Agenda of Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 7

12/10/2016

REPORT TITLE: City of Hobart Mobile Food Vendor Program Trial

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Director Community Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report provides the Council with the findings of the final evaluation of the 12 month Mobile Food Vendor Program trial.

1.2. The report also presents recommendations on the program’s future.

1.3. Review of City of Hobart programs provide the Council with information that will help to maximise the economic and social benefit that these programs bring to the community.

2. Report Summary

2.1. A 12 month Mobile Food Vendor Program trial was implemented by the City of Hobart from 31 July 2015 to 31 July 2016.

2.2. A 12 month review of the implementation of the trial has been undertaken by City of Hobart staff.

2.3. Consultation with key stakeholders including Tasmania Police, Tasmanian Hospitality Association, The Waterfront Business Community, The Salvation Army and the Hobart Chamber of Commerce was undertaken in July 2016.

2.4. Independent market research on the trial was undertaken on the Council’s behalf during July 2016. This provided input from vendors participating in the trial, food and beverage business owners located near the trading zones, mobile food customers and the broader community.

2.5. A cross divisional review of the program involving City of Hobart staff from five divisions was also undertaken in August 2016.

2.6. The findings of this stakeholder, business, community and staff consultation are included in this report and have resulted in recommendations to the Council on the implementation of the Hobart Food Trucks mobile food vendor program.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council implement an ongoing Hobart Food Trucks mobile food vendor program subject to an annual report to the Council on the program’s operation.

2. The Council endorse the attached Hobart Food Trucks Program Guidelines and Permit Requirements.

3. The General Manager be delegated to authorise the Hobart Food Trucks permits under Section 56 of the Traffic and Byways Act 1999 as well as the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas By-law, No. 5 of 2008.

4. The General Manager be delegated to authorise administrative changes to the Hobart Food Trucks guidelines and permit as required throughout the implementation of the program.

5. The permit fee for mobile food vendors to participate in the Hobart Food Trucks program be set at the following rates and that these rates be adjusted annually to allow for CPI.

Permit	Duration	Cost
Road Registered Vehicles - for trade on the road only
Full Year	1 November - 31 October	$2,500
Peak (6 months)	1 November - 30 April	$2,000
Off Peak (6 months)	1 May - 31 October	$1,000
Non Motorised, Non Road Registered Vehicles - for trade on footpaths or in parks and reserves only
Full Year	1 November - 31 October	$1,250
Peak (6 months)	1 November - 30 April	$1,000
Off Peak (6 months)	1 May - 31 October	$500

4. Background

4.1. After an extensive consultation process with City of Hobart staff, businesses, community, mobile food vendors and stakeholders, the Council approved a 12 month trial of the mobile food vendor program at its meeting held on 15 December 2014.

4.2. All of the approved mobile food vendor zones within the program required development applications due to the limitations of the planning scheme at the time that the program was developed in 2014-2015.

4.3. Due to a number of developmental processes and alterations to the original trading zones, the trial did not begin until 31 July 2015.

4.4. A six month review of the program was undertaken in January 2016 and a subsequent report to the Council on 9 February 2016, provided an update and highlighted issues that had arisen within the first six months of the trial’s implementation.

4.4.1. The February report also recommended inclusion of a late night mobile food vendor zone on Salamanca Lawns, which was approved by the Council.

4.5. Of the 12 mobile food vehicles that began the trial in July 2015, eight were still participating by the end of the trial in July 2016.

4.5.1. One of the participating vendors had two vehicles trading in the program and decided to move one out of the program.

4.5.2. The other three vendors that ceased trading indicated that the mobile food vendor trading zones did not provide sufficient customers to make it viable for them to continue to participate.

4.5.2.1. One of these vendors only traded twice within the program over the 12 months of the trial.

Community and Business Feedback

4.6. EMRS were commissioned to undertake independent market research of the mobile food vendor trial on behalf of the Council during July 2016.

4.7. EMRS’ market research report is a detailed analysis of the program that includes feedback from 19 fixed businesses located within 250 metres of identified mobile food businesses, 215 mobile food customers, nine mobile food vendors participating in the program and 225 members of the broader community.

4.8. The research focussed on a number of areas including the level of awareness of the program, perceptions of the program, perceived impacts of the program and the city’s management of the program.

4.9. The full report is provided at Attachment A to this report. Key findings of the report include:

Awareness of the mobile food vendor program

· 78% the broader community were aware of the program.

· 74% of fixed businesses were aware of the program.

· 46% of customers were aware of the program.

Perceptions of the mobile food vendor program

· 94% of the broader community supported the program.

· 98% of the mobile food van customers supported the program.

· 74% of the fixed business respondents supported the program.

Trading location and distance from existing fixed food businesses

· 95% of customers thought van locations were good places to trade.

· 89% of vendors felt that the current mobile food trading distance of at least 50 metres from existing fixed businesses was appropriate.

· 58% of fixed business thought that the current distance for the vans to trade at least 50 metres away was appropriate.

4.10. While the main concern raised by existing fixed food and beverage businesses was the distance that mobile food vehicles traded from their establishment, there was still considerable support for the program as a whole from this group, as the following data indicates.

Agreement by fixed businesses to the following statements

· “The program provides fresh opportunities for new business start-ups.” 89%

· “The program brings activity to local streets and spaces that would otherwise be inactive.” 84%

· “The program attracts people to local areas and increase social interaction.” 79%

· “The program has benefits for the economy by increasing trade in local areas.” 68%

· “The program helps to promote Tasmania’s local produce and food suppliers.” 58%

· “The presence of the program’s food vans helps to make streets and spaces feel safer.” 58%

4.11. Whilst 63% of surveyed fixed businesses agreed that “fixed food outlets in the area lose business to the program’s mobile food vans trading nearby”, 26% of respondents disagreed.

4.11.1. It should also be noted that while the majority of fixed business respondents agreed that their business could be affected by mobile food trade, their estimation of the amount of customers they lost to the mobile food vans trading nearby was for the most part quite low.

4.11.2. When asked how they would rate ‘the amount of customers that you might have lost to the mobile food van(s) trading near your business’ on a rating of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘Very Few Customers’ and 5 being ‘A Lot of Customers’, 46% of respondents scored 1 out of 5 and 15% scored 2 out of 5.

Positive Impacts of the program

4.12. Among the broader community, an “active community / life in the streets” was mentioned most frequently as a positive impact that mobile food vans would have for the local community.

4.13. Among the fixed business respondents, the potential positive impacts revolved around “bringing people to the area” and “the introduction of different food options”.

Negative Impacts of the program

4.14. 95% of the broader community stated that they had not experienced negative impacts from mobile food vans trading close to their home.

4.15. Just one respondent mentioned “traffic problems” because of where the van was parked and “noisy petrol generators”.

4.16. Among the fixed businesses interviewed, only one respondent confirmed having experienced negative impacts, namely “similar foods and we are not on a level playing field”.

Experience of mobile food vendors participating in the program

4.17. Of interest is the feedback from participating mobile food vendors. All vendors were invited to participate in the survey undertaken by EMRS, including those that exited the program early, with only one vendor not participating in the research.

4.18. While there is a view that mobile food vendors ‘take all the cream’ from local fixed businesses, it appears that this may not be the case, as the following data reveals.

4.18.1. 142 customers was the average number served on the most successful days.

4.18.2. Average total income on the most successful days was $1,110.

4.19. Of the 22 sites available to vendors to trade only a handful provided enough customers to warrant trading, these being:

· Sandy Bay Road (between Waimea and Derwentwater Avenues);

· Bathurst Street (near the corner of Campbell Street); and

· Collins Street (between Molle and Barrack Streets).

4.20. As well as limited success in specific sites, trade was successful on very few days and at particular times.

4.20.1. 67% of participants stated that “Fridays” was the most successful day of trading in the program.

4.20.2. 12.00 pm to 2.00pm were most frequently mentioned as being the most successful trading hours, followed by the hours from around 5.00pm to 8.00pm.

4.21. As previously stated within this report, of the 11 vehicles that began the program in July 2015, four had pulled out of the program due to a lack of income prior to the trial’s end in July 2016.

4.22. The trucks are often trading together in sites that allow it. While this may seem contrary to good business practice, the presence of more than one truck attracts more people and adds value to each individual truck’s promotion of their trade.

4.22.1. This grouping of trucks has been most successful on Sandy Bay Road and Bathurst Street.

4.22.2. Scot’s Uniting Church, which is located next to the mobile food vendor zone in Bathurst Street, has contacted the Council with positive feedback about customers using the forecourt of the Church to have their lunch.

4.22.3. The Church is considering the introduction of live music during the summer months to augment the presence of the food trucks that operate in this spot.

Vendor satisfaction with the program

4.23. Participating vendors were asked to rate their overall level of satisfaction with the program. Participants were relatively evenly divided, however there was a higher level of dissatisfaction, with total satisfaction being 44% and total dissatisfaction being 56%.

4.24. When asked what key things would help to enhance their experience of the mobile food vendor program, vendors offered a range of suggestions, including different trading locations and trading hours, better publicity and marketing, lower costs and better parking.

4.24.1. The recommendations in this report respond to two of these areas, i.e. different trading locations and trading hours and better publicity and marketing.

4.24.2. The third recommendation regarding lower fees is somewhat addressed by a proposed three month permit. It is not possible however for the City to provide free parking for participating mobile food vendors.

4.25. While there appears to be general dissatisfaction with the program, when asked if the likelihood of continuing in the program 78% of vendors were likely to, with 56% of these respondents very likely to and 22% not at all likely to continue.

4.26. Similarly 67% of vendors were likely to recommend participation within the program to other mobile food vendors.

4.27. While not conclusive it appears that the specific issue of being confined to specific trading locations has had a big impact on vendors ability to trade and their perceptions of the success of the program as a whole.

Management of the program by the City

4.28. Participating mobile food vendors were asked about the Council’s management of the program. While specific issues were raised in relation to payment methods and preferred frequency and method of communication, the feedback was mostly positive.

· 100% agreed “Council is readily available to you and easy to talk to”.

· 100% agreed “The application process to participate in the Program was easy to complete”.

· 78% agreed that “The Mobile Food Vendor Trial Program and Guidelines are clear, concise and easy to understand”.

· 67% agreed that “Payment of invoices was easy and straightforward”.

4.29. A number of opportunities have been identified by staff to streamline the application and payment process for vendors should an ongoing mobile food vendor program be approved by the Council.

Communication

4.30. All survey cohorts were asked questions about the best way for the City to communicate to them about the mobile food vendor program. The most popular method indicated were social media, including Facebook and Twitter, as well as an app.

4.30.1. A commercially operated app, ‘Where The Truck At?’ currently exists and should the Council decide to continue with a mobile food vendor program, all participating vendors would be required to subscribe to this free app in order to provide real time information on their trading times and location.

Summary of Market Research

4.31. While there a number of issues raised by different survey respondents that can be addressed through improvements to administrative process or amendments to the guidelines, there was a high level of satisfaction with the program as a whole from across the four cohorts surveyed.

4.32. The program is seen to be good for the local economy and good for the community, providing an activation focus that brings people together in a safe and interactive way.

4.33. The program identifies Hobart as a modern city in line with all other Australian capital cities and accommodates the expectations of locals and visitors alike.

4.34. The data also indicates the need for more flexibility around trading locations and times while maintaining sufficient distance from existing food and beverage businesses while they are open.

4.35. There is also an opportunity for increased communication and better promotion of any future program to stakeholders and the community.

Key Stakeholder Feedback

4.36. The following feedback about the implementation of the 12 month mobile food vendor trial was provided by key stakeholders in July and August 2016.

Tasmanian Hospitality Association (THA)

4.36.1. The THA indicated that apart from one incident that occurred early in the implementation of the program, and which was dealt with quickly by City of Hobart staff, there have been no negative comments on the program from member businesses.

Waterfront Business Community (WBC)

4.36.2. The WBC has indicated that ‘the trial has gone well and has allowed Mobile Food Vendors to fill a market niche without unnecessarily impacting on traditional “bricks and mortar” businesses.’

4.36.3. WBC members ‘appreciate the time and effort that went into the consultations prior to the trial and the level of goodwill shown by all stakeholders. This has assisted in ensuring patron safety as well as avoiding potential clashes in operating hours, as was an initial concern in regards to the operation of food vans in Salamanca Place.’

4.36.4. The WBC also indicated that ‘overall feedback is positive and our members remain committed to working with the Council and Mobile Food Vendors to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.’

The Salvation Army

4.36.5. The Salvation Army coordinates the Street Teams Project which operates within the waterfront and Salamanca area on Friday and Saturday nights.

4.36.6. Staff members have indicated that the mobile food vans appear to have slowed pedestrian traffic in the area. However, the team hasn't noticed any rise in disconcerting incidents coinciding with the operation of the vans or the increased congregation of people.

4.36.7. Staff also expressed the view that the vans may have had a positive influence by bringing people closer to the secure taxi rank and possibly influencing their decision to go home.

Tasmania Police

4.36.8. Tasmanian Police Road and Public Order Services (RPOS) regularly police the Hobart area for traffic and public order related matters, including the Hobart waterfront/Salamanca area.

4.36.9. There has been no negative feedback from the Police Officers working within this jurisdiction.

4.36.10. Since December 2015 one complaint was received regarding food vans. This related to the trade on Sandy Bay Road, near the Casino and related to a lack of parking space due to food vans operating in the area where cars would ordinarily park.

The Hobart Chamber of Commerce

4.36.11. The Hobart Chamber of Commerce Board supports the continuation of the Hobart Mobile Food Vendor Program.

4.36.12. The Chamber feel that the ‘mobile outlets add another welcome dimension to the streetscape of Hobart as well as providing convenience to locals and visitors alike, as we continue to encourage people to “walk” the city and surrounds.’

4.36.13. The Chamber is, however, mindful of the possible impacts on fixed restaurant and hospitality businesses. In that regard the Chamber is keen to ensure that the City clearly articulates its detailed commitment to these businesses within the guidelines.

Council Staff Feedback

4.37. Given the impact of the program trial on a number of City of Hobart business units, a cross divisional review took place on 15 August 2016.

4.38. The minutes from this review are provided at Attachment B to this report. Key discussion points included the following.

4.38.1. A marked increase in enquiries across all units regarding mobile food vending opportunities for the duration of the trial.

4.38.2. An interest in non road registered vehicles such as tricycles and pushcarts being included in the program.

4.38.3. The exemption within the new planning scheme to allow greater flexibility of trading locations within the guidelines.

4.38.4. The inclusion of ‘No Go Zones’ such as North Hobart, Sandy Bay, the inner city, the one way sections of Macquarie and Davey Streets, The Brooker Highway and The Southern Outlet.

4.38.5. Issuing permits under Section 56 of the Traffic and Byways Act 1999 as well as the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas By-Law, No. 5 of 2008 to allow non road registered vehicles to participate in the program and trade in parks and reserves.

4.38.6. The review of all by-laws has commenced as they all expire in 2018 and as a result it is likely that improvements will be made to better facilitate the use of mobile food trucks on Council land, particularly within the inner city.

Interim Hobart Planning Scheme 2015

4.39. Since the inception of the Mobile Food Vendor Program Trial the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 has come into effect.

4.40. The new scheme contains the following exemption.

‘General Exemption 5.11.1

Use and development including outdoor dining facilities, signboards, roadside vendors and stalls which have been granted a licence under the Council’s relevant By-Law’

4.41. With this exemption in place trading sites will no longer require a development application and any mobile food vendor program implemented by the City can permit approved vendors to trade within the guidelines of the program in any suitable location.

4.41.1. It should be noted that this exemption does not apply to The Sullivan’s Cove Planning Scheme.

Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997

4.42. The following previously approved mobile food vendor zones exist within the area covered by the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997.

Location	Operating Hours
Elizabeth Street (between Macquarie and Davey Streets)	Mobile food vendor zone 6pm - 9pm Monday - Saturday, no trade after 9pm, seven days
Collins Street (between Campbell Street and Brooker Highway)	2 hour mobile food vendor zone prior to 6pm Monday - Saturday, no trade after 8pm, seven days
McVilly Drive, The Domain (bike path parking lot)	Mobile food vendor zone 8am - 8pm, seven days
Salamanca Lawns	10.30pm - 2.30am, Friday and Saturday nights only

Salamanca Lawns

4.43. As previously indicated, a mobile food vendor zone within Salamanca Lawns was approved by the Council in February 2016.

4.43.1. The feedback from those vendors that are trading in this location is that business has been much slower than expected.

4.43.1.1. It should be noted however, that due to development application processes, mobile food vendors did not begin trading in this location until April 2016. It has been a particularly cold and wet winter, which may have had an adverse impact on trade in this spot.

4.44. This mobile food vendor zone sits within the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997 and as such is not subject to the same exemptions for mobile food vendor programs that now exist within the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

4.44.1. With this in mind should the Council decide to continue with a mobile food vendor program this zone would continue to be administered by City of Hobart staff on a roster basis.

4.45. While planning approval has been granted there are restrictions of the title of this land, which would require approval from Crown Land Services (CLS) for ongoing use of the land for this purpose.

4.45.1. City of Hobart and CLS staff have been in discussion regarding this process and will pursue the matter should the Council decide to continue the program.

Elizabeth Street, Collins Street and McVilly Drive

4.46. Vendors participating in any future mobile food program will be also permitted to trade within the Elizabeth Street, Collins Street and McVilly Drive zones.

The Springs, Mount Wellington

4.47. A mobile food vendor zone was created in collaboration with the Wellington Park Management Trust at the Springs car park, with one vendor, Bentwood Coffee, trading in this location for the duration of the trial.

4.48. This zone has proven very popular with locals and visitors alike, with regular trade throughout all trading days, particularly when snow is on the mountain.

4.49. At its meeting held on 25 July 2016, the Council resolved that landowner consent be granted to Bentwood Coffee to lodge a development application for a semi-permanent cafe operation at The Springs, Wellington Park.

4.50. Should this proposal proceed consideration of any lease arising from this proposal will be the subject of a separate Council report.

4.51. With this possible development of a semi permanent cafe at the Springs, the site will not be included within any proposed future mobile food vendor program.

Hobart Hawking By-Laws

4.52. Apart from the following previously approved mobile food vendor zones within the city, the current by-laws prohibit mobile food vending within the Hobart Inner City area.

4.52.1. This includes the area bounded by Macquarie, Argyle, Brisbane and Harrington Streets.

Location	Operating Hours
Collins Court	Mobile food vendor zone 5pm - 9pm, seven days
Melville Street (between Elizabeth Street and Argyle Streets)	Mobile food vendor zone 5pm - 9pm Monday - Friday, 1pm - 9pm Saturday, all day Sunday until 9pm
Murray Street (between Brisbane and Melville Streets)	2 hour mobile food vendor zone prior to 6pm Monday - Saturday, no trade after 9pm, seven days
Watchorn Street	1 hour mobile food vendor zone prior to 6pm Monday - Saturday, no trade after 9pm, seven days

4.53. With this in mind no trade within the inner city would be permitted outside of these approved zones in any future mobile food vending program.

4.54. A review of all by-laws is currently underway however, and there may be the capacity to address the limitations of the current by-laws to allow mobile food vending trade within this inner city area, particularly after normal business hours.

4.54.1. Such changes would be the subject of a further Council report.

Hobart Food Trucks Proposal

4.55. In consideration of the planning scheme exemption and based on the findings of the trial, feedback from the broader community, local fixed businesses and key stakeholders, it is recommended that the Hobart Food Trucks Program be implemented.

4.56. This program would provide participating vendors with a permit to trade within the approved guidelines in the area that falls within the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015.

4.57. A number of amendments to the guidelines and permit requirements that were utilised for the 12 month trial are proposed for this new program shown at Attachment C to this report. Of note are the following items:

4.57.1. The inclusion of non motorised, non road registered vehicles such as tricycles and pushcarts that would allow trade by these vehicles within the guidelines on footpaths and in parks and reserves.

4.57.2. That participating non motorised, non road registered vehicles maintain a minimum clearance of 1.8 metres on all footpaths.

4.57.3. The issuing permits under Section 56 of the Traffic and Byways Act 1999 as well as the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas By-Law, No. 5 of 2008 to allow non road registered vehicles to participate in the program and trade on footpaths and in parks.

4.57.4. Maintaining the existing 50 metre non trading distance between mobile food vendors and existing open food and beverage establishments throughout the municipality.

4.57.5. The introduction of a 50 metre non trading distance from residential properties when mobile food vendors trade on the same side of the street as residential properties.

4.57.6. The introduction of a 250 metre non trading distance from approved markets, festivals, fairs or similar special events that include food and beverage traders within the event footprint.

4.57.7. The inclusion of identified ‘No Go Zones’ that would exclude mobile food trade in areas where there are a high number of existing food and beverage establishments, in other areas at specific times or on arterial roads where mobile food trade may unreasonably increase risk to pedestrians or vehicles.

4.57.7.1. This would include the North Hobart and Sandy Bay shopping precincts, the inner city, the one way sections of Davey and Macquarie Streets, Mount Wellington, the Brooker Highway and the Southern Outlet.

4.57.8. No limit be set on the number of mobile vendors that could be issued with a ‘Hobart Food Trucks’ permit.

Permit Fees

4.58. The permit fee for participating vendors during the 12 month mobile food vendor program trial was $2,500 per annum.

4.58.1. This fee was arrived at by reviewing other Australian capital city mobile food vendor programs, consideration of occupation licence fees for outdoor dining within Hobart and Salamanca Market stallholder fees, an independent valuation of on-street parking spaces within the CBD as well as a review of rates paid by fixed businesses within the city.

4.59. It is proposed that this fee be maintained and that a tiered fee structure be introduced as part of the proposed Hobart Food Trucks program.

4.60. This fee structure, to be annually adjusted for CPI, takes into account the lower trade in the off peak season as well as the lower income of non road registered vehicles such as pushcarts and tricycles.

4.61. This fee is GST free and would be included within the Council’s annual Fees and Charges schedule.

Permit	Duration	Cost
Road Registered Vehicles - for trade on the road only
Full Year	1 November - 31 October	$2,500
Peak (6 months)	1 November - 30 April	$2,000
Off Peak (6 months)	1 May - 31 October	$1,000
Non Motorised, Non Road Registered Vehicles - for trade on footpaths or in parks and reserves only
Full Year	1 November - 31 October	$1,250
Peak (6 months)	1 November - 30 April	$1,000
Off Peak (6 months)	1 May - 31 October	$500

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that:

5.1.1. The Council implement an ongoing Hobart Food Trucks mobile food vendor program subject to an annual report to the Council on the program’s implementation.

5.1.2. The Council endorse the Hobart Food Trucks Program Guidelines and Permit Requirements.

5.1.3. The General Manager be delegated to authorise the Hobart Food Trucks permits under Section 56 of the Traffic and Byways Act 1999 as well as the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas By-Law, No. 5 of 2008.

5.1.4. The General Manager be delegated to authorise administrative changes to the Hobart Food Trucks guidelines and permit as required throughout the implementation of the program.

5.1.5. The permit fee for mobile food vendors to participate in the Hobart Food Trucks program be set at the following rates and that these rates be adjusted annually to allow for CPI.

Permit	Duration	Cost
Road Registered Vehicles - for trade on the road only
Full Year	1 November - 31 October	$2,500
Peak (6 months)	1 November - 30 April	$2,000
Off Peak (6 months)	1 May - 31 October	$1,000
Non Motorised, Non Road Registered Vehicles - for trade on footpaths or in parks and reserves only
Full Year	1 November - 31 October	$1,250
Peak (6 months)	1 November - 30 April	$1,000
Off Peak (6 months)	1 May - 31 October	$500

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The Hobart Food Trucks Program supports the following specific Future Directions within the Hobart 2025 Strategic Framework:

“Strategic Objective 1.3.5 Implement activation programs and projects”.

6.2. The program also supports Inner City Action Plan (ICAP) Action Project 15 - Activating Public Places item:

“AP 15.02 Establish a clear policy position on street vending”.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Should the Council approve the implementation of the proposed Hobart Food Trucks program, total income would be dependent on the fee structure approved by the Council and the number of permits issued within the financial year.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Total income would be dependent on the fee structure approved by the Council and the number of permits issued within the financial year.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. While there are no specific asset related implications arising from this report there is the potential for the City to consider the installation of fixed power outlets in identified activation zones to allow mobile food vendors and other activation activities such as festivals to occur without the need for generators.

7.3.1.1. Should opportunities such as this present themselves they would be included in any relevant reports or infrastructure proposals to the Council.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. All participating vendors in the proposed Hobart Food Trucks program would be required to have $20M Public Liability insurance and to adhere to standard Environmental Health legislation and permit requirements.

8.2. Participating vendor in any future program would be required to adhere to approved guidelines and permit conditions.

8.3. Permits could be revoked at anytime due to non payment of fees or non compliance with permit conditions.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. As well as adhering to relevant environmental permit conditions regarding waste minimisation, all participating vendors in any approved ongoing mobile food vendor program would be required to adhere to the state wide environmental health regulations.

9.2. All participating vendors will be required to use compostable take away food containers, in line with Council run events such as The Taste of Tasmania.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. Given the high customer and community satisfaction with the implementation of the mobile food vendor program trial, it is envisaged that any future ongoing program would receive similar support.

10.2. The program guidelines and permit conditions have been developed in consultation with relevant Council business units and designed to maximise the flexibility of the program, while ensuring that the needs of the Council and the business and broader community have been addressed.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. A detailed communication and promotional strategy would be developed in conjunction with the Council’s Marketing Unit to ensure that all potential vendors, local businesses and the broader community are aware of the Hobart Food Trucks program.

11.2. The focus of this strategy would be online, with increased presence on the Council’s website and ongoing engagement through a range of social media platforms.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. As well as independent market research undertaken within the business and broader community as previously outlined within this report the following key stakeholders have been consulted:

· Tasmania Police;

· Tasmanian Hospitality Association;

· Waterfront Business Community;

· The Salvation Army; and

· Hobart Chamber of Commerce.

12.2. In the preparation of this report consultation has been undertaken with Director City Planning, Director Parks and City Amenity, Manager Legal and Governance, Manager Development Appraisal, Executive Manager City Design, Manager Environmental Health, Manager Traffic Engineering, Group Manager Parking Operations, Group Manager Executive and Economic Development, Customer Services Centre Manager, Manager Parks and Recreation, Program Leader Recreation and Projects and Economic Development Project Officer.

13. Delegation

13.1. This item is delegated to Council for determination.

As signatory to this report, I certify that, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, I hold no interest, as referred to in Section 49 of the Local Government Act 1993, in matters contained in this report.

Kimbra Parker

Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 6 October 2016

File Reference: F16/80886

Attachment a: EMRS - Mobile Food Vendor Program Trial Research 2016 ⇩

Attachment b: Mobile Food Vendor Program Trial - Cross Division Review - 15/8/2016 Minutes ⇩

Attachment c: Draft Hobart Food Trucks - Program Guidelines and Permit Conditions ⇩

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting - 12/10/2016

Page 25

ATTACHMENT a

Page_000001

Page_000002

Page_000003

Page_000004

Page_000005

Page_000006

Page_000007

Page_000008

Page_000009

Page_000010

Page_000011

Page_000012

Page_000013

Page_000014

Page_000015

Page_000016

Page_000017

Page_000018

Page_000019

Page_000020

Page_000021

Page_000022

Page_000023

Page_000024

Page_000025

Page_000026

Page_000027

Page_000028

Page_000029

Page_000030

Page_000031

Page_000032

Page_000033

Page_000034

Page_000035

Page_000036

Page_000037

Page_000038

Page_000039

Page_000040

Page_000041

Page_000042

Page_000043

Page_000044

Page_000045

Page_000046

Page_000047

Page_000048

Page_000049

Page_000050

Page_000051

Page_000052

Page_000053

Page_000054

Page_000055

Page_000056

Page_000057

Page_000058

Page_000059

Page_000060

Page_000061

Page_000062

Page_000063

Page_000064

Page_000065

Page_000066

Page_000067

Page_000068

Page_000069

Page_000070

Page_000071

Page_000072

Page_000073

Page_000074

Page_000075

Page_000076

Page_000077

Page_000078

Page_000079

Page_000080

Page_000081

Page_000082

Page_000083

Page_000084

Page_000085

Page_000086

Page_000087

Page_000088

Page_000089

Page_000090

Page_000091

Page_000092

Page_000093

Page_000094

Page_000095

Page_000096

Page_000097

Page_000098

Page_000099

Page_000100

Page_000101

Page_000102

Page_000103

Page_000104

Page_000105

Page_000106

Page_000107

Page_000108

Page_000109

Page_000110

Page_000111

Page_000112

Page_000113

Page_000114

Page_000115

Page_000116

Page_000117

Page_000118

Page_000119

Page_000120

Page_000121

Page_000122

Page_000123

Page_000124

Page_000125

Page_000126

Page_000127

Page_000128

Page_000129

Page_000130

Page_000131

Page_000132

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 179

12/10/2016

REPORT TITLE: Community Development Grants Program - Community, Creative Hobart and Event Grants - Recommendations - August 2016 Round

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Manager Events and Salamanca Market

Director Community Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report seeks endorsement of the recommendations for Community, Creative Hobart and Event Grants under the 2016/2017 Community Development Grants Program for its August 2016 round of grants.

2. Report Summary

2.1. This report contains recommendations for the first of the twice yearly rounds of the 2016/2017 Community Development Grants program that opened in August 2016.

2.2. A total of 43 eligible applications were received for all grant streams. A total of 25 projects across all of the grants streams are recommended for full or partial funding with a total value of $185,519.

3. Recommendations

That:

1. The Council approve the recommended level of funding to respected applicants for assistance under the 2016/2017 Community Development Grants Program under the streams of Creative Hobart, Community and Events as outlined below:

(i) The project recommended for full funding from the August round of the Community Development Grants Program as detailed in Table 1 of Attachment A to this report;

(ii) The project recommended for partial funding from the August round of the Community Development Grants Program as detailed in Table 2 of Attachment A to this report;

(iii) The projects listed in Table 3 of Attachment A to this report are not recommended for funding.

2. The value of the recommended projects is $37,010 for Creative Hobart Medium and Small Grants, $22,679 for Community Grants and $126,830 for Event Grants.

3. The Council may wish to consider the provision of some level of support to the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia for the 2016 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race.

4. The funding for the grants be attributed to the respective Community Development Police Management, Cultural Programs and Major Events and Grant Funding activity in the 2016/2017 Annual Plan.

5. Applicants be advised accordingly.

6. The total grant provision be recorded in the ‘Grants, Assistance and Benefits Provided’ section of the City of Hobart’s Annual Report.

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting held on 21 September 2015, the Council resolved the following:

“That: 1. The Council approve the implementation of the Community Development Grants Program commencing in October 2015, with the exclusion of the Events Grants funding stream.

2. A report detailing recommendations from the assessment panels for each grant round be provided to the Community, Culture and Events Committee for endorsement prior to the Council’s final approval.

3. The details of the approved Quick Response Grants be reported to each meeting of the Community, Culture and Events Committee.”

4.2. At a subsequent meeting held on 21 December 2015, the Council resolved in part, the following:

“That: 1. A three stream event funding and assistance program be established, including the following:

(i) Quick Response Grants up to $1,000 of in-kind support only;

(ii) Event Grants for under $20,000 from a total pool of $100,000, run over two rounds; and

(iii) Event Partnerships for requests over $20,000, from a total pool of $460,000 in one round per year.

2. An additional amount of $360,000 be allocated to the Major Events and Festivals Grants activity in the Events Function as part of the 2016/2017 budget formulation process, to bring the total pool to $560,000.”

4.3. At its meeting held on 22 August 2016, following the Event Partnerships grant round, the Council resolved in part, the following:

“That given the anticipated high level of demand for the twice yearly rounds of the Event Grants stream (up to $20,000), the Council reallocate the remaining funds of $100,000 to this grant pool allocation.”

4.4. The August grant round was subsequently advertised on Saturday, 6 August 2016 through the Mercury newspaper, the Hobart Observer and through a broad range of community and cultural networks, with the application period closing on Monday 5 September 2016.

4.5. The information was also made available on the Council’s website. The application form and guidelines could be accessed from this source.

4.6. A Public Information Session was held on Thursday 18 August 2016 at 4.00pm in the Elizabeth Street Conference room. Approximately six people attended this session.

Assessment Panels

4.7. Three assessment panels were established comprising the following people:

(i) Community Grants Assessment Panel

· Manager Community and Cultural Programs, City of Hobart;

· Climate Change Officer, City of Hobart; and

· Jacquie Maginnis, Health Promotion Coordinator, Tasmanian Health Service.

(ii) Creative Hobart Grants Assessment Panel

· Manager Community and Cultural Programs, City of Hobart;

· Cultural Programs Coordinator, City of Hobart;

· Manager, Development Appraisal, City of Hobart;

· Tony Bonney, Director Festival of Voices, Tasmania; and

· Katie Pack - Ex-Creative Communities Manager, Brisbane City Council

(iii) Event Grants Assessment Panel

· Manager Events and Salamanca Market; City of Hobart

· Manager Community and Cultural Programs; City of Hobart; and

· Wendy Moles, Events Coordinator - Clarence City Council.

Assessment Criteria

4.8. Applications were assessed under the Council policy ‘Applications for Grants - Community Development Division’ that was approved at the Council meeting held on 23 May 2016.

4.9. Applications were assessed and scored according to the published criteria, grouped as follows:

(i) Community Grants

· Alignment with Social Inclusion and/or other relevant Community strategy;

· Benefit to and involvement of the community;

· Management capacity and financial viability;

· Partnership development; and

· Project outcomes.

(ii) Creative Hobart Grants

· Enhancement of the City as a vibrant place to live and visit;

· Alignment with the Creative Hobart Strategy;

· Management capacity and financial viability;

· Degree of community support and involvement; and

· Project outcomes.

(iii) Event Grants

· Benefit to and involvement of the community;

· Enhancement of the City as a vibrant place to live and visit;

· Economic benefit to the City;

· Alignment with the Creative Hobart and Economic Development Strategies and the Strategic Plan; and

· Management capacity and financial viability.

4.10. The assessment was carried out on a points-scored basis against all criteria. Some applicants may have rated highly against specific criteria such as alignment with strategies or community benefit, but rated lower against criteria such as management capacity or project outcomes.

4.10.1. It was noted that there are many applications that have not been able to be funded where the Council strongly supports the applicant organisation and the work that they do in the community. Unfortunately with the requests far exceeding the available pool, the assessment has resulted in many worthy recipients not being able to be funded. The applications recommended for funding were those that scored the highest points.

4.11. Should Aldermen wish to discuss the merits of any particular application, they are invited to contact the Director Community Development. There will also be more detailed information on how each organisation rated against the criteria available for discussion at the Committee meeting.

Funding Pools

4.12. Funding allocated for the Community, Creative Hobart and Events twice yearly grants rounds for the 2016/2017 financial year is $320,000. This comprises $46,000 for Community Grants, $74,000 for Creative Hobart Grants and $200,000 for Event Grants (including the additional $100,000 allocation remaining from the Events Partnerships allocation).

4.12.1. The August grant round comprised pools of approximately half of the yearly allocation for the twice yearly rounds with the additional $100,000 allocation for the Events Grant pool.

4.12.2. This does not include the allocations for Major Cultural Organisations, Event Partnerships or the pool allocations for Quick Response Grants.

4.13. The standard and quality of the applications was generally high overall across all grant streams although there were several applications particularly in the Event and Community streams that lacked sufficient detail. Unsuccessful applicants will be advised that they can re-apply for future grant rounds.

4.13.1. These unsuccessful applicants will also be advised that they can contact the relevant Cultural Programs, Community Development or Events officers for assistance in developing their project in order to resubmit in a future grant round.

Community Grants Applications

4.14. There were 17 applications received for the Community Grant stream requesting a total amount of $47,046. This included one application that was deemed ineligible under the guidelines during assessment.

4.15. The applications were diverse and there was strong community benefit acknowledged by the panel for many programs/projects that are not recommended for funding. The demand for this grant round was much higher than in previous rounds with the panel finding it difficult to not be able to recommend more applications for funding based on the grant pool size.

4.15.1. The applications were requesting a total of $47,046. The value of the applications recommended for funding from this round was $22,679. The panel recommended funding for nine projects, seven in full and two partial. This equates to a 56 percent success rate when the ineligible application was excluded.

Creative Hobart Grants Applications

4.16. There were 10 applications received for Creative Hobart Grants requesting a total of $118,344 with all being deemed eligible.

4.16.1. The breakdown of the applications received for Creative Hobart grants were:

4.16.1.1. Seven medium grant applications requesting a total amount of $87,274. The allocated budget for this round was $37,000 which permitted the panel to recommend only two grants for full funding and one grant for partial funding. This equates to a 43 per cent success rate.

4.16.1.2. Three small grant applications were received requesting a total amount of $7,940. The panel recommended the funding of two grants with a total of $5,940 being fully funded. This equates to a 66 per cent success rate.

4.16.1.3. The assessment panel discussed the high standard of applications again received in this grant stream. The quantum of this funding pool will be considered as part of the review of the grants process early in 2016.

Event Grants Applications

4.17. There were 17 applications received for Event Grants requesting a total of $234,569. All applications in this round were deemed eligible.

4.18. While the current pool for the August Event Grant round was $50,000, a further allocation of $100,000 was provided from remaining funds in the Event Partnership round held in June 2016. The assessment panel noted that if the grant allocation had of been the $50,000 there would have been many long standing community events that would not have received any funding.

4.19. Applications were submitted for a diverse range of events with 11 of the 17 eligible applications being recommended to receive full or partial funding.

4.20. During the assessment process it was noted by the assessment panel that the standard of a number of the applications submitted from community events in particular, were below what is expected. It was recommended that these applicants be advised that their applications will need to be of a higher standard in order to be assessed favourably in future rounds.

4.21. Aldermen would note that the application for funding of $20,000 from the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia (CYCA) as detailed in Table 3 of Attachment A to this report is not recommended.

4.22. The Council has historically provided a range of cash and in-kind support (totalling in the order of $6,900) to the CYCA to assist in the staging of the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race finish in Hobart. This allocation has supported the provision of trophies, City banners and the use of Council venues.

4.23. While the CYCA did not specifically request this operational support in its formal grant application to the August 2016 funding round, the Council may wish to give some consideration to the provision of some level of support for the 2016 event, given the long standing relationship between the Race and the City of Hobart.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. All applications were acknowledged.

5.2. All applicants will be advised of the Council’s decision and invited to contact staff for feedback on their applications if they wish.

5.3. Each successful applicant will be required to formally accept the Council’s assistance by signing an agreement which requires an organisation to:

· Agree to the conditions of the assistance;

· Provide any documentation necessary for compliance under the Goods and Services Tax (GST);

· Detail the ways in which it will acknowledge the Council’s support; and

· Provide an acquittal report by the advised deadline.

5.4. The projects recommended for full funding from the August round of the Community Development Grants Program are detailed in Table 1 of Attachment A to this report. Brief details of the project, the assistance requested and the assistance recommended are included for each application. All applications are listed in rating order, from highest to lowest.

5.5. The projects listed in Table 2 of Attachment A to this report are recommended for partial funding. Brief details of the projects, the assistance requested and details of the assistance recommended are included against each application.

5.6. The projects listed in Table 3 of Attachment A to this report are not recommended for funding. Details of assistance requested is included against each application. All applications are listed in rating order, from highest to lowest.

5.7. The value of the recommended projects is $37,010 for Creative Hobart Small and Medium Grants, $22,679 for Community Grants and $126,830 for Event Grants.

5.8. The proposed commitment to Event Grants could increase to $133,730 if the Council were to provide the full range of support historically provided to the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia (CYCA) to assist in the staging of the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race finish in Hobart.

5.9. All awarded grants will be noted in the Council’s Annual Report in accordance with the Council’s policy in respect to grants and benefits disclosure.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This item responds to Goals 1 and 4 of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015 - 2025, namely:

Economic Development, Vibrancy and Culture - “City growth, vibrancy and culture comes when everyone participates in city life”; and

Strong, Safe and Healthy Communities - “Our communities are resilient, sae and enjoy healthy lifestyles”.

6.2. The provision of Community, Creative Hobart and Event grants aligns very strongly with both the Creative Hobart Strategy and the Social Inclusion Strategy 2014 - 2019.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There is $74,000 allocated in the Creative Hobart Grants allocation of the Cultural Programs activity in the 2016/2017 Annual Plan for the twice yearly grant round.

7.1.2. There is $46,000 allocated in the Community Grants allocation of the Community Planning and Coordination activity in the 2016/2017 Annual Plan for the twice yearly grant round.

7.1.3. $200,000 has been allocated in the 2016/2017 budget allocation for the twice yearly grant rounds for Event Grants.

7.1.4. The total amount of funds recommended for approval through the August grant round is $185,519.

7.1.5. This could increase to $192,419, if the Council were to provide the full level of support to the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race in line with the allocation for previous years.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. The Community Development Grants program will be open every financial year consisting of two rounds. The quantum of funding for future years will be included in a review of the Grants program to be the subject of a further report in November 2016.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. Not applicable.

8. Marketing and Media

8.1. The projects recommended have been selected taking into account the widest community benefit through a range of groups. This in turn has the potential to maximise community recognition of the Council’s involvement.

9. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1. The Coordinator Community Activation and Grants, Cultural Programs Coordinator, Cultural Development Officer, Cultural Programs Officer, Executive Officer – Community Development and the external panel members have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

10. Delegation

10.1. The determination of grants under the Community Development Grants program is delegated to the Council.

Kimbra Parker

Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Mark Joseph

Manager Events and Salamanca Market

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 6 October 2016

File Reference: F16/111847; 16/195; 16/196; 16/197

Attachment a: Table of Grants Funding ⇩

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 211

12/10/2016

REPORT TITLE: August 2016 Yaizu Sister City Delegation

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Director Community Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the Council delegation which visited Yaizu, Japan in August 2016.

1.2. The purpose of the visit was to discuss opportunities to celebrate the 40 year anniversary of the Council’s sister city relationship with Yaizu that will involve the Hobart and Yaizu communities in 2017.

1.3. Aldermen experienced Japanese culture first hand to better appreciate Yaizu City and the value of the sister city relationship.

2. Report Summary

2.1. A delegation of ten people visited Yaizu from 8 - 15 August 2016, to discuss the 40 year anniversary activities.

2.2. The hospitality of Yaizu City and the Friendship Association was exceptional. Yaizu hosted the following activities during the visit:

· Mayors and dignitaries meeting at City Hall;

· Visit to AEON supermarket to view the Tasmanian produce;

· Sapporo Beer Tour;

· Welcome Reception;

· Ara Matsuri (Festival) and Yaizu Shrine;

· Grinpia Makinohara (Tea Farm and Factory);

· Waterfront fireworks; and

· Meeting with waste disposal staff, environment section.

2.3. At the formal meeting held at the Yaizu City Hall, it was discussed that a small delegation from Yaizu may visit Hobart in October 2016 to continue planning arrangements for the anniversary, a 30 person delegation will visit Hobart in February 2017 and a delegation from Hobart will return to Yaizu later in 2017.

2.3.1. Proposed celebratory activities were also discussed for each of the visiting delegation.

3. Recommendation

That planning continue for the Yaizu delegation to Hobart in February 2017 and for the Hobart delegation to Yaizu in August/September 2017, with Aldermanic composition to be the subject of a further report closer to the time of the delegation.

4. Background

4.1. In October 2015 the Mayor of Yaizu, Mr Hiromichi Nakano visited Hobart to meet with Lord Mayor, Alderman Sue Hickey to discuss opportunities to mark the 40^th anniversary of the Council’s sister city relationship with Yaizu, including the potential for a Yaizu delegation to visit Hobart in February 2017.

4.2. At its meeting held on 13 January 2016, the Council endorsed opportunities to mark the anniversary of the Hobart-Yaizu Sister City relationship. Activities were identified through consultation with the Hobart-Yaizu Sister City Committee. The Council resolved the following:

“That the Council consider the following opportunities to mark the 40^th anniversary of the Hobart-Yaizu Sister City relationship, as identified through consultation with the Hobart-Yaizu Sister City Committee, including:

The Lord Mayor undertake a pre-visit to Yaizu before the anniversary, possibly in September 2016 combined with a visit to China, with Council to consider other Aldermen who may wish to nominate to attend the trip in accordance with the Council’s policy regarding international relationships, or alternatively, other Aldermen attending the trip as a member of the delegation, at their own cost.”

4.2.1. The potential visit to China did not eventuate so the delegation only visited Yaizu.

4.3. The following delegation visited Yaizu from 8 - 15 August 2016 to discuss the 40 year anniversary activities:

· Lord Mayor Alderman Sue Hickey;

· Alderman Jeff Briscoe;

· Alderman Marti Zucco;

· Alderman Bill Harvey;

· General Manager, Nick Heath;

· Manager Community and Cultural Programs, Kimbra Parker;

· Community Development Officer - Multicultural, Sjaan Field;

· Mrs Fumiko Plaister (Founding member of the Hobart-Yaizu Sister City); and

· Yukiko Burns (Interpreter).

4.3.2. Alderman Harvey’s partner accompanied the delegation.

4.4. The hospitality provided by Yaizu City and the Friendship Association was exceptional, with Yaizu clearly demonstrating how significantly they value the sister city relationship. Yaizu City hosted the following activities during the visit:

· Mayors and dignitaries meeting at City Hall;

· Visit to AEON supermarket to view the Tasmanian produce;

· Sapporo Beer Tour;

· Welcome Reception;

· Ara Matsuri (Festival) and Yaizu Shrine;

· Grinpia Makinohara (Tea Farm and Factory);

· Waterfront fireworks; and

· Meeting with waste disposal staff, environment section.

4.5. At the Mayor’s meeting it was agreed that:

4.5.1. Yaizu City intends to send a small delegation to Hobart in October 2016 to continue discussions on the 2017 commemorative activities.

4.5.2. Yaizu will send a substantial delegation of approximately 30 people to Hobart from Yaizu in February 2017 to take part in the celebrations.

4.5.3. A range of activities are being arranged including activities at Salamanca Market to commemorate the anniversary in February 2017.

4.5.3.1. Other activities coordinated by the Hobart community will complement the market stall on Salamanca Lawns where appropriate.

4.5.3.2. Yaizu wishes to thank the people of Hobart and those who have been involved in the program, including the host families and students at this public event.

4.5.4. Yaizu will be sending two landscape gardeners and one assistant to work with Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens (RTBG) staff to demonstrate how best to maintain a Japanese garden.

4.5.5. The Lord Mayor will host a reception in the Town Hall where the Lord Mayor of Hobart and the Mayor of Yaizu will sign a reaffirmation of their Sister City Relationship.

4.5.6. Both cities will collaborate to create a commemorative booklet in both English and Japanese with photographs and text.

4.5.7. Hobart and Yaizu student artwork will be displayed on the Mathers Place Soapbox Billboards. The art was created at St Mary’s College during the 2016 Yaizu student visit.

4.5.8. Hobart will reciprocate by sending an appropriate sized delegation to Yaizu in mid - late 2017, intended to coincide with a school exchange delegation.

4.5.8.1. In order to acknowledge and respect the significance of this occasion, it is considered that the delegation would include the Lord Mayor, along with several Aldermen and staff.

4.5.9. It is preferred that the visit coincide with Yaizu Week in August for Hobart to witness the Yaizu Ara Matsuri Festival and Fireworks. Yaizu City will confirm which month is the most suitable to host the delegation.

4.5.9.1. The Yaizu community would like to have the experience of tasting Tasmanian food. It is proposed to create a Taste of Tasmania style stall in Yaizu featuring Tasmanian seasonal produce.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Council officers will continue to liaise with staff from Yaizu to determine activities to be undertaken as part of the formal celebratory activities in 2017.

5.2. The dates for the 2017 visit to Yaizu be finalised in consultation with the Yaizu staff and if possible, coordinated with a Hobart school exchange visit. The preferred time for the visit would be in August as part of the Yaizu Ara Matsuri Festival and Fireworks.

5.3. The composition of the delegation will be the subject of a further report closer to the time of the delegation.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The celebration of the Sister City relationship aligns strongly with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015 - 2025, in particular:

“Goal 1 - Economic Development, Vibrancy and Culture; and
Goal 4 - Strong, Safe and Healthy Communities.”

6.2. There is also strong alignment with the Social Inclusion Strategy 2014 - 2019 and the Multicultural Strategy 2014 - 2019.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Costs associated with the delegation to Yaizu in August 2016 were included in the 2016/2017 budget allocation for City Government - Ceremonial Support - Sister City Visits item in the 2016/2017 Annual Plan.

7.1.2. The Council at its meeting held on 25 January 2016 resolved to include $20,000 in the City Government - Ceremonial Support - Sister City Visits item in the 2016/2017 Annual Plan for expenses associated with the Council receiving and hosting a formal delegation from Yaizu in February 2017.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. The costs associated with the proposed delegation to Yaizu in August 2017 would need to be included in the 2017/2018 budget allocation.

7.2.2. The composition of the delegation will be the subject of a further report closer to the time of the delegation which will include detailed costs.

7.2.2.1. A preliminary estimated cost per participant for a City of Hobart delegation travelling business class to Japan is $6,720, which consists of all travel (business class flights, train), accommodation and out-of-pocket expenses.

7.2.2.2. A preliminary estimated cost for economy class to accompany a delegation is $3,420, which consists of all travel (economy flights, train), accommodation and meals.

8. Marketing and Media

8.1. Promotion of the 40 year anniversary and activities would be through the Council’s social media, website and networks.

8.2. Customised branded pull-up and tear drop banners would be created to display at all events.

9. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1. It is of social importance internationally that the City of Hobart fosters sister city relationships and makes informed choices about how to continue to build on the relationship.

9.2. The city facilitates a broader understanding and appreciation for Japanese culture and communities.

9.3. The City of Hobart will continue to liaise with the Hobart-Yaizu Sister City Committee, Australia Japan Society, Bonsai Society and the broader community to involve them in organising and/or participation in activities.

10. Delegation

10.1. This report is delegated to Council for consideration.

Kimbra Parker

Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 5 October 2016

File Reference: F16/103037; S14-005-21

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 219

12/10/2016

REPORT TITLE: Tidal Pools Sculpture - Lower Sandy Bay

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Manager Traffic Engineering

Director Community Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. A request has been received from Elizabeth Walker, widow of the late artist Stephen Walker AM, seeking the removal of car parking from in front of the ‘Tidal Pools’ sculpture located adjacent to Beach Road at Lower Sandy Bay to improve amenity and the views of the sculpture.

1.1.1. This report details options for reconfiguring the car park to remove parking from in front of the sculpture including costs and potential community benefit.

2. Report Summary

2.1. In recent years the ‘Tidal Pools’ sculpture by the late Stephen Walker AM was relocated by the City of Hobart from its former location at Mawson Place, to the Long Point Reserve, in a position between Nutgrove Beach and the car parking area on Beach Road (the former trolley bus turning area).

2.2. Elizabeth Walker, the widow of the artist, has expressed concern that the current location, “has the potential to be spectacular, it is currently spoilt by car parking immediately adjacent to the sculpture and the waterfront.” Mrs Walker’s request is shown at Attachment A to this report.

2.3. Mrs Walker suggests that the waterfront and ‘Tidal Pools’ deserve more than having parked cars block views and impede waterfront access; and that the lawn area in the centre of the parking area could be redesigned to accommodate more car parking if needed.

2.4. Council officers have considered opportunities for the redesign of the parking in this area that would remove parking from directly in front of the sculpture and have prepared associated designs and the costs for undertaking this work. A memorandum from the Council’s Road and Traffic Engineer is shown at Attachment B to this report.

2.5. The total cost to achieve a result of removing the parking spaces adjacent to the sculpture, constructing the surface to an appropriate standard, and constructing replacement parking in the centre of the turning area would be in the order of $220,000.

2.6. It is considered that that the request is for the removal of a heavily used public asset, for an intangible benefit. There is potential to construct replacement parking, to negate the loss of the public asset, but this would require considerable spending of public money, and would also create a competing intangible negative benefit, in the loss of public amenity in the parking area itself.

2.7. In the past, changes to the supply and arrangement of public parking in this particular area has been the subject of strong interest from surrounding businesses and residents. If any changes were to be made to the parking in this area, there would need to be significant community engagement undertaken to demonstrate that these key stakeholders were supportive of the significant changes discussed in the attached memorandum.

3. Recommendation

That

1. The request from Elizabeth Walker, widow of the late artist Stephen Walker AM, seeking the removal of car parking from in front of the ‘Tidal Pools’ sculpture located adjacent to Beach Road at Lower Sandy Bay to improve amenity and the views of the sculpture, be declined.

2. No change be made to the existing parking arrangements in the Beach Road parking area at the current time.

3. Officers continue to explore other options in regard to Elizabeth Walker’s concerns associated with ‘Tidal Pools’, where possible.

4. Background

4.1. The ‘Tidal Pools’ sculpture by the late Stephen Walker AM has in recent years been relocated by the City of Hobart from its former location at Mawson Place, to the Long Point Reserve, in a position between Nutgrove Beach and the car parking area on Beach Road (the former trolley bus turning area).

4.2. Elizabeth Walker, the widow of the artist, has expressed concern that the current location, “has the potential to be spectacular, it is currently spoilt by car parking immediately adjacent to the sculpture and the waterfront.”

4.3. Mrs Walker suggests that:

· The waterfront and ‘Tidal Pools’ deserve more than having parked cars block views and impede waterfront access; and

· The lawn area in the centre of the parking area could be redesigned to accommodate more car parking if needed.

4.4. The Beach Road turning circle parking area was constructed in its current form in late 2003, early 2004 with the design of the area being undertaken following a series of reports to the Council on the future of access and parking in the vicinity of Long Point Reserve / Beach Road over the period from 1999 to 2003.

4.5. In summary, before 2003, Beach Road connected to Long Point Road along the top of the seawall. This essentially separated the Long Point Reserve from the beach with an area of paved road, and angle parking.

4.6. There were many complaints from local residents and businesses about anti-social behaviour (hooning in and around the trolley bus turning circle to vehicular traffic, speeding traffic along Long Point Road and through the Beach Road link to the turning circle). There was also a history of late night partying in this area, and associated complaints with rubbish, graffiti etc.

4.7. Essentially the series of reports resulted in the closure of the section of Beach Road linking Long Point Road to the trolley bus turning circle, along with the closure of the angle parking that way formerly located along that link.

4.8. Local residents and traders remained concerned about the level of late night ‘hooning’ in the trolley bus turning circle, and were also concerned about the loss of parking associated with the closure of the section of Beach Road between the bus turning circle and Long Point Road.

4.9. The design for the reconstruction of the trolley bus turning circle was essentially developed in response to those pressures and provides:

· Car parking, to service the businesses in Beach Road, patrons of the reserve / beach, and visitors to local residents;

· A number of landscaped “bulbings” separating areas of parking on both the inside and outside of the turning area, intended primarily to ensure that at times when there is little or no car parking demand (i.e. late at night) the turning area does not present a wide paved area that is attractive for high speed ‘hooning’; and

· The bulbings described also provide pedestrian crossing points, and, landscaping to soften the area.

4.10. Essentially, the re-construction of the turning area allowed the relocation of parking from the top of the sea-wall, to a consolidated area. This in turn allowed for the rebuilding of the former Beach Road and its foreshore parking area as recreational space for the public, when the sea wall was renewed.

4.11. A similar process has occurred more recently with the reconstruction of the reserve and parking area to the south of the Beach Road turning area.

4.12. In terms of supply of car parking in this area, it contains:

· 49 angle parking spaces (a mixture of 1P and 2P restrictions typically operating from 8am - 6pm Mon - Fri);

· The remainder of Beach Road contains a further 12 parallel parking spaces (a mixture of 1/2P, 1P and Disabled Permit Holder Parking);

· Beach Road also contains a Loading Zone; and

· The City of Hobart owns an area of off-street parking at 3A Beach Road, that contains 12 - 2P time limited parking spaces.

4.13. There have been no recent parking occupancy surveys undertaken, however it is understood that parking is at or in excess of its capacity at times. Since the reconstruction of the turning circle parking area, the parking has been progressively converted from ‘unrestricted’ to its current mixture of 1P and 2P restrictions to provide turnover to assist local traders and short term visitors in finding spaces close to their destination. The parking area remains heavily used.

4.14. While the exact number of parking spaces that would need to be removed so as to provide a suitable buffer around the sculpture to satisfy the concerns of Elizabeth Walker is not known, based on the letter and photographs provided, it is unlikely to be only the three spaces immediately in front of the sculpture.

4.15. A person observing the sculpture from any angle would still observe the remaining five parked vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the work.

4.16. In it considered that in order to address the concerns raised by Elizabeth Walker, it would be necessary to remove five on-street spaces close to the sculpture, and the relocation of the existing landscaped bulbing to a position closer to the sculpture to screen the remaining parking.

4.17. Essentially this is the removal of five on-street spaces close to the sculpture, and the relocation of the existing landscaped bulbing to a position closer to the sculpture to screen the remaining parking. The approximate costing to make these changes would be in the order of $80,000.

4.18. The concept would result in the loss of five public parking spaces in close proximity to both the beach / reserve and the Beach Road commercial area. The removal of this parking would make it more likely that visitors to the beach/reserve, and/or the local shops will have difficulty finding parking in close proximity to their destination.

4.19. It was also noted during inspections at the site, that a number of people parked their cars in the parking spaces in front of the sculpture / beach and sat in their cars either looking at the view and/or eating their lunch. This also occurs in other car parks with good views (for example the parking area on the Domain overlooking Burnett Street), and does show that there is some public benefit to car parking overlooking vistas, as they are sought out by some members of the community.

4.20. When the original design for the turning area was worked on in 2003, there was considerable pressure to maximise the amount of parking provided. The current design was what was seen at that time as the appropriate balance between maximising the parking provided, while also designing the area for the movement of pedestrians, providing landscaping to assist the aesthetics of the area, and containing sufficient controls to restrict late night ‘hooning’ behaviour in and around the turning circle.

4.21. There is limited scope for providing additional parking. As discussed above, the width of the existing parking spaces is at the acceptable minimum, so providing more spaces by narrowing existing spaces in not practical.

4.22. The only potential concept is for a one-way connection through the centre of the turning circle. The reconfiguration of this turning circle would provide an additional six parking spaces to offset the loss of the five spaces adjacent to the sculpture, resulting in an overall gain of one parking space.

4.23. The approximate costs for the works in the turning circle area would be in the order of $140,000. There would be negative impacts in terms of pedestrian and visual amenity on the turning circle area, but this would allow for the overall supply of parking to be essentially unchanged.

4.24. So overall, removing the parking adjacent to the sculpture and redesigning the turning circle parking would lead to a net gain of one parking space, at an overall cost of approximately $220,000.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Given the cost and operational considerations detailed above, it is proposed that the request from Elizabeth Walker, widow of the late artist Stephen Walker AM, seeking the removal of car parking from in front of the ‘Tidal Pools’ sculpture located adjacent to Beach Road at Lower Sandy Bay to improve amenity and the views of the sculpture, be declined.

5.2. In light of this, it is also proposed that the current parking arrangements in the Beach Road parking area remain unchanged and that Mrs Elizabeth Walker be advised of this resolution.

5.3. It is however, proposed that officers continue to explore other options in regard to Elizabeth Walker’s concerns associated with ‘Tidal Pools’, where possible.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This proposal aligns with Goal 1 - Economic Development, Vibrancy and Culture, Goal 4 - Urban Management and Goal 5 - Governance in the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015 - 2025, namely:

“Strategic Objective 1.4.1 - Ensure Council owned assets reflect visitor requirements.

Strategic Objective 2.2.2 - Develop, manage and maintain the city’s urban spaces and infrastructure.

Strategic Objective 5.3 - Quality services are delivered in a safe, cost effective and efficient way.”

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. If the report recommendation is adopted, there would be no financial impact.

7.1.2. If the Council was to support the removal of the five car spaces and redesign of the turning circle, there would be a financial impact of approximately $220,000 that has no budget allocation.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. There would be no impact of future financial years.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. If the report recommendation is adopted, there would be no asset related impacts.

7.3.2. If the Council was to support the removal of the five car spaces and redesign of the turning circle, there would be significant asset life remaining in the current infrastructure that would be lost as a result of the works.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. Beach Road, and the parking in the turning area are statutory public highways subject to the Local Government (Highways) Act. The Hobart City Council has authority under Section 30(1) and Section 30(2) of the Act to make changes such as those proposed. This authority has been delegated by the Council to the Manager Traffic Engineering, and all officers to which that position report.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. It is considered that the loss of five public parking spaces in close proximity to both the beach reserve and the Beach Road commercial area would reduce accessibility to the area. The removal of this parking would make it more likely that visitors to the beach/reserve, and/or the local shops will have difficulty finding parking in close proximity to their destination.

9.2. It was also noted during inspections at the site, that a number of people parked their cars in the parking spaces in front of the sculpture/beach and sat in their cars either looking at the view and/or eating their lunch. This also occurs in other car parks with good views (for example the parking area on the Domain overlooking Burnett Street), and does show that there is some public benefit to car parking overlooking vistas, as they are sought out by some members of the community.

10. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

10.1. The Council’s Roads and Traffic Engineer and Cultural Programs Coordinator have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

10.1.1. If the Council were to resolve to alter the current parking arrangements, extensive stakeholder engagement would be necessary.

11. Delegation

11.1. The General Manager, Director City Infrastructure, Group Manager Infrastructure Planning, and Manager Traffic Engineering have delegation under Section 30(1) and Section 30(2) of the Local Government (Highways) Act to exercise the authority of the Council to make changes to on-street parking controls.

11.2. In this case, it is not a simple matter of changing the parking controls, as it would be necessary to construct a wider footpath, and make other alterations to the subject section of Beach Road.

11.3. Due to the unusual nature of this matter, the General Manager has decided that it is appropriate for the matter to be considered by the Council.

Kimbra Parker

Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Angela Moore

Manager Traffic Engineering

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 6 October 2016

File Reference: F16/110754

Attachment a: Letter of request from Mrs Elizabeth Walker dated 6 June 2016 ⇩

Attachment b: Memorandum from Road and Traffic Engineer dated 12 July 2016 ⇩

Item No. 6.6

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting - 12/10/2016

Page 242

ATTACHMENT a

APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER THE DELEGATED AUTHORITY OF

THE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR QUICK RESPONSE GRANTS - FILE REF: 16/194

Applicant	Project Description	Grant Stream	Value of Grant $ excl	Date of Approval
Multicultural Council of Tasmania	Multicultural Council of Tasmania's Annual General Meeting is an opportunity for its 58 member groups to gather and discuss issues that concern Tasmania's culturally, linguistically and religiously diverse communities. The Multicultural Council of Tasmania inform members of activities undertaken in 2015 - 2016 and present members with a financial report for the last financial year. The Council also consults with members through a follow up feedback survey to ensure activities are in line with the Council's aims, objectives and member concerns.	Community	$500	26/8/2016
Anglicare Tasmania	Anglicare Tasmania will be hosting an Anti-poverty Week lunch at Mathers House on 16 October 2016 for federal and state politicians. The lunch will be cooked using ingredients that meet Australian Health Standards but using a Newstart budget. Matthew Evans will be the chef for the day. Anglicare will coordinate with food justice and health experts to design the menu, work with Matthew to decide what to cook, invite the politicians and key community leaders and host the lunch.	Community	$475	15/7/2016
Rotary Club of Hobart	Rotary hold an annual art show, this is its 27th year, over a weekend using hired facilities at Wrest Point Casino. It is aimed at providing an opportunity for local artists to display their work and for Rotary to raise money from sales and related activities. Rotary have about 150 artists and up to 400 works on display and attract an audience of around 1000 people. Money raised forms a substantial part of Rotary’s annual fund raising and goes towards paying for many community and charitable causes it support each year.	Community	$500	26/8/2016

Applicant	Project Description	Grant Stream	Value of Grant $ excl	Date of Approval
Maritime Museum of Tasmania	The Maritime Museum of Tasmania hosted a public presentation titled "Dirk Hartog and early Dutch exploration of Australia and Tasmania". Dr Wendy van Duivenvoorde, Senior Lecturer in Maritime Archaeology at Flinders University was the guest speaker on 4 October 2016, talking on early Dutch exploration of Australia. October 2016 marks the 400^th anniversary of Dirk Hartog's landfall in Western Australia with his ship, the Eendracht, at Dirk Hartog Island, in the Shark Bay area. Due to the expected high interest in this talk, the Maritime Museum would like to use the Grand Ballroom in the Town Hall.	Community	$500	19/8/2016
The Little HELP Project Tasmania INC	The Little HELP Project Tasmania is a non for profit organisation targeting the rise in mental health concerns within Tasmania's youth. It provided a full day workshop which builds resilience, teamwork and communication skills through activities, speakers and a variety of challenges. Its experienced team has been heavily involved with the community and works to engage with young people as a mentor, and empower each student to develop their sense of self and improve their participation in both their community and their school.	Community	$500	23/9/2016
Fullers Bookstore and Cafe	'Project: Art House' is a multi-media visual art exhibition, located in Princes Park Magazine site, and driven by students in Years 11-12. The project has the dual aims of developing and showcasing young Tasmanian talent and activating an otherwise uninhabited historic space. It provides passionate students the opportunity to be involved with and play integral roles in the exhibition process. The project aims to teach students valuable trans-disciplinary skills, networks and knowledge that can be applied to a broad range of career pathways that significantly impact the participants, as well as the wider community. This project is run under the guidance and/or supervision of professional arts practitioners. It will not only be a celebration of student work, but a reflection on Hobart's history, with access to the public.	Creative	$1,000	16/8/2016

Applicant	Project Description	Grant Stream	Value of Grant $ excl	Date of Approval
	After a guided walk-through of the venue, selected students engaged specifically with the history of the Princes Park Magazine site and surrounding area to produce works that revealed aspects of Hobart's otherwise hidden past. Participants had access to the space in September, allowing time for research, installation of work, three nights of display to the public and complete de-installation. Promotion of the event was also managed by the students.
Fahan School Parents and Friends Association	The Fahan School fair to be held on 18 September 2016 is the major fundraising event for the Fahan School in 2016. The aim of the fair is to raise funds to support the students of Fahan School. In the past the funds raised have been used to purchase a wood fired pizza oven, play and gym equipment. The fair brings together the school community in a common endeavour, and includes the local community businesses by getting sponsorships and advertising the businesses in turn. Support goes towards in-kind assistance to use up to 40 of the Council’s bean bags at the school fair.	Events	In-kind up to $500	30/8/2016
Cambridge Primary School	The Cambridge School fair to be held on 18 November 2016 brings the school and the greater Cambridge community together with amusements, food and music. Support goes towards in-kind assistance to use 15 of the Council’s bean bags at the school fair.	Events	In-kind up to $200	31/8/2016
The Australian Italian Club	The Australian Italian Club held a fundraising lunch at the North Hobart Club on 16 September 2016, to raise donations for the 2016 Italian Earthquake Appeal. The $14,000 funds raised will be donated to the Italian Red Cross to provide assistance for recovery associated with the Italian Earthquake disaster that occurred on 24 August 2016.	Community	$500	23/9/2016

about people	We value people – our community, our customers and colleagues.
professional	We take pride in our work.
enterprising	We look for ways to create value.
responsive	We’re accessible and focused on service.
inclusive	We respect diversity in people and ideas.
making a difference	We recognise that everything we do shapes Hobart’s future.