Agenda of Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 7

5/4/2017

REPORT TITLE: Five Year Review of Salamanca Market Stallholder Licence Agreement

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Director Community Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report presents the draft 2017-2022 Salamanca Market Stallholder Licence Agreement for Council endorsement.

1.2. A review of the Licence Agreement and subsequent revision provides Salamanca Market stallholders and the Council with a robust document that meets the contemporary expectations and requirements of licensed stallholders, the events and tourism sector, the community and the Council.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The current Agreement was endorsed by the Council in 2012 and came into effect on 1 January 2013 and expires on 30 June 2017.

2.2. The current Licence states that it be reviewed every five years.

2.3. A draft Licence Agreement 2017-2022 (Agreement) is attached for the Council’s endorsement and is provided at Attachment A to this report.

2.4. The draft Agreement has had input from Council staff, the Salamanca Market Stallholders’ Association (SMSA) as well as external legal advice from Dobson Mitchell & Allport.

2.5. If endorsed by the Council the draft Agreement would be distributed to the SMSA and to all licensed stallholders for a final review and comment.

2.6. Once comments are received and reviewed the final draft Agreement will be presented to the Council for approval.

2.7. In accordance with the proposed terms and conditions of the Agreement, it is intended that the final and approved Agreement would come into effect on 1 July 2017 and be in place until 30 June 2022.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The draft 2017-2022 Salamanca Market Stallholder Licence Agreement marked as Attachment A to this report be endorsed by the Council.

2. The endorsed draft 2017-2022 Salamanca Market Stallholder Licence Agreement be distributed to all licensed Salamanca Market Stallholders and the Salamanca Market Stallholders’ Association for review and comment.

3. Upon receipt of comments from all licensed Salamanca Market Stallholders and the Salamanca Market Stallholders’ Association, the final draft 2017-2022 Salamanca Market Stallholder Licence Agreement be the subject of a further report to the Council for final approval.

4. Background

4.1. The Agreement between Salamanca Market licensed stallholders and the Council provides the legal framework within which stallholders can trade at the Salamanca Market (the Market).

4.2. The Agreement clarifies the requirements and responsibilities of both licensed stallholders and the Council to ensure the efficient, safe and sustainable delivery of the Market.

4.3. As part of the contract between licensed stallholders and the Council the Agreement is reviewed every five years.

4.4. A valuation of the Salamanca Market also takes place every five years.

4.4.1. The valuation has taken place with the outcomes of the revaluation being the subject of a separate report to the Council.

4.5. The Agreement applies to all licensed stallholders. Casual stallholders operate within the Market under the Salamanca Market Casual Stallholder Agreement.

4.5.1. The Salamanca Market Casual Stallholder Agreement is derived from the Licence Agreement. Therefore any relevant changes endorsed by the Council to the 2017-2022 Agreement will subsequently be made to the Salamanca Market Casual Stallholder Agreement.

4.6. The current 2011-2016 Agreement is the result of negotiations between licensed stallholders, the SMSA and the Council.

4.7. There has been substantial progress in building a ‘partnership’ ethos between the Salamanca Market stallholders and the Council throughout the term of 2011-2016 Agreement. The input of the SMSA into the current draft builds on this strengthening relationship with the Council.

4.7.1. In total, eight meetings were held with representatives from the SMSA over a 12 month period to discuss the proposed changes to the new Agreement.

4.7.2. Additionally all stallholders have been updated with progress in the quarterly stallholder newsletter.

4.8. As well as this strengthening relationship between stallholders and the Council, significant administrative, resource and operational changes have been implemented by the Events and Salamanca Market Unit within the Market over the past five years.

4.9. These changes have seen an increase in the diversity of stallholders as well as the further professional development of Council staff and stallholders, which has resulted in the Market being recognised as a nationally significant tourism event.

4.9.1. The Market won the Gold Award within the Major Festivals and Events and category in the Tasmanian Tourism Awards in October 2016 and was a finalist in the Qantas Australian Tourism Awards held in Darwin in February 2017.

4.10. The administrative and operational changes that have occurred within the Market over the last five years are not however adequately reflected within the current Agreement.

4.11. There have also been significant changes within the life of the current Agreement to the Council’s legal responsibilities, particularly in relation to Workplace Health and Safety requirements.

4.12. A number of changes have been proposed within the draft Agreement that are intended to reflect these changes to the Market’s administration and operations, as well as the Council’s legal responsibilities.

4.13. Given the general success of the current Licence in meeting Council and stallholder needs, no fundamental changes are proposed at this time.

4.14. The four types of change proposed within the draft, are summarised below.

4.14.1. Format Changes relate to formatting, paragraph numbering or grammatical changes to the document. For the sake of clarity these changes have been accepted within the attached draft.

4.14.2. Administrative Changes relate to the Council’s administrative processes and responsibilities that have changed or have come into effect over the past five years. These have been highlighted green in the draft.

4.14.3. Operational Changes relate to Market operational requirements that have changed or have come into effect over the past five years. These have been highlighted blue in the draft.

4.14.4. Content Changes relate to any new clause or content that has been included in the draft Agreement. These have been highlighted yellow in the draft.

4.14.5. In order to facilitate reading of the draft document all formatting changes have been accepted.

4.14.6. The significant changes in this Agreement are:

Clause	Description of Change	SMSA Support
Throughout the Agreement	Defined SMSA Inc to recognise the stallholder representative body	Requested by the SMSA
3(c)	Provides the Council the right to change Market boundaries if prompted for security or workplace health and safety reasons	Requested by the SMSA
4(a)	Extend the term of the new Agreement until 30 June 2022	Supported by the SMSA
8 & 9	In the event of conduct concerns the Licensee’s response time has been reduced from 30 to 14 days to provide for a timely process	Supported by the SMSA
11(a)	Require joint Licensees to now provide a written legal document to Council to protect all Licensee parties	Supported by the SMSA
19	Allows the Council to undertake a broader range of actions in the event of a dispute	Supported by the SMSA
19(k) (l) & (m)	Allows the Council to take action if a Licensee becomes insolvent	Requested by the SMSA
20	Where a Licensee has breached the Agreement the Council has introduced a five (5) day rectification period	Supported by the SMSA
26	Where an Agreement has been cancelled, all monies owing to the Council now become due and payable	Supported by the SMSA
31	Reference to product line approvals approved to prior 1 July 2012 maintained	Requested by the SMSA
34	Provides the Council with the ability to record stallholder product lines more specifically	Supported to some degree by the SMSA, but operationally important
35	Introduces new (Food Business Premium) site fees	Supported by the SMSA
38	Introduces the ability to levy a Trade Waste fee as TasWater is expected to begin charging during the next Agreement period	Supported by the SMSA
39	Removed ‘Mobile’ from Food Business Site to provide equity to all food businesses	Supported by the SMSA
40	Reduced the absence notification period from 11 to 10 days to reflect improved Council administration processes	Supported by the SMSA
46(e)	Allows the Council to accept online payment methods depending on the outcomes of Project Phoenix	Supported by the SMSA
50	Extended the definition of Exceptional Leave	Supported by the SMSA
55	Requires the Licensee to participate in the Dispute Resolution Process prior to legal action	Supported by the SMSA
57(a) & (b)	Defines the Dispute Resolution Process steps and provides a 14 day period	Supported by the SMSA
73(b)	The Council will now recognise Food Licences issued by any Local Government body rather than just the City of Hobart	Supported by the SMSA
78	Strengthened the Council’s right over Market intellectual property	Supported by the SMSA
97	Introduces the ability to perform credit checks	Requested by SMSA

4.15. Importantly, there is no change to the principles of the current Licence, in relation to site fee adjustments (Clause 37), that any year on year change in fee (including the Site Fee) is capped at a maximum of 10% (increase or decrease).

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council endorse the draft 2017-2022 Salamanca Market Stallholder Licence Agreement, shown at Attachment A to this report.

5.2. It is further proposed that the endorsed draft 2017-2022 Salamanca Market Stallholder Licence Agreement be distributed to all licensed Salamanca Market Stallholders and the Salamanca Market Stallholders’ Association for final review and comment.

5.3. Upon receipt of comments from all licensed Salamanca Market Stallholders and the Salamanca Market Stallholders’ Association the final draft 2017-2022 Salamanca Market Stallholder Licence Agreement be the subject of a subsequent report to the Council for final approval.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The review and redrafting of the Agreement supports the following Strategic Objective from the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025, specifically:

Strategic Objective 1.3.1 - “Support and deliver events, festivals and markets.”

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The proposed Agreement comes into effect on 1 July 2017 so there is no impact on the current year operating budget.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. As previously indicated within this report, a revaluation of the Salamanca Market is currently underway and will be the subject of a further report to the Council.

7.2.2. Some of the changes proposed in this report, specifically the application of a premium charge for consume on site food and beverage businesses, do however rely on the adoption of the new Licence Agreement.

7.2.3. All changes to the valuation of Market sites resulting from the implementation of a new Agreement with Market stallholders would be incorporated into budget projections for 2017-18 and would be subject to the Council’s budgetary approval process.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. There are no perceived impacts on assets as a result of the implementation of the proposed Agreement.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The Agreement provides the legal framework within which stallholders can trade at the Salamanca Market.

8.2. The Agreement clarifies the requirements and responsibilities of both licensed stallholders and the Council to ensure the efficient, safe and sustainable delivery of the Market.

8.3. The Council’s Manager Legal and Governance has worked closely with staff from the Events and Salamanca Market Unit, as well as engaging Dobson Mitchell & Allport in the development of the draft revised Agreement.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. The implementation of an Agreement with licensed Salamanca Market stallholders provides clarity for community members and small businesses wishing to trade at the Market.

9.2. The Agreement provides the Council with a robust document that helps to ensure diversity and quality of stallholders trading at the Market, which provides the community, visitors and other businesses reliant on the Market with a high quality and engaging event.

10. Marketing and Media

10.1. The strong working relationship between the SMSA and the Council is something that can be built on and promoted to the wider community through communication and marketing.

10.2. While the implementation of a new licence agreement may not within itself be worthy of marketing, the ongoing marketing of the growing success of the Market and of individual stallholders certainly is and will continue to be delivered through the Market’s Marketing Strategy.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. Significant stakeholder engagement has been undertaken in the development of the draft Agreement, with the ongoing involvement of the SMSA throughout the review process.

11.2. All licensed stallholders would have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes prior to the final draft being presented to the Council for approval.

11.3. Consultation has also been undertaken with the Manager Legal and Governance, Senior Operations Coordinator - Events and Salamanca Market, Advisor Divisional Projects Community Development and Salamanca Market Operations Coordinator as well as externally with Dobson Mitchell & Allport.

12. Delegation

12.1. 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.

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 30 March 2017

File Reference: F17/4549; 15/153-53

Attachment a: Draft Salamanca Market Licence Agreement 2017-2022 ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 43

5/4/2017

REPORT TITLE: Digital Urban Screen - Elizabeth Street Forecourt of the University of Tasmania Residential Complex

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 seek approval for the purchase of an LED screen for the City of Hobart, programmed with arts and culture content, to be installed in the Elizabeth Street forecourt of the University of Tasmania (UTAS) residential complex.

1.2. This publicly accessible screen would activate this area of the City, offering an excellent platform for a wide range of arts and culture professionals and groups. It would also significantly increase the opportunities for young people and other film makers to show their work in the moving image.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The City’s Public Art Program has had considerable success with initiatives that provide platforms for creative practitioners working in two dimensions or three dimensions, but has not yet provided public opportunities for creative practitioners working with film and the moving image.

2.2. It is proposed that the Council purchase and install a public screen for arts and culture programming within the Elizabeth Street public plaza of the UTAS student housing development within the inner city. A montage of the screen in place and a plan location are shown at Attachments A and B to this report.

2.3. Funding for the installation of the screen is available in the Property Plant and Equipment allocation for Public Art, within the 2016-17 Annual Plan.

2.4. The project proceeding would be subject to receipt of planning approval for the screen to be installed in the proposed location.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council approve the purchase of a large LED screen for installation in the Elizabeth Street forecourt of the University of Tasmanian Student Housing complex, at an estimated cost of $83,000, to be funded from the existing Property Plant and Equipment allocation for Public Art within the 2016-17 Annual Plan.

2. The purchase be subject to receipt of planning approval for the screen to be installed in the proposed location.

4. Background

4.1. The Creative Hobart Strategic Framework aims to maximise Hobart’s sense of place, activating public space and Council facilities.

4.1.1. Outcome Area 1 of this framework positions the City as a platform.

4.2. A number of programs or initiatives developed by the City have achieved strong outcomes, for example:

4.2.1. The Urban Art Walls program has commissioned 13 large scale street art walls within the inner city.

4.2.2. The Soapbox project offers three billboards within Mathers Place as a large-scale gallery for creative endeavour.

4.2.3. The Creative Venues Guide facilitates the use of the Council’s wide range of venues and places, including unusual sites like the tunnels of Princes Park.

4.3. Whilst the Urban Art Walls program has set up a strong and successful platform for two dimensional artists within the City, there is currently a lack of opportunity for those working with film to show work publicly within the City.

4.4. An external LED screen for cultural programming would be a new platform for the City, expanding the ways in which the City of Hobart can support creative endeavour.

4.5. Informal consultation regarding the need and requirements for a screen has been conducted with a number of different organisations and individuals working with the moving image including:

· Alex Sangston/Donelle Lord – Screen Tasmania

· Abby Binning – Wide Angle Tasmania

· Raef Sawford – local art and documentary film maker

· Briony Kidd (short and feature film maker and Stranger With My Face Film Festival Director)

· Selena de Carvalho – art film/new media artist

· John Vella – Director of the Art Program, TCotA, UTAS

4.6. This consultation revealed the following:

4.6.1. There is overwhelming support for introducing a screen as a public format for film within the City.

4.6.2. There is a need within the City for screening places, with an increase in the interest in film-related activity in Tasmania and increase in number of local film festivals.

4.6.3. A new Bachelor of Media course offering a specialisation in Screen has recently been launched at UTAS and a public screen could offer a platform for emerging practitioners attending the course.

4.6.4. A screen would need a location adjacent to open, easily accessible public space to allow for organised and impromptu events.

4.6.5. The screen should be located in a south facing position or be in shadow for a good portion of the day.

4.6.6. Technology for the screen components should be selected for excellence in visual and audio quality.

4.6.7. The screen must be easily seen by foot/bicycle/vehicular traffic.

4.6.8. Quality and diversity of programming is critical to success.

4.6.9. It is acceptable to have sound available via smart phones, but it is also important to have the capacity to amplify sound for events.

4.6.10. The screen is not to be located somewhere that just feels like “visual graffiti” within the City - content must be well considered and viewers given the opportunity to know the context of the work presented.

4.6.11. There is a lot of content “out there” that isn’t always easy to view online so this kind of screen resource would be very valuable, for example, winning films in international festival programs such as Sundance.

4.6.12. The need to ensure ongoing budget accounts for curatorial and screening fees.

4.6.13. Titling/contextualising is critical, so that viewers know what they are watching and why output varies.

4.6.14. There is considerable potential for collaborative working with Wide Angle, UTAS (TCotA), SWMF and many other small film festivals to curate and present content on the screen.

4.7. With the recent UTAS residential development, an opportunity was identified to install a screen within the Elizabeth Street forecourt of the new building.

4.7.1. Ongoing discussions with UTAS have revealed that the University is very supportive of this proposal as it will offer dynamic activation in one of the most public spaces on their site.

4.7.2. A formal request has been sent to UTAS to confirm its support for the installation of the screen and seeking a financial commitment from them for the costs associated with the power provision to the screen.

4.7.2.1. This cost is expected to be approximately $7,000 - $10,000 per annum.

4.7.2.2. If UTAS is not willing to contribute financially to the power costs, this would be funded through the Cultural Programs - Public Art operational budget allocation for the 2017-18 financial year.

4.7.3. This project will offer a clear collaboration with UTAS, in line with the current Memorandum of Understanding signed with the organisation.

4.7.4. The site is an excellent location for this use as:

· It is located in the centre of the City.

· It is on a wall which is in shadow for much of the day.

· It is located to be viewed from an easily accessible, safe viewing place immediately off and visible from Elizabeth Street.

· It is located to be viewed by users of the new student cafe and student centre on the site.

· Is located nearby a growing number of after-hours businesses such as the Quartermasters and Rude Boy, offering an ongoing audience beyond student users or passing foot/bicycle/road traffic.

4.8. Projection was investigated as an alternative to LED, but found to be less ideal as:

· A projected image would only be clearly visible after dark.

· There are considerable ongoing consumable costs (globes, lenses).

· The cost was equivalent or greater than LED.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council approve the purchase and installation of a large LED screen, to be installed in the Elizabeth Street forecourt of the UTAS Student Accommodation complex.

5.1.1. The screen would be 4.5 m x 2.4 m and installed on its own frame immediately in front of an existing wall within the forecourt.

5.1.2. Programming would be from the arts and culture sector and include narrative films, art films, the results of local, national and international film competitions and screenings for local, national or international film festivals.

5.1.3. The screen would be free of advertising, with organisational involvement in films occurring as part of opening/introductory frames or title sequences.

5.1.4. All content would be approved by the Council’s Public Art Program, within the Community Development Division, as suitable to show in a public place.

5.1.5. Sound would be streamed to the web (or similar system) so that it is available via smart phone, but there will also be potential for amplified sound for events.

5.2. UTAS has been approached to consider contributing financially through funding the costs associated with the ongoing power supply to the screen expected to be approximately $7,000 to $10,000 per annum.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This project addresses Strategic Objectives 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 4.1 and 4.3 from the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025, addressing Economic Development, Vibrancy and Culture; and Strong Safe and Healthy Communities.

6.2. Correspondingly, the project addresses Outcome Areas 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.3, and 3.1 of the Creative Hobart Strategy, namely:

· Enhancing sense of place (1.1)

· Activating Public Spaces (1.2)

· Nurturing creativity (2.1)

· Celebrating excellence and diversity (2.3)

· Connecting creative people (3.1).

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The cost of equipment and installation would be met by the 2016-17 Property Plant and Equipment budget for Cultural Development.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. An allocation of $10,000 would be made from within the existing Public Art Program operating budget for curatorial and technical fees for presenting the program in future years.

7.2.2. If UTAS is not able to provide financial support for the power costs of the screen, this would be funded from the existing Public Art budget allocation in future years.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. Once installed, the screen would be an asset owned by the City of Hobart.

7.3.2. LED screens are generally expected to have a life of 100,000 hours.

7.3.2.1. Using the screen for 14 hours per day (9 am - 11 pm) suggests a life of over 19 years, if running every day.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. As land owner of the proposed location, the UTAS Project Manager for the site, Warren Jordan, has indicated support for the screen to be located within the new plaza.

8.2. If approved by the Council, the project will go ahead conditional on receipt of City of Hobart planning approval.

8.3. The installation would be assessed under the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015 as an interpretive sign and approval would be discretionary, based on satisfying the following requirements:

8.3.1. It should not have unreasonable impact upon residential amenity caused by moving parts, moving or changing messages, graphics, or light shining into windows of habitable rooms.

8.3.2. It should be integrated into the premises/streetscape and be attractive and informative without dominating.

8.3.3. It should be of appropriate dimensions, so as not to dominate the premises/streetscape.

8.3.4. It should be constructed of materials which are easily maintained.

8.3.5. It should not result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

8.3.6. It should not involve the repetition of messages/information on the same street frontage.

8.3.7. It should not contribute to or exacerbate visual clutter.

8.3.8. It should not cause a safety hazard.

8.4. There is officer support for the proposal as long as it satisfies the requirements set out in 8.3 and as a result, does not have unreasonable impact on the residences of the student housing development at 157 Elizabeth Street or any other nearby residences.

8.5. While locating the screen on the UTAS title will not trigger any heritage processes through the Council or the Tasmanian Heritage Council, the screen will be immediately in front of the wall of an adjacent heritage building.

8.5.1. There is support at an officer level for the project at the Tasmanian Heritage Council (consultation with Liz Fitzgerald), particularly as the screen would have solely arts and culture programming, and is advertisement free.

8.5.2. There is also support from the Council’s Senior Cultural Heritage Officer, Brendan Lennard, particularly as the screen would have solely arts and culture programming, and is advertisement free.

8.6. The project does not present any issues or concerns regarding traffic as the screen will be an adequate distance from oncoming west bound traffic and to partially obscured by the new development until approximately 30 metres from the site.

8.6.1. The screen will also not be visible to the closer east bound lane as it will be fully obscured by existing adjacent buildings.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. As an LED screen, power usage is minimised, but hours of operation will also be decided as a balance between energy use and ideal viewing times.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. This screen will be located in a fully accessible public space.

10.2. All content will be approved by the Public Art Program within the Community Development Division, to ensure that it is suitable for viewing, in the context of viewing time, by the general public.

10.3. There will be considerable potential to run events within the space, focussed on film screenings or presentations, particularly as the site is immediately adjacent to a medium sized open plaza, with built in seating, which is the outdoor space for the new UTAS student cafe and Student Centre.

10.4. There is potential within programming to show a wide range of arts and culture related films, which will allow for many Tasmanian groups or organisations to have some involvement with the LED screen, such as:

· Young people completing film workshops via Youth Arts and Recreation Centre.

· Students of current film related courses at UTAS, TAFE, local colleges.

· MyState film competition shortlistees.

· Local cultural groups.

10.5. The screen will activate an important new public space on Elizabeth Street, offering a place where student residents can mix with the general public and children and families attending the Underwood Centre, which is within the ground and first floors of the new development, looking onto the plaza.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. The screen will be an important new public landmark within the City and will be clearly branded as an initiative of the City of Hobart.

11.2. There will be potential for a public launch of the screen, once installed, and ongoing media coverage as each new program is launched.

11.3. There is potential to use the screen as a public exhibition space, digitally displaying Council collections such as the City of Hobart Art Prize, to increase its exposure to the public.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. Informal consultation regarding the need for and requirements for a screen have been conducted with a number of different organisations and individuals working with the moving image including:

· Alex Sangston/Donelle Lord – Screen Tasmania

· Abby Binning – Wide Angle Tasmania

· Raef Sawford – local art and documentary film maker

· Briony Kidd (short and feature film maker and Stranger With My Face Film Festival Director)

· Selena de Carvalho – art film/new media artist

· John Vella – Director of the Art Program, TCotA, UTAS

12.2. Consultation has been conducted with UTAS via a site visit with Project Architect Nicky Adams (Terroir) and Project Manager Warren Jordan (UTAS).

12.3. Internal consultation has taken place with the Manager Traffic Engineering, Senior Cultural Heritage Officer, Senior Statutory Planner, Cultural Programs Coordinator and Public Art Coordinator.

13. Delegation

13.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Kimbra Parker

Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 30 March 2017

File Reference: F17/27295; S30-001-13/08-002

Attachment a: Proposed location montage ⇩

Attachment b: Plan location ⇩

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 55

5/4/2017

REPORT TITLE: Community Development Grants Program - Recommendations - February 2017 Round

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Director Community Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report seeks approval of the recommendations for Community, Creative Hobart and Event Grants under the 2017-18 Community Development Grants Program for the February 2017 round of grants.

2. Report Summary

2.1. This report contains recommendations for the first of the twice yearly rounds of the 2017-18 Community Development Grants program that opened in February 2017 for projects commencing after 1 July 2017. The recommended funding allocations are shown at Attachment A to this report.

2.2. A total of 27 eligible applications were received for all grant streams. A total of 17 projects across all of the grants streams are recommended for full or partial funding with a total value of $115,683.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council approve the recommended level of funding to the respective applicants for assistance under the 2017-18 Community Development Grants Program under the streams of Creative Hobart, Community and Events as outlined below:

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

(ii) The projects recommended for co-funding from the February round of the Community Development Grants Program as detailed in Table 2 of Attachment A to this report.

(iii) The projects recommended for partial funding from the February round of the Community Development Grants Program as detailed in Table 3 of Attachment A to this report.

(iv) The projects listed in Table 4 of Attachment A to this report are not recommended for funding.

2. The value of the recommended projects is $53,021 for Creative Hobart Medium and Small Grants, $28,539 for Community Grants and $34,123 for Event Grants.

3. The funding for the grants be attributed to the respective Community Development Policy Management, Cultural Programs and Major Events and Grant Funding activity in the 2017-18 Annual Plan.

4. Applicants be advised accordingly.

5. 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 in part, 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. At a subsequent meeting held on 21 November 2016, the Council resolved in part, the following;

“That: 1. The Community Development Grants Program model continue to be delivered as it is presently with the following amendments:

(i) The Creative Hobart grant allocation increase from $78,000 to $135,000 across the medium, small and Quick Response grant pools;

(ii) The Community small grant allocation increase from $45,000 to $70,000;

(iii) This increase in grant provision, totalling $97,000, be met initially by an additional allocation of $48,500 from general reserves in the current financial year, with $97,000 to be listed for consideration in the preparation of the draft 2017/2018 budget;

(iv) The value of Creative Hobart small grants be changed to be from between $1,000 to $5,000 and Creative Hobart medium grants to change to between $7,000 to $15,000;

(v) The value of Community small grants be changed to be from between $1,000 to $5,000;

(vi) Creative Hobart grant applications from an individual or group of individuals that are under the auspice of an eligible organisation, be eligible;

(vii) Major Cultural Organisations grants be available for three year funding;

(viii) $50,000 be allocated from the Event Partnership pool of $460,000, reducing it to $410,000, in order to increase the Event Grant pool from $100,000 to $150,000, with this commencing in the 2017/2018 financial year;

(ix) A separate $15,000 Venue Activation budget allocation be created to fund in-kind grant applications for use of City of Hobart venues. This allocation is included in the proposed budget allocation increase in clause 1(iii) above; and

(x) A requirement be included in all grant guidelines that any activities or events that are funded through the Community Development Grants Program that sell food must utilise waste reduction strategies and only provide compostable containers and utensils to customers

2. The current Council Policy - Applications for Grants - Community Development Division be amended as shown at Attachment A to item 11 of the Open Community, Culture and Events Committee agenda of 9 November 2016.

3. The General Manager be delegated to authorise administrative changes to the Community Development Program Grant guidelines, in line with the Council Policy - Applications for Grants - Community Development Division, as required throughout the implementation of the program.

4. The need for a new Medium Cultural Organisations grant stream, which could operate under similar terms as the current Major Cultural Organisations stream, but which would require an additional funding allocation of $50,000, be reviewed following the next round of grants in February 2017, and if necessary be subject to a further report to the Council.

5. A report be prepared regarding the preparation of conservation plans based on locations in the Council’s publication “Creative Hobart: A Guide to Creative Places”, including:

· Alexandra Battery;

· Princes Park Magazine;

· Blinky Bill Point; and

· Other areas requiring restoration due to OH&S and conservation needs.”

4.5. The February 2017 grant round was subsequently advertised on Saturday 4 February 2017 through the Mercury newspaper and promoted through a broad range of community and cultural networks, with the application period closing on Monday 6 March 2017.

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

4.7. A Public Information Session was held on Thursday 16 February 2017 at 4.00 pm in the Elizabeth Street Conference room. Eight people attended this session and were provided with detailed information regarding the application process.

Assessment Panels

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

(i) Community Grants Assessment Panel

· Manager Community and Cultural Programs, City of Hobart

· Program Leader Recreation & Projects, City of Hobart

· Deborah Schofield-Gavin, Disability Strategic Advisor, Baptcare.

(ii) Creative Hobart Grants Assessment Panel

· Manager Community and Cultural Programs, City of Hobart

· Cultural Programs Coordinator, City of Hobart

· Tanja Farman, Independent Producer

· Frith Loone, producer, Junction Arts Festival

(iii) Event Grants Assessment Panel

· Manager Community and Cultural Programs, City of Hobart

· Economic Development Project Officer; City of Hobart

· Community Activation Coordinator, City of Hobart

· Michael McLaughlin, Manager, Programs and Community Engagement, TMAG.

Assessment Criteria

4.9. 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.

4.10. 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.

4.11. 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.

4.11.1. One application received in the Creative Hobart stream was deemed to be more suitable to the Event Grants stream and was assessed accordingly by the Event Grant assessment panel.

4.11.2. Three further applications received in the Creative Hobart stream were assessed in this area and recommended that they also be assessed for co-funding from the Community Grants stream as they also aligned very strongly with the Community Grants criteria.

4.11.3. As in previous rounds, the applications recommended for funding were those that scored the highest points.

4.12. 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

4.13. Funding allocated for the Community, Creative Hobart and Events twice yearly project grants rounds for the 2017-18 financial year is $328,000. This comprises $58,000 for Community Grants, $120,000 for Creative Hobart Grants and $150,000 for Event Grants.

4.13.1. This does not include the allocations for Major Cultural Organisations, Event Partnerships, or the pool allocations for Quick Response Grants, including Venue Support Grants.

4.14. Unsuccessful applicants will be advised that they can re-apply for future grant rounds.

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

Community Grants Applications

4.16. There were ten applications received for the Community Grant stream requesting a total amount of $36,907.

4.17. The applications were diverse and there was strong community benefit for those projects recommended for funding. Although the demand in this round exceeded the available funds, those applications not recommended for funding offered fewer community benefits and did not adequately align with the Social Inclusion Criteria.

4.18. Three applications assessed highly in the Creative Hobart Grants stream were also assessed by the Community Grants panel as these were considered to have strong community benefits and were strongly aligned with the Community Grants criteria.

4.18.1. The Community grants Assessment Panel recommended these projects be co-funded by both Community Grants and Creative Hobart.

4.19. In total the applications requested a total of $36,907. The value of the applications recommended for funding from this round is $13,539. The panel recommended funding six projects, four in full and two partial. This equates to a 60 per cent success rate.

4.20. In addition, a further amount of $15,000 is recommended to co-fund three applications received in the Creative Hobart grants stream bringing the total amount of funding to $28,539 through the Community Grant stream.

Creative Hobart Grants Applications

4.21. There were 13 applications received for Creative Hobart Grants requesting a total of $131,403 with all being deemed eligible.

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

4.21.1.1. Eight medium grant applications requesting a total amount of $107,455. The panel recommend four grants for full funding. This equates to a 50 per cent success rate.

4.21.1.2. Five small grant applications were received requesting a total amount of $23,948. The panel recommended the funding of three grants with one being fully funded and two recommended for partial funding. This equates to a 60 per cent success rate.

4.21.1.3. Three of the projects recommended for full funding have been co-funded through the Community Grant stream. The allocated budget for both small and medium grants in this round was $60,000.

Event Grants Applications

4.22. There were four applications received for Event Grants requesting a total of $34,123. All applications in this round were deemed eligible.

4.23. The panel recommended all applications in this round receive full funding.

4.23.1. It is noted that the funding requests for the Event Grants are usually much higher in the August round.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. All applications were acknowledged upon receipt and all applicants will be advised of the Council’s decision and invited to contact staff for feedback on their applications if they wish.

5.2. 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.

· Provide an acquittal report by the advised deadline.

5.3. The projects recommended for full funding from the February 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.

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

5.5. The projects listed in Table 3 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 4 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 $53,021 for Creative Hobart Small and Medium Grants, $28,539 for Community Grants and $34,123 for Event Grants.

5.8. 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.

5.9. Consideration of the need for a new Medium Cultural Organisations grant stream (as noted in Point 4.4.4 of this report), which could operate under similar terms as the current Major Cultural Organisations stream, will be the subject of a further report to the Council at a later date, once the outcomes of the February 2017 round of grants have been fully analysed, and consultation has taken place with the sector.

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 $120,000 allocated in the Creative Hobart Grants allocation of the Cultural Programs activity in the 2017-18 Annual Plan for the twice yearly grant rounds.

7.1.2. There is $58,000 allocated in the Community Grants allocation of the Community Planning and Coordination activity in the 2017-18 Annual Plan for the twice yearly grant rounds.

7.1.3. There is $150,000 allocated in the Event Grants allocation of the Events activity in the 2017-18 Annual Plan for the twice yearly grant rounds.

7.1.4. The total amount of funds recommended for approval through the February grant round is $115,683.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. There is an ongoing allocation included in the relevant areas of the Annual Plan.

7.2.2. Due to the payments to grant recipients being spread throughout the year depending upon when the projects are being planned and delivered, it is challenging for invoices to be received and paid within the relevant financial year.

7.2.2.1. It is proposed that approved funds allocated through the Community Development Grants program be carried forward each financial year to ensure commitments are paid appropriately.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. Not applicable.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There are no legal, risk or legislative considerations as part of this report.

9. Marketing and Media

9.1. The projects recommended have been selected taking into account the widest community benefit through a range of groups. The Marketing and Communications Unit will work with officers and the community to maximise promotion of the projects and ensure community recognition of the Council’s involvement.

10. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

10.1. The Community Activation Coordinator, 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.

11. Delegation

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

Kimbra Parker

Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 30 March 2017

File Reference: F17/30548; 16/194

Attachment a: Community Development Grant Round - February 2017 ⇩

Item No. 6.4

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 84

5/4/2017

REPORT TITLE: UNESCO Creative Cities Network - International City of Literature

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 respond to the Notice of Motion by Lord Mayor Hickey and Alderman Reynolds at the Council meeting held on 21 November 2016 that:

“1. A report be provided regarding the potential for the City of Hobart to coordinate a bid for Hobart to become a member of the UNESCO Creative Cities Network in the category of literature.

2. The report outline the process for making a bid, the potential interested partners and the costs and benefits associated with a successful bid and being recognised as an International City of Literature.

3. The report consider any impact that the City of Melbourne’s ‘City of Literature’ status may have upon the likely success of the City of Hobart’s nomination.”

1.2. The report also considers alternative models to the ongoing City of Literature nomination.

2. Report Summary

2.1. Officers have undertaken research and consultation to determine the requirements and actions necessary for the City of Hobart to coordinate a bid for Hobart to become a member of the UNESCO Creative Cities Network in the category of literature.

2.2. Applications for nominations opened on Monday 6 March 2017 and close on Friday 16 June 2017, the bid must be initiated and coordinated by the municipality with representatives from the private and commercial sectors and civil society.

2.3. The application must include:

2.3.1. An action plan outlining how the city will implement their ongoing plan.

2.3.2. A list of the city’s creative assets including infrastructure, organisations and services.

2.3.3. Endorsement from the Australian National Commission of UNESCO which is part of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

2.4. Since applications opened on 6 March 2017, Council officers have undertaken consultation with representatives of the following organisations:

· Tasmanian Writers’ Centre

· Tasmanian Writers’ and Readers’ Festival

· Creative Industries Council

· GASP

· Island Magazine

· Tasmania 40 Degrees South

· Tasmanian Premier’s Literary Awards

· Independent Artists

· Transportation Press

· The Director of the Melbourne City of Literature

· The Director of Arts Tasmania

· The Secretary General of Australian National Commission for UNESCO, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

2.5. Many of Hobart’s arts organisations have recently submitted annual and four year funding applications to the Australia Council for the Arts and Arts Tasmania, including their 2018-2021 Business Plans and budgets, neither of which includes planning or resources for the UNESCO bid.

2.6. The UNESCO Creative Cities Network usually calls for applications annually, due to some restructuring of the process in 2016, they did not call for applications last year. Consequently, it could be expected that the 2017 round will be more competitive than usual.

2.7. The very limited four month timeframe from applications opening to closing is extremely short for the level of detail and research required for the submission. A more fulsome application would be achievable for the June 2018 deadline.

2.8. There is also an option for the City of Hobart to consider an alternative program which is a one-year-only designation as the UNESCO World Book Capital:

2.8.1. A nomination to this program could be for the 2021 title with a program of events conceived specifically for that year.

2.8.2. 2021 would coincide with the biennial Tasmanian Writers’ Festival and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Culture Festival, a new event in the planning for 2022.

2.8.3. This title acknowledges the City’s commitment for promoting books and fostering reading during a 12 month period.

2.8.4. This title appears to allow greater potential to involve other investors, sponsors and supporters for a defined event period.

3. Recommendation

That the Council not submit an application in June 2017 to become a UNESCO City of Literature, but allow six months to research, consult with stakeholders, develop partnerships, formulate a budget and create a steering committee, to evaluate the best option of either:

1. Preparing an application for June 2018 to become a member of the ongoing UNESCO City of Literature Network; or

2. Preparing an application to be the UNESCO World Book Capital in 2021, a one year program with applications closing in March 2019.

4. Background

4.1. The UNESCO City of Culture (UCCN), launched in 2004, aims to strengthen cooperation with and among cities that have recognised creativity as a strategic factor of sustainable development as regards economic, social, cultural and environmental aspects.

4.1.1. By joining the Network, cities acknowledge their commitment to sharing best practices, developing partnerships that promote creativity and the cultural industries, strengthening participation in cultural life and integrating culture in urban development plans.

4.1.2. The UNESCO Creative Cities Network covers seven creative fields: Crafts and Folk Arts, Design, Film, Gastronomy, Literature, Media Arts, and Music.

4.2. The UNESCO Creative Cities Network Mission Statement as shown at Attachment A to this report, outlines the Mission, Objectives and Areas of Action for the network.

4.3. Applications for nominations opened on Monday 6 March 2017 and close on Friday 16 June 2017.

4.4. Requirements for submitting an application include:

4.4.1. The bid must be initiated and coordinated by the municipality with representatives from the private and commercial sectors and civil society.

4.4.2. Cities are expected to commit to an ongoing program, with reporting and assessment every six months. There is no defined period of time for which the delegation is limited to.

4.4.3. No financial support is provided by UNESCO.

4.4.4. Cities are expected to interact with other international cities in the Creative Cities Network, this may include one or two international annual meetings and one-on-one digital or phone contact with other cities.

4.4.5. Applicants are not expected to create a program of new activities, rather they can support existing events, programs and campaigns run by others.

4.4.6. The application must include:

· An action plan outlining how the city will implement their ongoing plan.

· A list of the city’s creative assets including infrastructure, organisations and services.

· Endorsement from the Australian National Commission of UNESCO which is part of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

4.4.7. It is noted that UNESCO City of Culture nominations require an ongoing program with annual financial support with a minimum investment not specified.

4.4.7.1. Evidence would need to be provided in the application of a forward commitment, most likely for at least three to four years in order for the application to be competitive.

4.4.8. The application must be endorsed by UNESCO national commission.

4.4.9. Sustainability in urban development and integrating urban development are key priorities for UNESCO.

4.5. Since applications opened on 6 March 2017, Council Officers have undertaken consultation with representatives of the following organisations:

· Tasmanian Writers’ Centre

· Tasmanian Writers’ and Readers’ Festival

· Creative Industries Council

· GASP

· Island Magazine

· Tasmania 40 Degrees South

· Tasmanian Premier’s Literary Awards

· Independent Artists

· Transportation Press

4.5.1 In addition, phone meetings have been conducted with:

· The Director of the Melbourne City of Literature

· The Director of Arts Tasmania

· The Secretary General of Australian National Commission for UNESCO, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

4.6. In summary, feedback from some of these consultations included:

4.6.1. The potential to involve a broad and extensive range of people in the process of submitting an application is one of its strengths.

4.6.2. The four month timeframe from applications opening to closing is extremely short. A more fulsome application would be achievable for the June 2018 deadline.

4.6.3. Many of Hobart’s arts organisations have recently submitted annual and four year funding applications to the Australia Council for the Arts and Arts Tasmania, including their 2018-2021 Business Plans and budgets, neither of which include planning or resources for the UNESCO bid.

4.7. Information received regarding Melbourne UNESCO City of Literature demonstrates the following:

4.7.1. Melbourne will celebrate ten years in the Network in 2018.

4.7.2. The city consistently scores “exceptional” in its biannual reporting. The city is one of, if not the, most active cities in the international network.

4.7.3. The program has an annual budget of $270,000, which is 50 per cent funded by the City of Melbourne (Council) and 50 per cent by the Creative Victoria (State Government). By comparison, Krakow City of Literature in Poland has an annual budget of the equivalent of AU$14,000.

4.7.4. Melbourne does not program events but promotes the work of others and allocated approximately 45 per cent of its annual budget is allocated to strategic development initiatives.

4.7.5. Melbourne invests a major portion of its budget in promotion and communication, including an extensive website that includes 18 different categories of activities in the areas of festivals, First Nations, book sellers, places to visit and children’s literature.

4.7.6. Melbourne has indicated that it would be supportive of the City of Hobart’s application. However, the public reaction to both cities being Cities of Literature would need to be managed carefully to ensure a collaborative approach and profiles that are obviously very different to each other.

4.7.7. Melbourne recommends communicating with as many of the other Cities of Literature as possible, in light of the selection process which is conducted by a committee comprising 50 per cent other cities of Literature and 50 per cent sector experts.

4.8. Arts Tasmania is supportive of a nomination for the City of Literature, but has recommended an 18 month lead time for any requests for co-investment from the State Government.

4.8.1. They have further recommended contact with the Department of Education, particularly in the areas of literacy, families, children and young people.

4.8.2. They have also expressed some concern about the timeframe for a 2017 nomination and the ongoing nature of the City of Literature title in terms of momentum and forward commitment of budget.

4.9. The Secretary General from the Australian National Commission for UNESCO indicated confidence that the Commission would endorse a nomination from the City of Hobart as either a City of Literature or World Book Capital.

4.9.1. It is noted that at this stage, they have not been in conversation with any other Australian city about nominating in 2017.

4.9.2. In order to endorse an application, the Commission would need to receive the application before the end of May 2017.

4.10. The potential strengths of an application from Hobart are:

4.10.1. The number and significance of literary awards given to Tasmanian writers - including the Booker Prize.

4.10.2. The Writers’ Festival and Writers’ Centre and their various activities that connect the state, national world in two-way exchanges.

4.10.3. The clearly communicated and concise action being implemented through the State Government’s 26 Ten program to improve literacy rates in Tasmania.

4.10.4. Residency programs offered to international writers in Tasmania and exchanges already in place for Tasmanian writers to work elsewhere.

4.10.5. The usage rates of the Hobart LINC and regional dispersal of the books and other (including digital) resources through the LINC service.

4.10.6. The importance of the heritage literature collections, history of print media and publishing.

4.10.7. The strength of environmental, scientific and heritage writing.

4.10.8. Young and emerging writers programs.

UNESCO WORLD BOOK CAPITAL

4.11. There is an option for the City of Hobart to consider an alternative program which is a one-year-only designation as the UNESCO World Book Capital:

4.11.1. A nomination to this program could be for the 2021 title. Recently, Athens was announced as the 2018 World Book Capital.

4.11.2. 2021 would coincide with the biennial Tasmanian Writers’ Festival and the lead up to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Culture Festival, a new event in the planning for 2022.

4.11.3. This title acknowledges the City’s commitment for promoting books and fostering reading during a 12 month period.

4.11.4. The focus of this title includes scientific writing which is likely to add significant strength to an application from Hobart.

4.11.5. This title appears to allow greater potential to involve other investors, sponsors and supporters for a defined event period.

4.11.6. To date, New Delhi, Bangkok and Incheon are the only Asia Pacific cities to be named World Book Cities.

4.12. Applications are evaluated in the light of the following criteria:

· The quality of program specifically conceived for the World Book Capital and the long term benefits for partners and society.

· A budget including expenses and fund-raising strategies.

· The degree of municipal, regional, national and international involvement, including professional and non-governmental organisations, and the foreseeable impact of the programs.

· Collaboration with writers, publishers, booksellers and librarians and in the scientific and literary community.

4.13. Applications are likely to be due in March 2019 for the 2021 title and remain open for six months. The successful applicant will be notified in April 2019.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Based upon the application deadline of 16 June 2017, it is proposed that the Council not submit an application to the current round for UNESCO City of Literature.

5.2. It is further proposed that the Council allow six months to thoroughly research the application process and expectations for both the City of Literature and World Book Capital.

5.3. Further consultation will be undertaken with the literary sector, State Government, other UNESCO Creative Cities and relevant stakeholders to develop partnerships, formulate a budget and create a steering committee.

5.4. In November 2017, a report be prepared for the Council with the outcomes of this process and a recommendation to consider:

· Submitting an application in June 2018 to become a UNESCO City of Literature with an ongoing program and budget; or

· Submitting an application in March 2019 to be the UNESCO World Book Capital in 2021 with a one-year program and budget.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The proposal also aligns with the City of Hobart’s Strategic Plan 2015-2025, specifically:

“Goal 1 - Economic Development, Vibrancy and Culture

Objective 1.1 - Partnerships with Government, the education sector and business create city growth.

Objective 1.2 - Strong national and international relationships.

Objective 1.5 - Cultural and creative activities build community wellbeing and economic viability.

Goal 4 - Strong, Safe and Healthy Communities

Objective 4.1 - Community connectedness and participation realises the cultural and social potential of the community”.

6.2. This proposal aligns with the outcome areas of the City’s cultural strategy Creative Hobart, specifically in the areas of:

“Outcome Area 1 - The City as a Platform

Outcome Area 2 - The City as an Incubator

Outcome Area 3 - The City as a Connector.”

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. Should the Council resolve to undertake six months of research (May-June 2017) there will be no impact on the 2016-17 budget.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. The continuation of the six months of research (July-October 2017) will have no impact on the 2017-18 budget.

7.2.2. Beyond November 2017, the financial impact would be contingent upon which application option is pursued and would be presented as part of a report to Council in November 2017.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. There are no asset related implications as a result of this report.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There are no legal, risk or legislative requirements as part of this report.

9. Marketing and Media

9.1. On 21 November 2016, the Mercury newspaper published an article announcing the Council resolution to investigate the potential for the City of Hobart to coordinate a bid to become a UNESCO City of Literature.

9.2. The article attracted positive attention from the literary and broader arts sectors, and from members of the general public. It is anticipated that a follow up story may appear as a result of the outcome of this report.

10. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

10.1. Stakeholder engagement has commenced and includes:

· Tasmanian Writers’ Centre

· Tasmanian Writers’ and Readers’ Festival

· Creative Industries Council

· GASP

· Island Magazine

· Tasmania 40 Degrees South

· Tasmanian Premier’s Literary Awards

· Independent Artists

· Transportation Press

· Arts Tasmania.

· Melbourne City of Literature

· Secretary General, UNESCO National Commission

10.2. Future consultation would include:

· City of Hobart Community Development, City Planning, City Infrastructure and Corporate Services Divisions

· University of Tasmania Head of Humanities and Head of Journalism and Creative Writing

· State Government: Department of Education, Minister for the Arts, LINC, 26 Ten

· Book retailers

· Individual community members

· Members of the Tasmanian Writers’ Centre

· Commercial Publishers, Independent publishers

· Tasmanian Aboriginal community

· The Royal Society

· Australian Script Centre

· Heritage collection institutions

· Fellowship of Australian Writers Tasmanian Chapter

· And others.

11. Delegation

11.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Kimbra Parker

Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 30 March 2017

File Reference: F17/31661; S15-008-09; S14-001-01

Attachment a: UNESCO Creative Cities Network Mission Statement ⇩

Item No. 6.5

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 96

5/4/2017

REPORT TITLE: City of Hobart Art Prize Review - Options Paper

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 update to the Council about the progress of the City of Hobart Art Prize Review and to seek endorsement to publically release the City of Hobart Art Prize Review Options Paper as part of the next round of community engagement.

2. Report Summary

2.1. Thorough community engagement has taken place as part of the review into the Art Prize and this information has been synthesised into the City of Hobart Art Prize Review Options Paper (2017) prepared by Richard Brecknock. The following community engagement activities have taken place so far:

· roundtable sessions with industry leaders

· Hobart based survey

· public forums

· visual art workshop

· TMAG consultations

· call for submissions

· regular email contact with Art Prize stakeholders regarding the progress of the review

· media advertising of the above events.

2.2. An Aldermanic Workshop was held on 15 February 2017 where consultant Richard Brecknock presented the findings of the City of Hobart Art Prize Review Options Paper. The Options Paper was distributed to all Aldermen on 10 February 2017.

2.3. A final stage of community engagement is proposed. This engagement includes sharing the Options Paper with all stakeholders, inviting submissions regarding the potential options, and having further discussions with potential arts and cultural sector partners.

2.3.1. This stage is required before a report is prepared for the Council with recommendations for the future of the Art Prize.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The City of Hobart Art Prize Review Options Paper be made publicly available and submissions invited from the public in response to the Options Paper.

2. The Review continue into a final round of community engagement including discussions with arts and cultural organisations about the potential to partner if the Council was to revise or replace the Art Prize.

4. Background

4.1. The Council at its meeting held on 21 March 2016 resolved the following:

“That: 1. The City of Hobart Art Prize not be staged in 2016 due to the unavailability of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.

2. The Council endorse a review of the City of Hobart Art Prize including detailed research and community engagement to determine potential new models for the Art Prize

3. The review be undertaken in early 2016 with a report back to the Council in mid 2016.

4. The $30,000 prize money associated with the 2016 City of Hobart Art Prize be reallocated to the August 2016 round of the Council’s cultural grants program.”

Purpose of the Review

4.2. In 2015, the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG) which has hosted the Prize in recent years, indicated that the venue was unavailable for the 2016 exhibition. This gap year in the Art Prize program meant there was an opportunity to conduct a much needed review.

4.3. With the introduction of the Creative Hobart Cultural Strategy in 2012 it has become pertinent to assess areas within Council’s Cultural Programs to measure their effectiveness against the aims of the strategy.

Objectives of the Review

4.4. The five key objectives of the City of Hobart Art Prize Review:

4.4.1. Define the most effective model for the Council to support the local cultural sector through the provision of a prize or alternative program.

4.4.2. Identify the opportunities for key strategic partnerships between the Council and key cultural sector providers and producers, the community, local governments, the Tasmanian Government and the private sector.

4.4.3. Maximise the potential of the Council’s human and other resources (including venues and grants) to achieve the best possible arts and cultural development outcomes for Hobart.

4.4.4. Support the implementation of, and best alignment with, existing Council strategies, including: the Creative Hobart Strategy, Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025, Public Art Strategy and the Social Inclusion Strategy.

4.4.5. Critique and review the City of Hobart’s current art prize, specifically evaluating its continuing suitability, relevance and responsiveness to identified sector and community needs.

4.5. The key question posed by the review was: “Are the current financial and human resources allocated to the City of Hobart Art Prize achieving beneficial public good outcomes for the City and its community in line with the Creative Hobart Strategy?”

Review Process

4.6. An expression of interest for an external consultant was advertised nationally in July 2016. Three EOIs were submitted. Cultural strategists Richard Brecknock was engaged to conduct the review and commenced in July 2016.

4.7. Due to higher than expected interest and sector engagement it was necessary to extend the review into 2017.

4.8. The Council at its meeting held on 19 December 2016 resolved the following:

“That: 1. The Council note that the current City of Hobart Art Prize review has been extended to ensure that all community and cultural sector views captured to date are taken into consideration, with a discussion paper detailing the findings of the review to be presented to an Aldermanic Workshop in February 2017.

2. The City of Hobart Art Prize not be staged in its current format in 2017, and that instead the Council focus on the development of an alternative model that has been informed by the review and consultation exercise, to be delivered in early 2018.”

Community Engagement

4.9. As part of the Review extensive community engagement took place, which included:

· roundtable sessions with industry leaders

· Hobart based survey

· public forums

· visual art workshop

· TMAG consultations

· call for submissions

· regular email contact with Art Prize stakeholders regarding the progress of the Review

· Media advertising of the above events.

Options Paper

4.10. A comprehensive Options Paper was presented to Aldermen at an Aldermanic Workshop on 15 February 2017 and is available on the Hub. The Paper outlined three potential options for consideration along with detailed analysis of the findings from the researched data and each of the community consultation phases; roundtables, survey, and submissions.

4.11. Three distinct options emerged from the research and consultation and the following narratives summarise these findings. They are:

4.11.1. TO RETAIN: To retain the prize model would mean to present an exhibition prize model in TMAG.

4.11.2. TO REVISE: To deliver a prize model with considerable alternations to the current model.

4.11.3. TO REPLACE: To replace the current model with an alternative program, not necessarily an Art Prize.

4.12. TMAG, as City of Hobart’s significant stakeholder in the staging of the Art Prize, has been provided with a copy of the Options Paper and has been kept abreast of the review step by step.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the City of Hobart Art Prize Review Options Paper be made publically available and submissions invited from the public in response to the Options Paper.

5.2. It is further proposed that the review continue into a final round of community engagement, through:

5.2.1. Publishing Richard Brecknock’s Option’s Paper on the City of Hobart’s website Your Say page and inviting official submissions.

5.2.2. Creating a media release directing people to Your Say to read the Options Paper, inviting submissions about the Options Paper specifically to be included in the final report.

5.2.3. Sending an update email to stakeholders, providing the Options Paper and directing them to Your Say. This email would inform stakeholders that submissions will be included in the Council report.

5.3. It is further proposed to engage with TMAG and other arts and cultural sector organisations regarding future partnership opportunities if the Council was to revise or replace the Art Prize.

5.4. A final Council report would then be prepared that advises of the outcomes of this stage of community engagement with recommendations for the future of the Art Prize.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This review aligns with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025, specifically Strategic Objective 1.5.1 “Implement the Council’s Cultural Hobart Strategy.”

6.2. The City’s Creative Hobart Strategy was created in 2012 and we are striving to fulfil its objectives. The three core strategic objectives are that Hobart City will be:

“A platform for cultural expression and creative participation

An incubator for creativity, innovation, excellence and diversity

As a connector of people knowledge and information.”

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There are no financial implications associated with this report, given that any project resulting from the review would be staged in the 2017-18 financial year.

7.2. Impact on Future Year’s Financial Result

7.2.1. Impacts on future year’s financial result will be included in the final report to be submitted after community engagement has concluded.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. There are no asset related implications.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There are no legal, risk or legislative considerations as part of this report.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. A thorough community consultation exercise was undertaken as part of the preparation of the Options Paper. This resulted in varied feedback, some of which was extremely supportive of change and some critical of any fundamental change to, or loss of the Art Prize as a program supporting the visual arts, craft and designs.

9.2. It is considered very important to release the Options Paper publicly and to provide the opportunity for community members to make further submissions in response.

10. Marketing and Media

10.1. A media release has been prepared to advise of the release of the Options Paper and of this stage of engagement.

10.2. A comprehensive communication and marketing plan will be further developed in line with any proposed changes to the Art Prize at the relevant time.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. As part of the Review extensive community engagement took place, which included:

· roundtable sessions with industry leaders

· Hobart based survey

· public forums

· visual art workshop

· TMAG consultations

· call for submissions

· regular email contact with Art Prize stakeholders regarding the progress of the Review.

11.2. Media advertising to promote the above events was undertaken.

12. Delegation

12.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Kimbra Parker

Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 31 March 2017

File Reference: F17/27753; 16/210

Item No. 6.6

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 104

5/4/2017

REPORT TITLE: Cultural and Creative Industries Bill 2017

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 present the Council with the draft Cultural and Creative Industries Bill 2017 for its comment.

1.2. Advice from the Department of State Growth indicates that the Bill is planned to be submitted to Parliament in April 2017.

1.3. Comments on the Bill were due for submission by Friday 31 March 2017. Although a formal request for Council’s comment was not received from the State Government, the public call for comment was circulated on Monday 27 March 2017.

1.4. The Bill will repeal and replace the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board Act 1975 and disband the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board and Screen Tasmania Advisory Board effective from 1 January 2018.

1.4.1. This report proposes that the Council supports the draft Cultural and Creative Industries Bill (the Bill) with no changes to the current draft.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The draft Cultural and Creative Industries Bill 2017 is proposed to be tabled in Tasmanian State Parliament in April 2017 (the draft Bill is marked as Attachment A to this report).

2.2. Officer advice supports the State Government’s move to update the 42 year old legislation to ensure that it is contemporary and relevant, and as such, is in general agreement with the draft Bill.

2.2.1. A copy of the letter of reply which was sent by the Acting General Manager to the Department of State Growth is marked as Attachment B to this report. The proposed amendments to the Bill are in accordance with the Council’s own policy, guidelines and process for grants and support.

3. Recommendation

That given the need to submit a formal response to the Department of State Growth by 31 March 2017, the Council endorse the submission to the Tasmanian Government on the Cultural and Creative Industries Bill 2017, which was sent by the Acting General Manager on 31 March 2017, and is shown at Attachment B to this report.

4. Background

4.1. The Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board (TAAB) was established under the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board Act (1975) to provide policy and funding advice to the State Government.

4.1.1. Currently, the Board comprises members from various sectors of the arts and the wider community, appointed by the Minister for the Arts.

4.1.2. The Board provides advice to the Minister through recommendations for the expenditure of the annual arts grant and loan allocations.

4.1.3. The Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board (TAAB) seeks input to its assessment process from specialist peers on panels appointed by the Minister.

4.1.4. Board and Panel members are in the unique position of providing policy advice and funding recommendations to the Minister and play an instrumental role in helping to shape the arts in Tasmania.

4.1.5. The Minister for the Arts is responsible for all appointments.

4.2. The current system for assessing grant applications to Arts Tasmania is multi-staged process of approval and recommendation which, in some cases, can take up to seven months for approval.

4.2.1. From a technical standpoint, the 1975 Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board Bill was formulated in a time when ‘the arts’ could be categorically defined as either ‘performing arts’, ‘visual arts’ or ‘literature’.

4.2.2. Current arts practice is not so clearly defined and limited and can incorporate multiple arts forms in one project, emerging and experimental arts, digital arts and many other variations that are not covered by the current Act which was established 42 years ago.

4.3. The draft Bill proposes a structure that would significantly reduce the administration imposition of Arts Tasmania in terms of servicing the Board itself, the multiple layers of peer assessment and communication with the Minister for the Arts.

4.3.1. However, a new streamlined peer assessment system continues the State Government commitment to arms-length funding which is reflective of best practice and is in line with the City of Hobart’s funding assessment processes.

4.3.2. Under the new Bill, appointment to peer assessment panels would remain at the discretion of the Minister for the Arts based upon merit, experience and understanding of the Tasmanian sector.

4.4. The draft Bill appears to also allow for improved levels of consultation and understanding for the officers of Arts Tasmania and the Cultural and Tourism Development Division of the Department of State Growth on the projects supported by the Department.

4.5. Whilst the Bill would be effective from 1 January 2018, the changes to the assessment and approval process would be implemented for 2019 to allow adequate time for communication to the sector and effective processes to be in place.

4.5.1. The changes to the Cultural and Creative Industries Bill would allow Arts Tasmania to call for applications twice per year, as the City of Hobart and many other arts funding organisations do, which adheres to a shorter turn-around time in approvals and advice to applicants, as well an implementation of funded projects.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Advice from the Department of State Growth indicates that the Bill is planned to be submitted to Parliament in April 2017, although this may be delayed until a future sitting due to the Premier currently acting in the role of Minister for the Arts.

5.2. Comments on the Bill were due for submission by Friday 31 March 2017. Although a formal request for Council’s comment was not received from the State Government, a public call for comment was circulated on Monday 27 March 2017.

5.3. The Bill will repeal and replace the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board Act 1975 and disband the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board and Screen Tasmania Advisory Board effective from 1 January 2018.

5.3.1. Changes will be implemented in 2019 and will allow for two rounds of funding applications per year, as opposed to the current system which allows for only one round per year.

5.4. Given the need to submit a formal response to the Department of State Growth by 31 March 2017, it is proposed that the Council endorse the submission to the Tasmanian Government on the Cultural and Creative Industries Bill 2017 which was sent by the Acting General Manager on 31 March 2017, as shown at Attachment B to this report, including the following specific comments:

· The Council supports the amendments to the Bill and views them as a contemporary response to address the arts industry needs.

· The changes are in accordance with the Council’s own policy, guidelines and processes for funding cultural projects.

· The changes appear to be in line with current practice in other State Government cultural funding practices and the Federal Government’s Australia Council for the Arts funding framework.

· It appears that, from a technical standpoint, the 1975 Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board Bill was formulated in a time when ‘the arts’ could be categorically defined as either ‘performing arts’, ‘visual arts’ or ‘literature’. Current arts practice is not so clearly defined and limited and can incorporate multiple arts forms in one project, emerging and experimental arts, digital arts and many other variations that are not covered by the current bill established 42 years ago.

· The Bill proposes a structure that could significantly reduce the administration imposition of Arts Tasmania in terms of servicing the Board itself, the multiple layers of peer assessment and communication with the Minister for the Arts.

· The Council understands that a new streamlined peer assessment system will ensure the continuation of the State Government’s commitment to arms-length funding which is reflective of best practice and is in line with the City of Hobart’s funding assessment processes.

· The Bill appears to also allow for improved level of consultation and understanding for the officers of Arts Tasmania and the broader Department of Cultural and Tourism Development on the projects supported by the Department.

· The Council is supportive of the changes to the Bill which would allow Arts Tasmania to call for applications twice per year, as the City of Hobart and many other arts funding organisations do. This provides a shorter turn-around time in approvals and advice to applicants, as well an implementation of funded projects for the benefit of the arts industry and the community.

5.4.2. The proposed Council feedback is in line with the City of Hobart’s cultural strategy, Creative Hobart.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. Providing feedback on the draft Cultural and Creative Industries Bill is consistent with Strategic Objective 1.1 and 5.1 within the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025, in particular:

“1.1 - Partnerships with Government, the education sector and business create city growth.

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

6.2. Feedback is also consistent with the City of Hobart’s cultural strategy Creative Hobart, specifically with:

“Objective 3.3 - Brokering connections: By identifying opportunities to connect individuals, small community groups and even large organisations with people inside and outside of the Council to simplify and smooth the way to encourage creative activities.”

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There are no financial implications arising from this matter.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. The legislative considerations have been addressed in the body of this report.

9. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

9.1. The Director Arts Tasmania and the Deputy Secretary, Cultural and Tourism Development, Department of State Growth have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

10. Delegation

10.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Kimbra Parker

Manager Community and Cultural Programs

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 31 March 2017

File Reference: F17/32449; S15-008-09

Attachment a: Draft Cultural and Creative Industries Bill 2017 ⇩

Attachment b: Letter of reply to the Department of State Growth ⇩

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.