twelve month licence agreement for the extended operation of the Harbourmaster’s Café in the area directly north of the Café.
In progress
DGM
October 2015
220/15
Community Services Committee Meeting - 19 October 2015
12 month licence to use land with appropriate conditions prepared and provided to applicant to consider. With finalisation of Lease from Crown the applicant will be followed up to determine if he still wishes to proceed. Sign to be considered as part of Signage Strategy.
July 2015
145/15
East Devonport Public Art Project Proposal
December 2015
CSC 30/15
Consideration in 2016-2017 budget of installation of: signs to deter unauthorized driving in Pioneer Park and consider implementing infringement process. Seek expressions of interest for the project in line with project brief - further report to be provided to Council once expressions of interest have been received and evaluated.
ITEM 6.1
Completed
In progress
Modified EOI released 26 April 2016, closes 26 May 2016.
DGM
EM (CS)
EM (C&B)
PAGE 172 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
6.2
WORKSHOPS AND BRIEFING SESSIONS HELD SINCE THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
Council is required by Regulation 8(2)(c) of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 to include in the Agenda the date and purpose of any Council Workshop held since the last meeting. Date
Description
Purpose
2/5/2016
Shared Pathway
A presentation by Andrew Leary relating to the proposal for a Coastal shared pathway.
Electric Group
Highway
Working Clive Attwater from the Electric Highway Working Group provided a presentation on the future provision of charging points for electric vehicles.
Cat Management Contract Single Statewide Scheme
Discussion on the Trap-Neuter-Release program at the Bluff.
Planning Briefing on current status of the State planning framework review process.
Renaming - Roundhouse Park
This matter was referred to Workshop by Council. Following discussion it was determined not to proceed any further in relation to the matter.
Community Survey Results
A briefing provided to Aldermen on the results of the community survey undertaken in late 2015.
LIVING CITY
Discussion around the programming of critical steps required prior to the proposed commencement of works including the time of the move to the former Harvey Norman building and the salvaging of material from the existing Council offices.
9/5/2016
Budget deliberations
Discussion on the development of the 2016/17 budget including operational, capital works, fees and charges and rating options.
16/5/2016
LIVING CITY
An update on matters relating to LIVING CITY including finance arrangements, updated design (including GMP), funding model update, Horwath report and waterfront and stage 2 retail designs.
ITEM 6.2
PAGE 173 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
RECOMMENDATION
That the report advising of Workshop/Briefing Sessions held since the last Council meeting be received and the information noted.
Author: Position:
Robyn Woolsey Administration Officer
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 6.2
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 174 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
6.3
MAYOR'S MONTHLY REPORT File: 22947 D418076
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.3.2
Provide appropriate support to elected members to enable them to discharge their functions
SUMMARY This report details meetings and functions attended by the Mayor.
BACKGROUND This report is provided by the Mayor to provide a list of meetings and functions attended by him for the month of April 2016.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS There are no statutory requirements which relate to this report.
DISCUSSION In his capacity as Mayor, Alderman Steve Martin attended the following meetings and functions during the month of April 2016:
Advocate Newspaper – interview Pirate Day Leave of Absence – personal time, one week Leave of Absence – Sister City Minamata, 20 years celebration, one week o Courtesy visit, Mayor Nishida and Council o Official Welcome Dinner and exchange of gifts o Minamata Disease Municipal Museum o Hotto Hausu – facility for Minamata Disease patients o Organic Farm visit – onions & citrus o Kumamoto Castle o Sakura Day Care o Saishoin Tea Ceremony o Minamata Council representative Settu Takasuke o Minamata School – assembly & English class Deputy Mayor Ald Rockliff – fortnightly catch up 2016 Charity Gala meeting Council Workshop Community Services Committee Budget Workshop Radio 7AD interviews Community Development Strategic Special Committee Young Professionals – Devonport Chamber of Commerce & Industry Maidstone Park Management Controlling Authority Walk the Plank – Julie Burgess Mayor’s Charity Trust Committee Resident meetings ABC Radio – evening interview, LIVING CITY ABC Radio – morning interview, LIVING CITY Pirate Day ITEM 6.3
PAGE 175 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
Local Government Association of Tasmania quarterly meeting Mayor’s Cup – East Devonport vs Devonport, Girdlestone Park Anzac Day – Dawn & Morning Services 2017 Masters Games – internal meeting Trade Challenge, Matthew Jago & Brett Williams Council Ordinary Meeting Regional Governance Review – Cradle Coast Authority NW School Futsal Championships LIVING CITY Reference Group 2016 Charity Gala – sponsors Senate Select Committee Public Hearing on Health Metro Tasmania Devonport Tennis Club, opening of refurbished courts 4,5 & 6 2016 Charity Gala - promotion
ATTACHMENTS Nil
RECOMMENDATION That the Mayor’s monthly report be received and noted.
ITEM 6.3
PAGE 176 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
7.0
SECTION 23 COMMITTEES
7.1
PLANNING AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEETING - 2 MAY 2016 File: 29133 D418119
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.3.2
Provide appropriate support to elected members to enable them to discharge their functions
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to receive the minutes and note the decisions by the Planning Authority Committee at its meeting held on Monday, 2 May 2016.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Minutes - Planning Authority Committee - 2 May 2016
RECOMMENDATION
That the minutes of the Planning Authority Committee meeting held on Monday, 2 May 2016 be received and the recommendations contained therein be noted. PAC 04/16
Author: Position:
PA2016.0043 Two lot subdivision (one additional lot) - 214 & 228 Melrose Road Aberdeen (approved under delegated authority)
Robyn Woolsey Administration Officer
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 7.1
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 177 Minutes - Planning Authority Committee - 2 May 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
MINUTES OF A PLANNING AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON MONDAY, 2 MAY 2016 COMMENCING AT 11:00AM PRESENT:
Ald S L Martin (Mayor) in the Chair Ald G F Goodwin Ald J F Matthews Ald L M Perry
Council Officers: Cadet Planner, A Mountney Planning Administration Officer, J Broomhall Audio Recording: All persons in attendance were advised that it is Council policy to record Council meetings, in accordance with Council’s Audio Recording Policy. The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s website for a minimum period of six months. 1.0
APOLOGIES The following apology was received for the meeting. Ald Emmerton
2.0
Apology
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no Declarations of Interest.
3.0 DELEGATED APPROVALS Nil
4.0 DEVELOPMENT REPORTS 4.1
PA2016.0043 TWO LOT SUBDIVISION (ONE ADDITIONAL LOT) - 214 & 228 MELROSE ROAD ABERDEEN (D417388) PAC 04/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Perry Ald Matthews
That Council, pursuant to the provisions of the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013 and Section 57 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, approve application PA2016.0043 and grant a Permit to use and develop land identified as 214 & 228 Melrose Road, Aberdeen for the following purposes:
Two lot subdivision (one additional lot)
Subject to the following conditions: 1.
The Use and Development is to proceed generally in accordance with the following submitted plans and documentation, copies of which are attached and endorsed as documents forming part of this Planning Permit: ITEM 7.1
PAGE 178 Minutes - Planning Authority Committee - 2 May 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
a)
Proposed Subdivision - Drawing no. 215185, dated 8/4/16 by Michell Hodgetts & Associates.
b)
Bushfire Report & Bushfire Hazard Management Plan, dated 9/2/2016 by EnviroPlan.
2.
The developer is to comply with the conditions contained in the Submission to Planning Authority Notice which TasWater has required to be included in the planning permit, pursuant to section 56P(1) of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008.
3.
The subdivider is not to include any covenants within the Schedule of Easements that by their intended purpose are inconsistent with the relevant zone and code standards of the Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013.
Ald Martin Ald Goodwin
For
Against Ald Matthew Ald Perry
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5.0
CLOSURE
With no further business on the agenda the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 11:03am. Confirmed
Chairman
ITEM 7.1
PAGE 179 Report to Council meeting on 23 May 2016
7.2
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING - 16 MAY 2016 File: 29468 D420098
RELEVANCE TO COUNCIL’S PLANS & POLICIES Council’s Strategic Plan 2009-2030: Strategy 5.3.2
Provide appropriate support to elected members to enable them to discharge their functions
SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to receive the minutes and endorse the recommendations provided to Council by the Governance and Finance Committee meeting held on Monday, 16 May 2016.
ATTACHMENTS 1.
Minutes - Governance and Finance Committee - 16 May 2016
RECOMMENDATION
That the minutes of the Governance and Finance Committee meeting held on Monday, 16 May 2016 be received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted. GFC 13/16
Parking along Victoria Parade
GFC 14/16
Elected Members' Expenditure Report - March to April 2016
GFC 15/16
Local Government Model Code of Conduct
GFC 16/16
Customer Service Charter
GFC 17/16
Annual Luncheon for 50+ Year Ratepayers
GFC 18/16
Targeted Review of the Local Government Act - Consultation Paper
GFC 19/16
Finance Report for April 2016
GFC 20/16
Governance & Finance Report
Author: Position:
Robyn Woolsey Administration Officer
Endorsed By: Position:
ITEM 7.2
Paul West General Manager
PAGE 180 Minutes - Governance and Finance Committee - 16 May 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
MINUTES OF A GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE DEVONPORT CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON MONDAY, 16 MAY 2016 COMMENCING AT 6:00PM PRESENT:
Ald J T Keay (Chairman) Ald C D Emmerton Ald G F Goodwin Ald S L Martin Ald L M Perry Ald A L Rockliff
Aldermen in Attendance: Ald L M Laycock Ald J F Matthews Council Officers: General Manager, P West Executive Manager Corporate & Business, S Crawford Executive Manager Organisational Performance, K Peebles Audio Recording: All persons in attendance were advised that it is Council policy to record Council meetings, in accordance with Council’s Audio Recording Policy. The audio recording of this meeting will be made available to the public on Council’s website for a minimum period of six months. 1.0
APOLOGIES There were no apologies received.
2.0
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The following Declaration of Interest was advised: Ald Perry
3.0
4.1
Parking Along Victoria Parade
PROCEDURAL 3.1 3.1.1
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME QUESTIONS ON NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC
Nil 3.1.2
QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE FROM THE PUBLIC
BOB VELLACOTT - 11 COCKER PLACE, DEVONPORT Q1
I have been informed by the Deputy General Manager that the work underway in the former Harvey Norman building is part of the contract to provide temporary accommodation for Council. Does in fact this mean Councl has now made an official start towards the construction of Stage 1 of the LIVING CITY?
ITEM 7.2
PAGE 181 Minutes - Governance and Finance Committee - 16 May 2016
ATTACHMENT [1]
Response - General Manager The Council approved a contract in November 2015 for the works at the Harvey Norman building and that is the works currently underway and if you wish to interpret that as starting the project, then that is what it is. Q2
I recall what Ald Grant Goodwin said at a recent Council meeting when he expressed his concerns about starting work before finalising the funding. Therefore am I correct in assuming Council has all the necessary guaranteed funds ie cash and the loan?
Response - General Manager Yes, Council is confident that it has the financing available and is in the process of finalising that at the present time. Q3
If Yes. When will all ratepayers be informed that Council now has all the funds to start Stage 1?
Response - General Manager Council approved the borrowings in March 2015 when it considered the funding arrangements which clearly outlined the requirements for the borrowings, therefore this has already been publicly released. In relation to the actual detail of the loans, they will go through the normal processes and approval by Council, at which time Council will make the information publicly available. Q4
Has or does Council intend to lease/rent out any section or part of the ground floor level of the building other than that occupied by Shadforths?
Response - General Manager The actual space that was the Harvey Norman store is going to be occupied wholly by Council. The area to the North, Council is currently having that assessed in relation to the possibility of it being leased out to another party. Q5
Were Aldermen able to view the National Stronger Regions Fund Commonwealth Funding Application submitted by Council and was this distributed to Aldermen and were they able to read that submission?
Response - General Manager Applying for the grant funding was approved by Council and the documentation that was submitted as part of that application is available, and has been available for the Aldermen to view. MR PETER STEGMANN - 118 RIVER ROAD, EAST DEVONPORT Q1
How many people or organisations were approached to invest in the LIVING CITY project in accordance with the planned $200M coming from such sources?
Response - General Manager Council is still working through in relation to a number of discussions with various parties about investing in Stages 2 and 3 of LIVING CITY - therefore this is an ongoing process. A number of people have been talked to in relation to future stages and we will continue to do so. Council’s focus at the present time is Stage 1. Q2
How many of the above actually expressed a genuine interest in investing in the project?
Response - General Manager The question was taken on notice and a response will be provided in writing. ITEM 7.2
PAGE 182 Minutes - Governance and Finance Committee - 16 May 2016
Q3
ATTACHMENT [1]
In what order are the three major buildings for Stage 1 to be constructed?
Response - General Manager TThat is yet to be defined. There will be a project plan that will be developed in consultation with the builders that will actually identify the various parts of the contract that will occur, so it is actually too early to answer that question. MALCOLM GARDAM - 4 BEAUMONT DRIVE, MIANDETTA Q1
Can Council confirm that the contract as let and tendered is going to be carried out in full scope, or is Council still considering taking out some sections of the scope?
Response - General Manager Council has at this stage identified the preferred builder and is currently working through a value management process with that builder, along with its architects. As far as the scope of the works are concerned it is for the same buildings and the same sized buildings. In a lot of cases some of the savings that have been identified are through items such as fit out and how it might be finished. The general scope is the same. Q2
Who, in the development of the new multi purpose building is paying for the fit out for tenants?
Response - General Manager In relation to the portion that will be occupied by the State Government, being LINC and Service Tasmania there is a requirement for them to pay for the fit out for their portion. The section to be occupied by the Council will be Council’s responsibility and the space that is available as a Café space will be the responsibility of the Café operator. 3.2
QUESTIONS FROM ALDERMEN
Nil
3.3 NOTICES OF MOTION Nil
4.0 GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE REPORTS Ald Perry left the meeting at 6:11pm. 4.1
PARKING ALONG VICTORIA PARADE (D415648) GFC 13/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Martin
That it be recommended to Council that the report of the Customer Service Coordinator regarding parking spaces in Victoria Parade be received and noted and that Council implement two hour metered parking on these spaces.
ITEM 7.2
PAGE 183 Minutes - Governance and Finance Committee - 16 May 2016
For
Ald Keay Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
ATTACHMENT [1]
Against
For
Ald Martin Ald Rockliff
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Ald Perry returned to the meeting at 6:13pm. 4.2
ELECTED MEMBERS' EXPENDITURE REPORT - MARCH TO APRIL 2016 (D416310) GFC 14/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Emmerton
That it be recommended to Council that the report advising of Aldermen expenses be received and noted. For
Ald Keay Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
Against
For
Ald Martin Ald Perry Ald Rockliff
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.3
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT (D417135) GFC 15/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Martin Ald Rockliff
That it be recommended to Council that the report of the General Manager relating to the Model Code of Conduct be received and noted and that Council: (a)
adopt the Code of Conduct as attached with immediate effect; and
(b)
write to Mr Ron Dell advising him of the changes to the Act and thanking him for undertaking the role of Independent Chair of the Devonport City Council Code of Conduct Panel. For
Ald Keay Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
Against
For
Ald Martin Ald Perry Ald Rockliff
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.4
CUSTOMER SERVICE CHARTER (D417932) GFC 16/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Martin Ald Emmerton
That Council adopt the revised Customer Service Charter.
ITEM 7.2
PAGE 184 Minutes - Governance and Finance Committee - 16 May 2016
For
Ald Keay Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
ATTACHMENT [1]
Against
For
Ald Martin Ald Perry Ald Rockliff
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.5
ANNUAL LUNCHEON FOR 50+ YEAR RATEPAYERS (D418206) GFC 17/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Rockliff
That it be recommended to Council that the report of the Media and Communication Officer regarding a ratepayer luncheon be received and noted and that Council: 1.
Agree to host a luncheon for eligible Devonport ratepayers as part of Council’s Seniors Week 2016 program.
2.
Allocate $3,500 in the 2016/2017 budget towards the event and its promotion. For
Ald Keay Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
Against Ald Martin Ald Perry Ald Rockliff
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.6
TARGETED REVIEW OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT - CONSULTATION PAPER (D419004) GFC 18/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Rockliff Ald Perry
That it be recommended to Council that the report of the General Manager relating to the targeted review of the Local Government Act 1993 be received and noted and that Council provide a response in line with the contents of this report and a discussion at the next available Workshop. For
Ald Keay Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
Against Ald Martin Ald Perry Ald Rockliff
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.7
FINANCE REPORT FOR APRIL 2016 (D419069) GFC 19/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Goodwin Ald Emmerton
That it be recommended to Council that the Finance Report for April 2016 be received and noted. ITEM 7.2
PAGE 185 Minutes - Governance and Finance Committee - 16 May 2016
For
Ald Keay Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
ATTACHMENT [1]
Against Ald Martin Ald Perry Ald Rockliff
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4.8
GOVERNANCE & FINANCE REPORT (D416682) GFC 20/16 RESOLUTION MOVED: SECONDED:
Ald Rockliff Ald Martin
That it be recommended to Council that the Governance and Finance report be received and noted. Ald Keay Ald Emmerton Ald Goodwin
For
Against Ald Martin Ald Perry Ald Rockliff
For
Against
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5.0
CLOSURE
There being no further business on the agenda the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 6:24pm. Confirmed
Chairman
ITEM 7.2
PAGE 186 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
8.0
CLOSED SESSION
RECOMMENDATION That in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015, the following be dealt with in Closed Session.
Item No
Matter
Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 Reference
8.1
Application for Leave of Absence
15(2)(h)
8.2
Unconfirmed Minutes - Cradle Coast 15(2)(g) Authority Board Meeting held 12 April 2016 and Dulverton Regional Waste Management Authority Board Meeting held 27 April 2016
8.3
Cat Management Contract
15(2)(d),(g),(i)
PAGE 187 Council meeting Agenda 23 May 2016
OUT OF CLOSED SESSION RECOMMENDATION That Council: (a)
having met and dealt with its business formally move out of Closed Session; and
(b)
resolves to report that it has determined the following:
Item No
Matter
8.1
Application for Leave of Absence
8.2
Unconfirmed Minutes - Cradle Coast Authority Board Meeting held 12 April 2016 and Dulverton Regional Waste Management Authority Board Meeting held 27 April 2016
8.3
Cat Management Contract
9.0
Outcome
CLOSURE
There being no further business the Mayor declared the meeting closed at <insert time> pm.