Agenda of Governance Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Governance Committee Meeting

Page 7

28/2/2017

REPORT TITLE: Hobart 2025: Next Steps

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Project and Research Officer - Executive and Economic Development

Group Manager Executive & Economic Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The first purpose of this report is to present the findings of research undertaken to inform the next iteration of the city vision, Hobart 2025: A strategic framework.

1.1.1. The report draws on a more detailed/comprehensive discussion paper, provided in Attachment A.

1.2. The second purpose of the report is to provide a set of suggested next steps for the city vision, based on the aforementioned research.

1.3. Benefits to community members include potential opportunities to engage in mutual learning with City of Hobart and to directly contribute to the future of Hobart.

2. Report Summary

2.1. Research was undertaken on global trends in long-range strategy. The research included:

2.1.1. Background on the concept of city visioning and its meanings for local government and communities.

2.1.2. Evaluation of strategic documents and initiatives from over 60 cities in 37 countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, Africa, the Americas, and Oceania, including all Australian capital cities.

2.2. The major finding was that city visions from around the world are broadly universal in their engagement styles, content, and goals—but that some cities undertake the process particularly well and provide a range of compelling lessons for Hobart.

2.3. A comparative analysis on the structure and content of Hobart 2025 and a number of ‘key ingredients’ of long-range strategy (derived from the global review of cities) was undertaken.

2.3.1. The analysis found that Hobart 2025 broadly aligned with visioning trends at the time it was created, and that there are both elements it should retain and elements it could improve upon.

2.4. A brief evaluation of City of Hobart’s performance against its own vision (Hobart 2025) was undertaken.

2.4.1. Findings provided insights into major actions undertaken since 2006, as well as community satisfaction indicators during the same period.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council reaffirm its commitment to creating a new vision or long-range strategy for the City of Hobart.

2. The process to create the new vision commence in early 2017.

3. The process to create the new vision involve broad-scale community engagement, including:

(i) Both online and offline methods, including web and social media presence and a range of in-person interactions.

(ii) Incorporating techniques of relevance to long-range strategy, such as strategic foresight, systems thinking and participatory democracy.

(iii) Building vision-specific partnerships with key stakeholders, such as the University of Tasmania and metropolitan local government entities.

4. The process to create the new vision involves comprehensive pre-engagement planning, including:

(i) A dedicated communications strategy, including provisions for project branding, marketing and messaging

(ii) A dedicated research and evaluation strategy, including provisions for data collection and analysis.

5. Regular updates on progress are provided to ELT and the Council.

4. Background

4.1. In 2015, a preliminary report evaluated changes that had occurred in Hobart since the current city vision was created in 2006. The report focused on demographics and trends affecting Hobart.

4.2. On 1 March 2016, the Governance Committee received a presentation summarising the findings of this evaluation, along with preliminary recommendations for next steps in evaluating the vision. They received a copy of the report as an attachment. The Governance Committee resolved inter alia:

That:

This memorandum and the attached report are for the information of Aldermen.

The work undertaken by Ms Field will be used as an input by officers in the development of the new vision project.

4.3. As part of endorsing the Council’s Strategic Plan 2015-2025, the Council resolved to commence investigation into a new long-range vision for the City of Hobart

4.4. This report is a response to Part 2 of the Governance Committee’s decision.

4.4.1. A recommendation of the preliminary report was to compile a discussion paper highlighting key achievements that occurred in Hobart during the life of the current vision.

4.4.2. The recommendation was modified and expanded to include research on global trends in long-range local government strategy.

4.4.3. The discussion paper (Attachment A) is therefore comprised of the results of that research.

4.5. Research to inform the discussion paper commenced in June 2016 and concluded in December 2016.

4.5.1. Research methods included:

· A literature review (academic articles, news media, reports, and so on);

· Evaluation of data from City of Hobart annual reports;

· Aldermanic and staff interviews;

· brief workshops with ELT and the Managers’ forum; and

· A limited number of conversations with external experts based primarily at UTAS.

4.5.2. Limitations included:

· Lack of access to local government documents pertaining to the cities evaluated;

· Inconsistency in publicly available data; and

· Time constraints (meaning an inability to pursue all compelling examples or to review all available data in-depth).

Background to city visioning and long-range strategy

4.6. City visioning

4.6.1. For the purposes of this report, the term ‘vision’ is used to refer to a strategy document set at a timeframe greater than 10 years. However, it is important to note that cities use a range of terms to refer to the same or similar concepts, such as ‘strategy’, ‘plant’, or a specific branding equivalent (e.g. Future Melbourne, imagineCALGARY), and the term ‘vision’ is now less frequently used.

4.6.2. Globalisation has meant that cities are increasingly attempting to attract and retain talented residents and visitors—and visioning provides one means of making a ‘business case’ for a particular city and its attributes.

4.6.3. There are two broad categories of vision content: stable/retention elements and dynamic/aspiration elements. The first category relates to the characteristics a city wants to keep, the second to those it wants to obtain or develop.

4.6.4. In the majority of cases, community engagement makes the process of creating a city vision one where the public’s attitudes toward the future can be channelled into local government strategic planning. It may likewise be used as an awareness-raising exercise about issues relevant to planning the future.

4.6.5. In terms of local government entities, visioning demonstrates organisational aspirations, sense of purpose, innovation, progressiveness, defence of values, forward momentum, preparedness and a capacity to respond to change.

4.7. Defining community

4.7.1. Defining and understanding community is an integral part of effective long-range planning. Any city is effectively a community of communities.

4.7.2. Hobart, for example, is a local government area, a city, a state capital, a destination and gateway, and a source of identity—as well as an organisation and workplace (in the form of City of Hobart).

4.7.3. Hobart communities are comprised of residents and ratepayers, visitors to and users of the City (including commuting workers and students), organisational stakeholders (such as businesses and NGOs), and so on. Members of these communities would likewise identify with multitudes of other ‘communities’, such as those pertaining to culture, profession, recreation, religion, neighbourhood, and more.

4.7.4. Because Hobart, as with any city in today’s world, is so diverse in terms of how its people define themselves, there is no overarching or unified sense of what the Hobart community is.

4.7.5. Embracing and leveraging this complexity and diversity is a key part of creating a robust long-range strategy.

4.8. The role of local government

4.8.1. Local government has a critically important role in fostering a shared sense of community in such a diverse setting—in this case, one based on shared geographic location (linked to sense of place).

4.8.2. There are different perspectives on thinking about what City of Hobart’s role could be in this space, including: local government’s legislated mandate, de facto functions of local government, what the community thinks local government is responsible for, and scope for local government to provide leadership beyond expectations and requirements.

4.8.3. Since it is not legislatively required (beyond a 10-year timeframe), visioning/long-range strategising, provides one way that local government can demonstrate leadership and the capability to bring together diverse groups of stakeholders toward a common purpose or set of goals.

Global trends in long-range strategy

4.9. Cities evaluated

4.9.1. Cities were selected on the basis of: previous comparisons to Hobart, renown for being a leader in a particular area, relevant geopolitical position, and/or because they were familiar to staff members involved with the writing of this report.

4.9.2. The discussion paper (Attachment A) offers brief profiles of each, including notable elements of local initiatives or strategies.

4.9.3. The following figure and table display the cities individually profiled in the discussion paper (region-based colour coding matches the pins of the map).

Europe	Asia & Middle East	Africa	Americas	Oceania
Tirana, Albania	Bhutan	Accra, Ghana	Ushuaia, Argentina	Adelaide, SA
Dubrovnik, Croatia	Tianjin Eco-City, China	Kigali, Rwanda	Curitiba, Brazil	Brisbane, QLD
Copenhagen, Denmark	Dharamshala, India	Durban, South Africa	Medellín, Colombia	Gold Coast, QLD
Helsinki, Finland	Toyama, Japan	Kampala, Uganda	Ecuador	Canberra, ACT
Paris, France	Beirut, Lebanon		Calgary, Canada	Darwin, NT
Freiburg, Germany	Tel Aviv, Israel		Vancouver, Canada	Fremantle, WA
Reykjavík, Iceland			Austin, USA	Perth, WA
Rotterdam, Netherlands			Boulder, USA	Melbourne, VIC
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK			Portland, USA	Yarra, VIC
Reading, UK			Seattle, USA	Sydney, NSW
				Auckland, NZ
				Christchurch, NZ
				Wellington, NZ

4.9.4. Additional cities, such as Hong Kong, Detroit, Lima and Townsville were investigated but not specifically profiled (pins for those cities are shown on the map).

4.10. Dominant trends

4.10.1. Dominant trends included those present in effectively every strategy document.

4.10.2. Common features of community engagement processes included:

· Issuance of background or discussion papers;

· Workshops;

· Forums;

· Information sessions;

· Interviews;

· Focus groups;

· Surveys; and

· Online and offline submission methods.

4.10.3. Common goals had to do with:

· Economy;

· Natural environment;

· Social fabric;

· Sense of place;

· Public health and safety;

· Transport and infrastructure;

· Land use planning and urban design;

· Achieving global status;

· Technological advancement and innovation; and

· Heritage.

4.10.4. Additional common features were to do with:

· Providing contextualising information about the city;

· Describing the roles of local government;

· Describing the city’s strategic framework;

· Discussing environmental sustainability issues; and

· Making spatial linkages in terms of how the vision would play out in physical space.

4.10.5. Consultants had prominent roles in the creation of many strategies, for example to do with compiling background reports or analysing data from community engagement exercises, underlining the importance of choosing them well.

4.10.6. Some, but not many, cities had evaluation reports readily available. Those that did often provided details on community engagement but not on how the city had performed against the vision over time. A number of examples described the difficulties of measuring success against something like a vision, but it was clear that they viewed the enterprise as having significant value—especially as a large number of cities had renewed or recreated visions over time.

4.10.7. It is important to note that, in the absence of long-range strategic documents or directions being led or stewarded by a local government entity, there were a number of prominent examples of where citizens took it upon themselves to fill the gap in future thinking or imagining. Examples include Accra, Ghana and Beirut, Lebanon.

4.11. Emerging trends

4.11.1. Emerging trends involved identification of creative or effective approaches that some of the world’s leading cities have adopted.

4.11.2. Participatory democracy

· For example, citizens’ juries or community-centric development approaches to creating strategy documents (eg. Melbourne, Medellín, Ecuador, a range of European cities).

4.11.3. Strategic foresight

· For example, using environmental scanning techniques to identify important trends affecting urban development, or community engagement methods that involve scenarios or imagining preferred or possible futures (eg. United Kingdom).

4.11.4. Data analysis

· For example, utilising various types of software/online platforms to analyse large quantities of qualitative and quantitative data (eg. Melbourne, Christchurch).

4.11.5. Networking and partnerships

· For example, engaging local thought leaders to act as ‘Vision Ambassadors’, working through networks to have topical conversations or workshops about issues of importance to a specific community of people, or collaborating across metropolitan area councils (eg. Copenhagen, Calgary, Melbourne).

4.11.6. Systems thinking

· For example, systems mapping (visual representations of actors and interactions within a system) or identification of key relationships and leverage points (eg. Ecuador).

4.11.7. Integrated or nested strategic frameworks

· For example, clearly identifying how long-range strategy is embedded in overall organisational strategy, or how it links to its spatial context (eg. Durban).

4.11.8. Retention of core values

· For example, focusing on connecting to heritage, restraint, or working within constraints during a present era defined by globalisation and expansionism (eg. Bhutan).

4.11.9. Urban transformation

· For example, using creative, place-based initiatives to work with local communities for inclusiveness and positive and lasting change (eg. Medellín, Curitiba).

4.11.10. Resilience and recovery

· For example, taking meaningful approaches toward building a city’s capacity to respond to shocks and stresses generated by humans or the natural environment (eg. Christchurch).

4.11.11. Ecological considerations

· For example, pairing top-down and grassroots initiatives for making sustainability a cornerstone of strategic planning (eg. Copenhagen, Freiburg, Vancouver, Portland, a range of European cities).

4.11.12. Green tech

· For example, leveraging technological innovation for best-case social and ecological outcomes (e.g. Paris, Oslo).

4.11.13. Open data and crowd sourcing

· For example, providing public access to government data sets or using publically-generated data to create resources for public use or benefit (eg. Helsinki).

4.11.14. Transparency and accountability

· For example, providing robust and easy-to-understand evaluation frameworks or openly responding to changes in context (eg. Copenhagen, Helsinki).

4.11.15. Marketing and design

· For example, using high-quality graphic design, data visualisation/infographics, images, and copy to tell a story, making the strategy easy to navigate and understand (eg Adelaide, Melbourne, Fremantle).

Key ingredients of robust long-range strategy

4.12. The ingredients were derived from the evaluation of the cities described in Section 4.6 of this report. The list aimed to summarise the ‘best’ of the strategies and initiatives reviewed, balancing dominant and emerging trends. It is not exhaustive, but rather suggests important elements that should be considered. Local conditions would partially determine whether and how a given element would be effective.

4.12.1. Expanded descriptions of the ingredients are available in Section 3.5 of the discussion paper (Attachment A).

4.13. To consider how City of Hobart’s vision aligns with the ingredients, we considered the document as if we were an external reader having no familiarity with the city, its local government, or the document itself.

4.14. The following list names each ingredient and provides a brief description of Hobart 2025 relative to that ingredient.

4.15. A robust long-range local government strategy:

4.15.1. Captures the genius loci (spirit of place) of the city

· While Hobart 2025 does not provide contextualising information (such as maps and statistics or discussion of the communities present in Hobart), it does well at outlining the qualities that make the city special (‘Hobart is one of the most beautiful and liveable cities in the world’).

4.15.2. Balances retention and aspiration.

· The Future Direction statements focus on promotion, retention, maintenance, protection, and improvement. In this way, Hobart 2025 identifies key values the city wants to retain throughout the document.

· Aspirations are less clear, because there is no discussion of community engagement approaches within the document to show how the process arrived at the Future Direction goals.

· Still, overall, retention and aspiration are balanced much more effective than many other examples reviewed.

4.15.3. Uses rigorous and inclusive community engagement methods, working to make effective use of community contributions and build trust in local government.

· Internally, it is known that the first vision project represented a total overhaul of City of Hobart’s community engagement policies.

· The document itself, however, does not celebrate the scale of the success or describe the process undertaken. There is no publicly accessible report evaluating engagement approaches and outcomes.

4.15.4. Clearly explains and leverages the various roles of local government.

· The vision clearly states, ‘as future direction statements are wide-ranging, the specific role of Council in relation to each has been identified’. These helpful sections help orient the reader, and were not found in many of the strategies reviewed.

· Additional support could have come from positioning City of Hobart in relation to other stakeholders (e.g. State and Federal Government) and how those relationships might affect vision outcomes.

4.15.5. Guides the work of the organisation and its people, crossing silos and supporting collaboration.

· Internal experience and interviews with Aldermen and staff underline just how important Hobart 2025 has been in guiding the strategic direction of the City.

· This importance is not communicated through the vision document itself, so the public would be unlikely to know just how crucial it has been to informing Council operations.

4.15.6. Establishes and leverages networking and partnerships.

· Hobart 2025 discusses a range of stakeholders and refers to the importance of building partnerships.

· There is no concrete information about how these partnerships would be forged and maintained. Neither is there a discussion of the partnerships involved in creating the vision.

4.15.7. Uses investigative rigour to inform conscious risk taking.

· Although the document pays homage to the community engagement process, it lacks a discussion of any research that may have been done in framing the Future Directions, outcomes, and strategies. There is no discussion of which methods of data collection and analysis were chosen and why, or whether these processes were conducted internally or externally.

· However, it is clear that, internally, evidence-based work is important, and the continual process of evaluating and re-evaluating performance against Hobart 2025 (through annual reporting) is a demonstration of those efforts.

· To put a number of the vision’s strategies into practice would likely mean a number of challenging conversations, choices, and decisions. There is a gap in the existing vision in terms of showing how City of Hobart is poised to take calculated risks as a means of progress toward achieving such complex and important outcomes.

4.15.8. Harnesses systems and resilience thinking.

· Hobart 2025 does not explicitly acknowledge the importance or possibilities of systems thinking per se, but there are a number of sections that acknowledge the influences of systems, such as land use planning, on outcomes.

· Future Direction 3 discusses the need to ‘monitor the dynamics of the region, city, and local communities to understand the drivers of change and interrelationships that will affect the region’s development’.

· Systems thinking is especially important to Hobart as the capital city of an island state—a status which makes it vulnerable to system shocks and stresses.

· Hobart 2025 makes one mention of resilience, an area that could receive greater focus in the next iteration.

4.15.9. Factors in the metropolitan scale, making clear linkages to land use planning and urban design.

· Hobart 2025 explicitly and frequently mentions the importance of metropolitan partnerships, discussions, and planning concerning a range of topics.

· It does well at highlighting important topic, but there is a lack of clarity as to why and how metropolitan approaches could be undertaken.

4.15.10. Creates a robust evaluation framework, using both qualitative and quantitative measures, to assess the strategy’s effectiveness from the beginning.

· Evaluation of Hobart 2025 hinges on the Strategic Measurement system (SMS). The SMS was created for reporting performance against the Future Directions, but it was not created alongside the vision.

· The result is that there is uncertainty about how the process of creating the vision contributed to its success or failure to deliver on outcomes.

· At the highest level, the framework requires contextualisation in order to be understood. A member of the public reading the charts displayed in the annual report would likely struggle to derive meaning from them.

· As it stands, changes in the city could not be clearly attributed to the vision as such, even if they occurred as a result of City of Hobart efforts to achieve a given Future Direction.

4.15.11. Is responsive, flexible, and adaptive.

· Hobart, as a city, has generally responded well to a range of trends that have influenced it in the past 10 years—MONA, the tourism boom, increasing numbers of international students, and the sharing economy are just a few examples.

· City of Hobart, as a local government entity, has some but not total influence over how such trends evolve.

· There are also examples of how City of Hobart has taken a variety of perspectives on each Future Direction in order to keep pace with the trends of the day. Hobart 2025 has been flexible enough for Council to continue to applying the vision’s strategies even as priorities have changed over the years.

4.15.12. Factors in a robust and continuous communications strategy.

· Communications has been one of Hobart 2025’s biggest challenges. There is no communications strategy embedded in the strategic framework.

· Sharing good news stories, engaging communities in local government, forming meaningful partnerships, and other ongoing community engagement approaches happen meaningfully and very well in specific cases at City of Hobart.

· A positive next step would be for new vision to incorporate a dedicated strategy aimed at building trust and civic engagement.

4.15.13. Uses high quality design and copy principles.

· The Hobart 2025 document reads like a report, in both language and layout. It has the feeling of an internal document that is available for public circulation, rather than a document owned by the community.

· While some of this structure is necessary for reporting purposes (eg. numbering each strategy), the document lacks a story.

· Hobart 2025 could also have a stronger web presence. The PDF is available for download, but, as the guiding document for the city’s strategy, it could have a stronger online profile.

4.15.14. Is creative, bold, and courageous in the face of change.

· Hobart 2025 provides an excellent reflection of values, but it stops short of showing how the city or the Council is demonstrating creative leadership in the long-range strategy space.

· The next step would be to directly confront important global trends, which, in the current document, are intermittently embedded in individual Hobart 2025 strategies without broader contextualisation.

· The document does not include any discussion about the community’s thoughts on such issues and the risks and opportunities they might pose.

City of Hobart’s performance against Hobart 2025

4.16. To gain an understanding of how City of Hobart performed in terms of achieving the Future Directions laid out in Hobart 2025, Council annual reports were reviewed.

4.16.1. Analysis of the annual reports and the underlying data collected through the Strategic Measurement System provided broad-level understanding of what major work had been undertaken by City of Hobart.

4.16.2. A review of community satisfaction indicators (from Biennial Surveys) provided insights into public perceptions about the City.

4.17. The evaluation yielded several compelling insights into City of Hobart’s progress over the past decade:

4.17.1. Over 600 major actions were completed between 2008 and 2015 across all Future Direction statements.

4.17.2. Community satisfaction was particularly high in terms of big picture views about the city, for example, those related to the city’s image, pride in the city, vibrancy of the city, quality of the environment, Hobart being a preferred place to live, and cultural activities, festivals, and markets. All averaged over 4.0 out of 5.

4.17.3. It was clear from the progression of major actions that the Future Direction statements were sufficiently broad to allow for changes in operating environment, but specific enough to provide guidance and justification for Council’s work.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Hobart 2025 has served City of Hobart well in the 10 years since its inception, broadly guiding the work of Council and its staff.

5.2. It is evident from the research findings in the discussion paper (Attachment A) that there would be great strategic value in creating a new City of Hobart vision or long-range strategy beginning in 2017.

5.2.1. A number of global cities have recently created or revised long-range strategy documents using a range of compelling community engagement and research methods.

5.2.2. A number of Australian cities (most notably Melbourne and Adelaide) updated their vision documents in 2016, providing recent examples from nearby cities.

5.2.3. The world has changed dramatically in the past 10 years, not least due to the rise of social media and the increasing globalisation of cities.

5.2.4. Hobart itself has also changed and is poised to change further, due to both external influences and the behaviours and decisions of internal actors, such as the University of Tasmania, MONA, and the Tasmanian Government.

5.2.5. There are likewise certain qualities that define Hobart which are worth retaining and developing.

5.3. Engaging Hobart communities in discussing and contributing to such a strategy would be critically important to creating one that genuinely reflects their opinions, needs, and aspirations.

5.3.1. A range of compelling community engagement methods have been developed during the past 10 years, including those to do with social media, participatory democracy, interdisciplinary collaboration, and mixed methods approaches.

5.3.2. There is a unique opportunity for Hobart to use methods already tested elsewhere, as well as to make its own inventive contributions to the community engagement space.

5.3.3. There is likewise an opportunity for this process to engage communities in civic life and to foster open and positive lines of communication between Hobart stakeholders and local government.

5.4. It is proposed that the new vision replacing Hobart 2025 be created starting in 2017, leveraging developments in global social and other trends, as well as those in community engagement.

5.4.1. The resulting document(s) and outputs should be a reflection of both the community’s contributions and City of Hobart’s capacity to provide strategic leadership.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Creating a new vision for City of Hobart has high level-strategic implications, given that it involves reinventing the framework that guides strategic planning within the organisation.

6.1.1. Hobart 2025 would be superseded by a new document/framework.

6.2. The process of creating a new vision (particularly in terms of community engagement) would be in line with the existing Hobart 2025 framework and strategic planning goals.

6.2.1. Hobart 2025: A strategic framework

· FD 3.1: An integrated approach to the planning and development of the wider metropolitan region.

· FD 3.2: Partnerships with governments, the private sector and local communities in achieving significant regional, city and community goals.

· FD 3.3: Development of technologies that give young people opportunities to contribute to planning and development in the City.

· FD 4.1: The city remains unique in its own right, protecting its built heritage and history.

· FD 4.2: Quality development with the principles of sustainable cities and the reduction of ecological impacts pursued.

· FD 6.1: A spirit of community.

· FD 6.2: Diversity is valued and there is participation by all in their community.

· FD 6.3: A friendly and compassionate City.

· FD 7.2: Creative thinking and support for creativity will help build a strong economic foundation.

· FD 7.3: Entertainment, arts and cultural activities promote the distinctive character of the city and lifestyle opportunities, and strong communities will ensure a vibrancy and way of life that is Hobart.

6.2.2. Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025

· Goal 1.1: Partnerships with Government, the education and business create city growth.

· Goal 1.5: Cultural and create activities build community wellbeing and economic viability.

· Goal 3.1: Increased resilience to climate change.

· Goal 4.1: Community connectedness and participation realises the cultural and social potential of the community.

· Goal 4.3: Build community resilience, public health and safety.

· Goal: 4.4: Community diversity is encouraged and celebrated.

· Goal 5.1: The organisation is relevant to the community and provides good governance and transparent decision-making.

· Goal 5.2: Opportunities are embraced and risks are recognised and managed.

· Goal 5.4: An engaged civic culture where people feel part of decision-making.

· Goal 5.5: Capital City leadership is provided.

6.2.3. Social Inclusion Strategy 2014-2019

· Community engagement and participation.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Should Council endorse the proposals set out in this report, consultant(s) may be required during the planning phases of communications and community engagement activities, thus having an impact on the operating result of the 2016-2017 financial year.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Impact on the 2017-18 financial year will be dependent on the scale and type of communications and community engagement exercises and project outputs.

7.2.2. Should Council endorse the proposals set out in this report, it is considered that a significant financial allocation will be required. The project will be factored into 2017-2018 budgetary planning for Council’s consideration.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. None arise from this report.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There is no legal or legislative requirement for Tasmanian local government entities to have a strategic document beyond a 10-year timeframe.

8.1.1. However, a new vision document would conceivably guide City of Hobart’s strategic planning in future years.

8.2. A new city vision could have positive impacts on City of Hobart’s ability to manage risk.

8.2.1. The process of creating the vision would provide a forum for community members to express their ideas and concerns about the future, thus providing insights into areas of importance for the community.

8.2.2. The resulting information could then inform risk management approaches relevant to a range of strategic and operational areas within City of Hobart.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. There is an opportunity for the project to have an environmental and resilience focus, which could lead to conversations about prominent environmental topics of importance to Hobart communities, with flow-on effects to net-positive behaviours.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. The project involves significant social and customer considerations.

10.1.1. The aim of a vision-type document is to provide high-level strategic guidance, through a community-generated sense of purpose for a local government entity.

10.1.2. It would be critical that community members are able to see what will be done with their contributions in order for them to support the process, especially given its somewhat intangible nature (as a goal-setting exercise).

10.1.3. It would likewise be important that the community is able to see value-for-money in such an exercise. Raising awareness of how instrumental the 2006 vision has been in guiding City of Hobart operations would be one means of supporting this.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. There are significant marketing opportunities associated with creating a new vision.

11.1.1. Engagement exercises provide the opportunity to build trust, garner community contributions to strategy, and share good news stories about City of Hobart’s own work. The increased awareness can lead to commensurate increases in community engagement with Council services and initiatives.

11.2. The project itself would require branding and messaging, similar to what some other cities have done (for example, Future Melbourne or imagineCALGARY).

11.2.1. Branding would increase the project profile and associated engagement with it.

11.3. There would be many opportunities to promote the project through several media channels, from mainstream newspapers to organisational newsletters to events.

11.3.1. There would be specific opportunities to leverage the process to create City of Hobart-generated posts and updates about projects happenings, opportunities and progress.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. A number of stakeholders have been involved in the writing of this report, including:

12.1.1. Aldermen;

12.1.2. ELT;

12.1.3. Council staff;

12.1.4. UTAS researchers.

12.2. The project is inherently an exercise in community and stakeholder engagement—should Council endorse the proposals set out in this report, the output would be the result of their contributions.

12.3. Stakeholders include:

12.3.1. Internal: Aldermen and Council staff;

12.3.2. Metropolitan Councils: Clarence, Glenorchy, and Kingborough;

12.3.3. Tasmanian Government: Department of State Growth, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services;

12.3.4. University of Tasmania;

12.3.5. MONA;

12.3.6. Businesses;

12.3.7. Non-governmental organisations;

12.3.8. Residents of Hobart LGA;

12.3.9. Commuters and visitors to Hobart LGA.

13. Delegation

13.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

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.

Marisa McArthur

Project and Research Officer - Executive and Economic Development

Tim Short

Group Manager Executive & Economic Development

Date: 23 February 2017

File Reference: F17/15137

Attachment a: Future of Hobart: A Discussion Paper Evaluating Opportunities for City of Hobart Long-Range Strategy ⇩

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Governance Committee Meeting - 28/2/2017

Page 26

ATTACHMENT a

PDF Creator

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.