Agenda of Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Item No. 6.1

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 7

11/4/2018

REPORT TITLE: UNESCO Creative Cities Network

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Acting Associate Director Community Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide detailed information regarding the potential for the City of Hobart to become a UNESCO City of Literature or a UNESCO Work Book Capital.

1.2. This report summarises the research and makes recommendations in response to community, cultural sector and peer city feedback.

2. Report Summary

2.1. Significant research and consultation has been undertaken to evaluate the two options of submitting an application to UNESCO to become either a City of Literature or the World Book Capital.

Option 1 - UNESCO City of Literature

2.2. The City of Literature is a perpetual title awarded to multiple cities every two years. Successful applicants are expected to commence their program immediately after the UNESCO announcement of results.

2.3. Cities of Literature are expected to:

· coordinate and promote a continuous and ongoing program of activities related to literature, writing and reading

· interact regularly with other international Cities of Literature including travel obligations

· fund or find funding for ongoing programming

· secure partner organisations with which the city collaborates

· provide reports to UNESCO six-monthly and four-yearly

· demonstrate how the city contributes to the UNESCO 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

Option 2 - UNESCO World Book Capital

2.4. UNESCO World Book Capital is awarded to one city annually. The program of activities runs for one year with the announcement of the successful city made 18 months prior to the start of the program.

2.5. World Book Capitals are expected to:

· coordinate and promote a 12-month program of activities related to literature, writing and reading

· fund or find funding to run the 12-month program

· secure partner organisations with which the city collaborates to deliver the program.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

2.6. Attachment A to this report presents a proposed budget model for both the City of Literature and the World Book Capital if an application were to be successful noting that the applicant city is able to determine its own budget.

2.7. Following research and discussion with other cities, the recommended minimum budget would be $175,000 per annum to ensure a modest level of activity in which the general public can be involved.

2.7.1. Option 1 - City of Literature includes administrative costs of $125,000. In addition:

· $30,000 would be allocated to public events

· $15,000 would be allocated to marketing

2.7.2. Option 2 - World Book Capital includes administrative costs of $105,000. In addition:

· $50,000 would be allocated to public events

· $15,000 would be allocated to marketing

2.7.3. Both options conservatively include one full time curator. Research shows that the average number of staff for a City of Literature is 2.5 times higher with two full time plus one part-time staff.

2.7.4. Research shows that a potential partnership with the State Government, the University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Writers Centre would bring expectations of State-wide outcomes from the investment. Therefore, funds in addition to $175,000 would be required from the potential partners to be able to fulfil this expectation.

2.8. Should the City of Hobart resolve to submit a bid to UNESCO for either title, a consultant would need to be appointed to formulate and submit a bid document at an additional cost of $20,000.

2.9. The major difference between the two options is the need for an ongoing budget commitment from the Council and all other partners for Option 1 - The City of Literature, or a 12-18 month budget commitment for Option 2 - The World Book Capital.

2.10. Due to the level of resources required to manage and deliver either option, it would be recommended that an expression of interest process be undertaken to identify a service provider either long-term for the City of Literature or for 12-18 months for the World Book Capital. The budget would then be managed by the chosen provider.

2.11. There is no income forthcoming from UNESCO for either title.

BENEFITS OF A UNESCO TITLE

2.12. The advantages of both options for the city are very similar and commensurate with the level of investment.

2.12.1. Option 1 - The City of Literature can be viewed as a more prestigious title with an ongoing status.

2.12.2. Option 2 - The World Book Capital is likely to have more of an impact in terms of public outcomes within a defined period.

POTENTIAL PARTNERS

2.13. With either Option 1 or Option 2 UNESCO expects that the candidate city will gather partners to collaboratively present the program and demonstrate broad support for the designation.

2.14. Two potential partners have been identified through the consultation:

2.14.1. The Tasmanian State Government (major partner) through LINC and the 26/TEN literacy program, Arts Tasmania and other government departments such as Education, Tourism and Economic Development; and

2.14.2. The University of Tasmania (in-kind support) through the School of Humanities and others such as the Institute of Social Change and the School of Education.

2.15. Attachment B to this report outlines further detail of consultation with both potential partners as well as collaborative opportunities with the Tasmanian Writers Centre and Melbourne City of Literature.

COMMUNITY AND SECTOR CONSULTATION

2.16. Community, sector and peer consultation has demonstrated unanimous support for the idea of applying for either the City of Literature bid or the World Book Capital.

2.17. In terms of numbers, the preference is for the City of Literature. However, it must be noted that these preferences are not from people who are in a position to provide financial or human resources to a bid process or the delivery of an ongoing program. Attachment B provides further detail.

2.18. The preference of the most likely potential financial partners including Arts Tasmania, LINC Hobart, Tasmanian Writers Centre and the University of Tasmania is for Option 2 - World Book Capital.

2.18.1. Discussions have been focused on financial, human resource, public perception and the programming support that could be secured through partnerships, funding and sponsorship.

2.19. The research revealed no detrimental effects on a City of Hobart bid due to the proximity of the Melbourne City of Literature. The City of Melbourne has been extremely supportive in the research phase.

2.19.1. The only consideration is if the City of Hobart applies for Option 1 – City of Literature, the City of Melbourne will not be able to promote Hobart’s campaign, nor assess the bid to UNESCO due to conflict of interest.

2.19.2. If an application to become a World Book Capital is submitted, Melbourne would be able to actively promote the bid amongst international assessors, past recipients, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the UNESCO Committee.

2.19.3. Research online and in discussion with other UNESCO Creative Cities indicates that key elements of a successful bid and program delivery are:

· confirmed partnerships including financial support

· a comprehensive communications and marketing strategy

· details of the program content

· public outcomes.

2.20. A number of people, including local, interstate and international contacts have also suggested that Hobart could potentially consider the UNESCO City of Gastronomy title.

TIMING

2.21. The timing considerations for a bid would be:

2.21.1. Option 1 - UNESCO City of Literature applications for the next round are likely to close in June 2019, with announcements usually made in October for immediate and permanent designation.

2.21.1.1. Previous advice anticipated that applications may be accepted in June 2018, however it has been confirmed that there will be no applications in 2018.

2.21.2. Option 2 - UNESCO World Book Capital applications likely to close in March 2019 for the title to be allocated for 2021.

2.22. Should the Council wish to partner with the Tasmanian State Government to make a bid and deliver either option, a formal request would be made and a budget allocation requested. This would ideally be completed by November 2018.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. Council endorse one of the following three options:

(i) Option 1 - That the City of Hobart submit a bid to become a UNESCO City of Literature in 2019, and if the bid was to be successful, commit to allocating an ongoing annual budget of $175,000 from the 2019-20 financial year onwards; or

(ii) Option 2 - That the City of Hobart submit a bid to become a UNESCO World Book Capital in 2021, and if the bid was to be successful, commit to allocating a one-off budget of $175,000 split over the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 financial years; or

(iii) Option 3 - That the City of Hobart not submit a bid for either Option 1 or 2 but review the opportunity if UNESCO eliminates the art form designation to a general Creative City title.

2. Should the Council resolve to pursue either Option 1 or 2:

(i) A consultant be appointed to prepare and submit the bid document at a cost of $20,000, with $10,000 being allocated in the current financial year and $10,000 allocated in the 2018-19 draft Annual Plan budget allocation.

(a) The $10,000 allocation in the current financial year be attributed to the Cultural Development function of the 2017-18 Annual Plan with a corresponding off-set from the City of Hobart Art Prize activity in the Cultural Development function for any expenditure in excess of the existing budget in accordance with s82 of the Local Government Act 1993.

(ii) The City of Hobart make a formal approach to the Tasmanian State Government regarding the formulation of a co-investment partnership for a bid and delivery of the program were the bid to be successful.

4. Background

4.1. This report responds to the Notice of Motion (Item 10) to the Council meeting of 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.”

4.2. And the consequent Council resolution of 24 April 2017

“That 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.”

4.3. UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation responsible for coordinating international cooperation in education, science, culture and communication. It strengthens the ties between nations and societies, and mobilises the wider public so that each child and citizen:

· has access to quality education; a basic human right and an indispensable prerequisite for sustainable development

· may grow and live in a cultural environment rich in diversity and dialogue, where heritage serves as a bridge between generations and peoples

· can fully benefit from scientific advances

· can enjoy full freedom of expression; the basis of democracy, development and human dignity.

ALTERNATIVE MODELS

4.4. There are two options that appear to be most suitable for the City of Hobart.

4.5. Option 1 - UNESCO City of Literature. Cities of Literature are members of the UNESCO Creative Cities Network, created in 2004 to foster international cooperation with and between cities that recognise creativity as a strategic factor for sustainable urban development.

4.5.1. The UNESCO Creative Cities Network is currently formed by 180 members from 72 countries covering seven creative fields: Crafts and Folk Art, Design, Film, Gastronomy, Literature, Music and Media Arts.

4.5.1.1. Applicants must nominate which one of these seven art-forms they wish to apply for as a member.

4.5.1.2. There are currently 28 Cities of Literature, including the eight cities that entered the network in 2017.

4.5.2. Australian Cities in the Creative Cities Network are: Melbourne City of Literature, Adelaide City of Music, Sydney City of Film and Geelong City of Design. It is likely that Canberra will submit an application in the upcoming round to become a City of Design.

4.5.3. To become a City of Literature, candidate cities must submit an application that clearly demonstrates their willingness, commitment and capacity to contribute to the objectives of the UNESCO Creative Cities Network as outlined in Attachment B to this report.

4.5.4. Candidate cities are required to prepare and consistently implement an action plan, report every six months on their achievements and the Curator is expected to participate in the UNESCO Creative Cities Network annual meetings held in Europe.

4.5.5. Sustainability plans outlined in the UNESCO Sustainable Development 2030 Goals must be addressed in an application. Cities are expected to report back on their achievements in each area.

4.5.6. Reporting requirements are: six-monthly reports every year with a forecast of activity and every four years with achievements and outcomes. The report is assessed by a peer panel and a rating given between unsatisfactory and a commendation.

4.5.7. Applications to become a City of Literature are called for every two years, with the next round likely to close in June 2019 with announcements to be made in October 2019 for immediate implementation.

4.5.8. There is some speculation but no solid evidence to indicate that UNESCO may implement a $15,000 annual fee for UNESCO Creative Cities to use the UNESCO branding.

4.6. Option 2 - UNESCO World Book Capital. Cities designated as UNESCO World Book Capital commit to promote and foster books and reading and to organise activities over a twelve month period.

4.6.1. Only one city is designated as the World Book Capital each year.

4.6.2. The World Book Capital is the preferred option of:

· The Tasmanian State Government, including LINC Hobart and Arts Tasmania

· The Tasmanian Writers Centre

· The University of Tasmania.

4.6.3. Consultation with potential partner organisations shows that a one-year program is more likely to attract co-investment and partnership opportunities with sponsors, funders and donors including Trusts.

4.6.4. Consultation with state and federal arts funding bodies shows that a one-year program as a World Book Capital would make for a stronger application for funding rather than an application for an ongoing City of Literature program.

4.6.5. No Australian city has ever been a World Book Capital and currently there is no indication that any other Australian city is considering submitting an application. Only one city in any country can be the World Book Capital in a ten year period.

4.6.6. The only other cities in the Asia Pacific to be awarded the title were New Delhi (2003), Bangkok (2013) and Incheon (2015).

4.6.7. Most World Book Capitals host an official visit from the UNESCO Director-General during their program year as the designation is the responsibility of the Director-General.

4.6.8. The definition of ‘book’ can be broad. For example, the Tasmanian Libraries Act (1984) defines a book as: “any book, periodical, newspaper, printed matter, map, plan, music, manuscript, picture, print, motion picture, sound recording, photographic negative or print, microphotograph, video recording, and any other matter or thing whereby words, sounds, or images are recorded or reproduced”.

4.6.9. The nominating city commits to deliver a program of events and initiatives specifically conceived for the World Book Capital and implemented during the city's twelve month term which runs from April to April.

4.6.9.1. This could include new projects, the promotion of existing services and programs, and community engagement activities.

4.6.10. The inclusion of science writing in the application could be a point of strength for Hobart and Tasmania more broadly.

4.6.11. Applications are evaluated against six criteria outlined in Attachment B using a weighting system.

4.6.12. The successful city is advised 18 months prior to the commencement of the program, thereby allowing promotion and lead-up events to start immediately but delivery of the program to start 18 months later.

4.6.13. There are no international travel obligations for UNESCO World Book Capitals.

4.6.14. Reporting obligations are one interim report in the first six months and a final report.

4.6.15. If a bid to become a World Book Capital was to be successful and there was ongoing financial support for such a program to continue, the City of Hobart could utilise the outcomes of the program to submit an application for the permanent title of UNESCO City of Literature.

ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES

4.7. The advantages of either title are very similar and commensurate with the level of investment.

4.8. The major challenge identified for both titles is that of securing funding. For Option 1 - City of Literature, that challenge would be ongoing as the title is in perpetuity.

4.9. Advantages of Option 1 - UNESCO City of Literature title include:

· the City of Literature can be viewed as a more prestigious title

· it is an ongoing designation

· the title can bring ongoing national and international attention to Hobart’s literary sector, heritage and contemporary story telling

· the title can be used to promote and acclaim Hobart’s award-winning writers

· it can be a driver for cultural tourism.

4.10. Challenges of Option 1 - UNESCO City of Literature title include:

· an ongoing, year-on-year investment is required from the Council, a commitment to which should be included in the application

· a significant investment of at least $20,000 per year is required to fulfil international travel and reporting obligations

· securing ongoing financial and human resource commitment from State Government, in-kind and other cash supporters

· the need to distinguish an application from the City of Hobart as distinctly different to the City of Melbourne program

· the loss of Melbourne as a supporter in the application process due to conflict of interest

· the necessity to have the program, resourcing and budget confirmed prior to the application due to expectation that as soon as a city is announced as a City of Literature, it is expected to commence activities immediately.

4.11. Advantages of Option 2 - UNESCO World Book Capital title:

· the World Book Capital is likely to have more impact in terms of public outcomes within a defined 12-month period

· it increases opportunities for project funding from state and federal sources

· co-investment relationships and partnerships are for one year (or 18 months to allow lead-up time) which opens more opportunities with sponsors, partners and donors (Trusts)

· there is no conflict of interest for Melbourne City of Literature, therefore partnership opportunities are enhanced

· only one city holds the designation at a time, so attention is easier to secure

· the successful city is announced 18 months prior to commencement of the program, allowing promotion and final planning

· the title is contained in a 12 month festival-type of a program of high profile events, campaigns, awards and other activities

· if it is successful, the World Book Capital year would strengthen a future application to become a City of Literature, if ongoing designation is preferred.

4.12. Challenges of the UNESCO World Book Capital title:

· maintaining momentum after the end of the program, if there is a desire to do so, by encouraging partners to continue working together

· ensuring adequate communications in the lead-up to the program to maximise involvement and inclusion.

COMPARATIVE RESEARCH AND DATA

4.13. The table below shows comparative data collected on cities with features that are comparable to Hobart.

CITY	POPULATION (approx.)	STAFF	MANAGED BY	BUDGET
Dunedin*	123,000	1 F/T Director plus contractors	City Council	Estimated $150,000 Administration, not including project money
Reykjavik	122,000	2 F/T	City Council	$350,000
Iowa	71,500	1 FT & 2 P/T	Independent NFP funded partly by the City Council.	$313,000
Heidelberg	150,000	3 P/T	City Council	$340,000
Ljubljana	280,000	1 P/T & casuals	NPF NGO funded by City Council	$92,000 plus admin and marketing.

4.14. It should be noted that although the Dunedin budget is relatively small, it accounts only for administration costs.

4.14.1. The Dunedin Director acknowledges the challenges of delivering a program with only one full time staff member.

4.14.2. All public programs in Dunedin must be funded from money that the Director seeks in addition to the administration budget.

4.15. In the formulation of this report contact has been made with the Directors of Dunedin City of Literature (New Zealand) and Krakow City of Literature (Poland). Outcomes of phone meetings are detailed in Attachment B to this report.

4.16. Desktop research has also been undertaken into a number of other international cities, including the bidding process, budgets, management models, partnerships, regular reporting and public outcomes.

THE UNESCO INTERNATIONAL CITIES OF LITERATURE COMMITTEE

4.17. A phone meeting was held with the Chair of the Cities of Literature, Justyn Jochym who is located in Krakow, which is also a City of Literature.

4.18. Ms Jochym coordinates the 28 Cities of Literature, their integration with other cities in the Creative Cities Network. The discussion highlighted:

· the importance of the international obligations of a City of Literature designation

· the UNESCO City of Literature is not a title, it is an obligation

· cities must keep in mind that the designation is forever

· the need for an application to address specific ideals outlined in Attachment B to this report.

4.19. Research conducted by the Chair of the Cities of Literature shows that on average, Cities of Literature have two full time staff plus one part-time focussing on communications and marketing.

4.19.1. Some cities with fewer resources are completely silent in the network, which potentially threatens the status of the title.

4.19.2. There is considerable reputational risk for the cities that choose to enter the network with insufficient long-term financial and human resource commitment.

4.20. Approximately 50 per cent of the bids submitted to the City of Literature panel are unsuccessful. Many cities resubmit repeatedly, based on the feedback from the assessment panel. The most common feedback relates to confirmation of program, resourcing, international partnerships and budget commitment.

MANAGEMENT OF THE BID APPLICATION

4.21. Due to the extensive research, consultation, coordination and writing involved in developing a bid application, the Council’s current human resources do not allow for such a commitment.

4.22. A consultant could be appointed to create a bid document. The estimated fee of $20,000 minimum for research work, seeking partners and a finalising and submitting a bid document. Attachment B details the expectations of the consultant’s duties.

4.23. The consultant would also:

· promote and inform relevant people about the bid, leading the communications strategy for the bid

· consider public perception if the bid is not successful and a plan for the future

· submit the application in collaboration with, and with the endorsement of the State Government, the University of Tasmania and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

4.24. Should the Council resolve to pursue Option 1 - City of Literature, prior to submitting the bid, the consultant would be required to implement an Expression of Interest (EOI) process to call for an individual or organisation interested in delivering the ongoing program if the bid is successful.

4.24.1. This detail will be required in the application.

4.24.2. If the application is successful, the organisation or individual identified through the EOI would be required to start immediately after the UNESCO announcement.

4.25. Should the Council resolve to submit an application to Option 1 - City of Literature, the Council and the consultant should communicate 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.

MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAM DELIVERY

4.26. Should the bid for either option be successful, there are two options for management of the program delivery:

OPTION 1:

· To contract an external organisation or individual, with a specialty in delivering such programs in the literary sector, to manage and deliver the program on behalf of the City of Hobart in accordance with the approved budget.

· Appoint an external not for profit organisation. Such an organisation would be able to access external support that the City of Hobart as a Local Government cannot. This support would be through grants funding, philanthropic donations and corporate sponsorship some of which local government is not eligible.

OPTION 2:

· Create a new position within the City of Hobart for an officer who specialises in project and program management with expertise in the literary sector.

· As advised by the Chair of the UNESCO Cities of Literature, this person would be expected to hold a senior position and represent the City at international meetings.

4.27. The UNESCO Cities of Literature title obliges cities to establish and maintain relationships with other UNESCO cities around the world, requiring human resources and travel costs.

4.27.1. The budget models outlined in Attachment A to this report include only $20,000 of annual travel expenses which would be the minimum requirement for the Curator of the Hobart City of Literature to attend the UNESCO meeting in Europe and does not include any other international relationship management.

POTENTIAL PARTNERS

4.28. Consultation with potential partners in Tasmania has demonstrated:

4.28.1. Tasmanian Government Department of State Growth

· The Deputy Secretary, Cultural and Tourism Industry Development, and the Director of Arts Tasmania suggest that an application for the one year Option 2 - World Book Capital title could increase opportunities for co-investment from the State Government due to the reduced need for an ongoing financial commitment.

· It was explained that the State Government would expect state-wide outcomes for any investment made.

4.28.2. LINC Tasmania (State Government Department of Education)

· The senior management team was supportive of the idea of both options. However, stated a preference for Option 2 - World Book Capital, due to the likelihood that it would gain momentum and financial support as a one year program.

· It should be noted that unlike most cities, Hobart City Council does not own and operate a library, therefore a partnership with LINC Tasmania appears to be vital for either Option 1 or Option 2.

4.28.3. Tasmanian Writers Centre

· The Director of the Tasmanian Writers Centre expressed a clear preference for Option 2 - the World Book Capital as a manageable expectation, as it has a contained timeframe and is a discreet project.

· The Writers Centre was one of a number of organisations concerned about a City of Literature office duplicating another service that already exists in Tasmania and recommended that the curatorial role sit within an existing structure.

4.28.4. University of Tasmania

· The Head of the School of Humanities and Acting Head of Global Cultures and Languages indicated that Option 2 - The UNESCO World Book Capital title seems to be more “of the people”, and is less elite or perceptibly academic. It could open up opportunities for science and could attract more people who may be otherwise feel that a City of Literature title is not inclusive.

· The University of Tasmania is a potential state-wide in-kind partner but unlikely to have the capacity to provide cash support.

· A meeting was held with Professor Jeff Malpas from UTAS who is also the Chair of the Tasmanian Writers Centre. Professor Malpas indicated that he would contact the new Vice Chancellor of the university, Rufus Black to garner his level of interest and the capacity of the university to be involved in a bid to UNESCO and the delivery of any program should the bid be successful. Council officers await further advice from Professor Malpas.

4.29. Attachment B provides further details of discussions with potential Tasmanian partners.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. Should the Council resolve to submit an application to UNESCO, applications are likely to close:

· Option 1 - City of Literature in June 2019 with outcomes generally announced September/October of the same year

· Option 2 - World Book Capital in March 2019 with outcomes known in 2019 for the 2021 title.

5.2. For either option, it is recommended that work would need to start immediately on the bid to ensure adequate time for partnership development and to maintain the momentum generated by the research to date.

5.3. Key dates to be considered are:

· October 2018 - Tasmanian Local Government elections

· November 2018 - Budget requests to be submitted to State Government

· November 2018 - A delegation of other Cities of Literature will be meeting in Melbourne. It could be advantageous for the City of Hobart consultant to be present.

5.4. Should an application be successful, the public program would be expected to commence:

· Option 1 - City of Literature in November 2019

· Option 2 - World Book Capital in April 2021 on World Book Day

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. The project aligns with the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025:

Strategic Objective 1.1: Partnerships with Government, the education sector and business create city growth;

Strategic Objective 1.5: Cultural and creative activities build community wellbeing and economic viability;

Strategic Objective 5.5: Capital City leadership is provided; and

Objective 5.5.1: Progress capital city growth and regional development with the State Government, other councils and peak bodies.

6.2. The public outcomes of the proposal have the potential to align with all nine objectives of the Creative Hobart Strategy.

6.3. Should the Council resolve to proceed with Option 1 - City of Literature, there is an expectation that components of the ongoing program would align with the sustainable communities and sustainable development objectives of the City of Hobart’s Climate Change Strategy.

6.4. Currently, there is not a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Hobart and the Tasmanian State Government.

6.4.1. Should Option 1 or 2 proceed, a partnership with specific departments of the State Government including LINC and State Growth could be put into place.

6.5. A memorandum of Understanding would also be required with the University of Tasmania to formalise the partnership.

7. Financial Implications

COST ASSOCIATED WITH A SUCCESSFUL BID

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There is no budget currently allocated in the 2017-18 Annual Plan budget allocation.

7.1.2. Should the Council resolve to proceed with Option 1 or 2, $10,000 (50 per cent of consultant fee) would be required to be allocated in the current financial year. This cost would be attributed to the Cultural Development function of the 2017-18 Annual Plan with a corresponding off set from savings from the City of Hobart Art Prize activity in the Cultural Development budget function for any expenditure in excess of the existing budget in accordance with s82 of the Local Government Act 1993.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. Should the Council resolve to proceed with Option 1 or 2, a further $10,000 would be required to be included in the draft annual plan budget allocation for Cultural Programs in the 2018-19 financial year.

7.2.2. Option 1 - City of Literature: Should the Council resolve to adopt Option 1, and the bid is successful, the program would commence in the 2019-20 financial year and the funding commitment would need to be confirmed prior to submitting the bid application.

7.2.2.1. Accordingly, the recommended minimum investment of $175,000 would be required to be included in the annual plan budget allocation in the 2019-20 financial year.

7.2.2.2. The $175,000 annual budget would be required to continue ongoing.

7.2.3. Option 2 - World Book Capital: Should the Council resolve to adopt Option 2, the commitment would need to be confirmed prior to submitting the bid application. If the bid is successful for the year April 2021 - April 2022:

7.2.3.1. Up to $15,000 of marketing and curatorial costs would be required to be included in the annual plan budget allocation for the 2019-20 financial year.

7.2.3.2. Up to $30,000 of marketing and curatorial costs would be required to be included in the annual plan budget allocation for the 2020-21 financial year.

7.2.3.3. The remaining $130,000 of the total budget required would be included in the annual plan budget allocation for the 2021-22 financial year.

7.3. Asset Related Implications

7.3.1. There are no asset related implications from this report.

8. Social and Customer Considerations

8.1. Should the Council resolve to pursue either Option 1 or 2, some consideration should be given to a communication strategy if the application is unsuccessful.

8.1.1. Approximately 50 per cent of the bids submitted to the City of Literature panel are unsuccessful. Many cities resubmit repeatedly, based on the feedback from the assessment panel.

9. Marketing and Media

9.1. A modest marketing and communication budget is included in Attachment A to this report. The $15,000 annual budget does not allow for specialist skills, nor for significant advertising, street banners or other public displays.

9.2. It is anticipated that existing City of Hobart marketing and communication strategies would contribute to the promotion of the title, should an application be successful.

9.3. There is no additional expense anticipated for a unique website. Current provisions allow for the creation of a site to sit alongside the City of Hobart website as does the Taste of Tasmania and Salamanca Market websites.

10. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

10.1. In the preparation of this report extensive external consultation was undertaken with community representatives, creative sector specialists, State and Federal Government, literary service providers and other arts organisations, national and international UNESCO Cities, the UNESCO Chair of the Cities of Literature and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

10.1.1. A full list of internal and external consultation is detailed in Attachment C including contacts made via face-to-face meetings, phone conversations, email and desktop research.

10.2. Community, creative sector and peer city consultation has demonstrated unanimous support for the idea of applying for either the City of Literature bid or the World Book Capital.

10.2.1. In terms of numbers, the preference is for the City of Literature, however, it must be noted that this is not from people who are in a position to provide financial or human resources to a bid process or the delivery of an ongoing program.

10.2.2. The preference of potential financial partners including Arts Tasmania, LINC Hobart, the University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Writers Centre is for Option 2 - UNESCO World Book Capital.

10.3. Attachment B provides details of the consultation undertaken with potential partners and collaborators.

11. Delegation

11.1. This matter is delegated to the Council for consideration.

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

Kimbra Parker

Acting Associate Director Community Development

Date: 6 April 2018

File Reference: F18/17570; S15-008-09-006

Attachment a: Budget model options ⇩

Attachment b: Supplementary background ⇩

Attachment c: Consultation list ⇩

Item No. 6.2

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 39

11/4/2018

REPORT TITLE: Public Art Project Update

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Acting Associate Director Community Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to update the Council on three current projects within the Public Art Program and recommend that Council approve a redistribution of existing funds within the Public Art Projects and Operations budget for the following three financial years to enable completion of key projects within the program.

1.2. The Public Art Program enlivens the City of Hobart with high quality artworks in the city centre and suburbs and continues to expand its audience, output and reach in response to community expectation (residents and visitors).

1.3. The program has eight current projects ranging from temporary billboard artworks through to permanent installations in civic spaces in addition to a number of projects relating to the improvement or revision of internal processes.

2. Report Summary

2.1. There are three major projects, as listed below, at varying stages of completion within the current Public Art Program for 2017-18 and 2018-19. These projects have evolved through the development and detailed design phases which has impacted on the final costings to deliver. As a result, officers are now seeking a redistribution of existing public art funds in order to complete them to level of quality and finish expected for all City of Hobart Public Art projects.

2.2. The three projects are:

· Franklin Square Two Islands;

· Elizabeth Street LED Screen (for installation in the plaza of UTAS housing at 157 Elizabeth Street); and

· New Town Retail Precinct Upgrade Public Art Commission

2.3. It is proposed that funds within the operating and project budgets for the Public Art Program in this financial year, and the following three financial years be redistributed to allow for completion of the projects without any additional funds being sought.

2.3.1. There is an annual project allocation for public art projects of $50,000 and an annual operating budget for projects of $50,000.

2.4. The main consequence of the funds being redistributed will be to extend the timeframe for commissioning and completion of two of the planned public artworks for children (Playful Cities project) into subsequent financial years.

3. Recommendation

That the Council approve a redistribution of existing funds within the operating and project budgets of the Public Art Program over the next three financial years in order to allow for high quality outcomes for the Franklin Square, Elizabeth Street LED Screen and New Town Retail Precinct Public Art projects.

4. Background

4.1. The City of Hobart Public Art Program has a dynamic and diverse series of projects currently in various stages of completion.

4.2. The projects currently underway are as follows:

· Urban Art Walls Program (Stage 2 of Bidencopes Laneway)

· LED Screen (for installation in plaza of UTAS student housing, 157 Elizabeth Street)

· Franklin Square Two Islands (artist Nigel Helyer)

· Lenah Valley Retail Precinct Upgrade Public Art In this Place (artist Alex Miles)

· New Town Retail Precinct Upgrade Public Art Hybrids (artist Matt Drysdale)

· Playful City Stage 1 Collins Court (three artist teams shortlisted)

· Soapbox Billboard Program, Mathers Place and Criterion Lane (quarterly, ongoing and currently working towards 20^th iteration of the billboards)

· Signal Box Program (currently under review for an upcoming report on options for continuation in response to a Notice of Motion).

4.3. The Public Art program is also working on a number of internal projects including:

· Review of existing program for maintenance and cleansing of the City’s public art collection (ongoing)

· Commissioning of a consultant to develop a new Public Art Strategy (proposed).

4.4. The Public Art Program has expanded significantly over the last few years in response to community expectation.

4.5. Three projects within the current program have evolved due to the length of time the projects have been running, changes in the requirements of the project or a change in scale, as detailed below.

Franklin Square, Two Islands public art project, artist Nigel Helyer

4.6. In response to the Franklin Square Master Plan, this project was approved by the Council to be advertised as a new commission at a value of $100,000 in August 2014 ($6,000 for shortlist/concept; $94,000 for commission).

4.7. Following the expression of interest and concept selection process, the Council approved the commissioning of Nigel Helyer to further develop his concept for artwork Two Islands, at its closed meeting on 24 August 2015, subject to consultation with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community.

4.8. This lengthy and extensive consultation process was undertaken and at its meeting on 21 November 2016, the Council resolved to contract artist Nigel Helyer to undertake Stage 2 of the project (design development, fabrication and installation).

4.9. The project was formally launched on 21 December 2016, with a Planning Permit granted on 8 May 2017.

4.10. Due to the delay in progressing this project with the extensive consultation process, detailed design development, site investigation (archaeology and arboreal investigations to locate footings) the revision of quotations primarily for materials and fabrication have only recently been completed for the project.

4.11. This detailed design phase has revealed that the project is now expected to cost significantly more than the available project funds ($94,000 remaining commission fee). The increase costs are primarily due to the following:

· Length of time between engagement of the artist and initial costings (4 years);

· Significant increase in material costs (timber and steel) over the four years from initial costings to final quotations;

· Significant increase in local fabrication costs over the four years from initial costings to final quotations;

· Involved and lengthy consultation process;

· Complex site conditions for the selected site in terms of potential archaeology and tree roots (heritage tree), requiring the artist and his contracted designer to research and engineer a specialist footing system and create several revisions of this footing system for approval; and

· Requirements for the artist and his designer to research and contract a specialist to look at potential hazards such as entrapment and injuries due to falls.

4.12. It is noted that the artist fee has not increased.

4.13. The expected final cost for the project is now projected to be $194,000 based on quotations obtained from the artist and confirmed by the Public Art Coordinator in February/March 2018.

4.13.1. With an additional $85,000 being covered through reallocation of public art funding there is still a shortfall of $15,000. This cost is primarily associated with lighting the art work and it is anticipated that it may be covered through the operational budget allocation from Parks and City Amenity.

4.13.1.1. If this funding is not available, the art work would only be lit as part of the overall park lighting rather than by lighting specifically designed for the art work.

4.13.2. This cost also includes a contingency allowance of $7,750.

4.14. The Public Art Coordinator has consulted extensively with the artist and the local contractors to determine if there is any way to deliver the project without requiring the additional funds.

4.14.1. It is noted that there is no reasonable way to scale back the project costs and there have been alternative quotations sought for elements of the artwork that do not offer any savings.

4.14.2. The option to not continue with the artwork in light of the additional costs has been considered, however it is noted that there has been extensive ground preparation work undertaken and that the soundscape component of the artwork is nearing completion with significant involvement and contribution from the local Aboriginal community.

4.15. The additional funds required for the completion of this project will be drawn from existing funds within the Public Art Program’s operations and projects budgets as detailed and would only affect the timing of a number of other projects.

Elizabeth Street LED Screen (plaza within UTAS Student Housing)

4.16. The Public Art Program has been working on the establishment of an LED screen for arts and culture programming, as approved by the Council at its meeting on 5 April 2017.

4.17. The project has recently been submitted for a Development Application, as it has a classification of new signage.

4.18. The project was originally expected to be completed in the 2017-18 financial year, but is now anticipated to be completed in the 2018-19 financial year.

4.19. The revised timeline for the project has been drawn out due to the following:

· Complexity of the project in terms of technology requiring specialist assistance to set up expression of interest documents for procurement; and

· Length of time required to negotiate and approve agreed contract from UTAS (over six months to date and negotiations still ongoing).

4.20. The expected costs for the project have risen, primarily due to the requirement to install the screen as a free standing element within the UTAS student housing plaza rather than on an existing wall as originally proposed.

4.21. The existing wall has been proven to not be suitable due to:

· Heritage listing of selected wall/building; and

· Lack of structural suitability of selected wall.

4.22. The original project budget approved by Council was $83,000.

4.23. The expected project budget, which now incorporates engineering, fabrication and installation of the footing and frame (developed on the basis of supplier quotes and internal estimations from the City of Hobart City Design Unit) is $113,000.

4.24. The additional funds for the project will be drawn from the draft 2018-19 public art annual project allocation of $50,000.

New Town Retail Precinct Upgrade Public Art

4.25. Public art has been commissioned as part of the two most recent retail precinct upgrades for Hobart’s inner suburban areas.

4.26. The Lenah Valley Retail Precinct public art (artist Alex Miles) is currently in fabrication and installation stage, with a number of the components of the work already installed in the streetscape.

4.27. The artist for the New Town Retail Precinct, Matt Drysdale, has just been selected by a panel comprising members of the Public Art Advisory Panel, City Design, the Project Action Team (all members of the local community) and the Public Art team.

4.28. The selected concept will be incorporated into an upcoming report on the overall New Town Retail Precinct Redevelopment design to be presented to the City Infrastructure Committee.

4.29. The project budget for the public art is $55,000, which is drawn from the existing Public Art budget ($15,000) and the City Infrastructure budget for the retail precinct upgrade ($40,000).

4.30. In order to achieve a public art outcome matched to the site, ambition and expectations for the overall retail project, it is anticipated that an additional $20,000 will be required.

4.31. The increase in budget is required due to:

· The resolution of the proposed urban design solution, which now covers over one kilometre of New Town Road (not known at the time of budget setting, as the community consultation process was just beginning); and

· The community desire for a public artwork that provides a gateway to the precinct and has impact along the proposed length of New Town Road.

4.32. The additional funds will be drawn from the existing annual Public Art project allocation for 2018-19.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. In order to meet the anticipated shortfall in the current allocation against each of the three approved major projects it is proposed Public Art allocations be redistributed over the next three financial years.

Franklin Square

5.2. The $85,000 shortfall for this project (excluding the Parks and City Amenity potential contribution for lighting) will be met by a redistribution of the following from the public art budget allocations:

Playful City project 2017-18 budget allocation         $65,000
Elizabeth Street LED Screen curation 2017-18       $10,000
Remaining project budget allocation 2017-18          $10,000
TOTAL                                                                            $85,000

5.3. The Playful City Project funds will be funded from the 2019-20 and 2020-21 annual public art project allocation in the following amounts:

· $30,000 from 2019-20

· $35,000 from 2020-21

5.4. Redistributing funds in relation to the Playful City project will see the program complete three stages of the project across the next three financial years, given that the Collins Court project is expected to be completed by the end of 2018 (funded by the Collins Court Project budget allocation) and the remaining projects will follow in 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Elizabeth Street LED Screen

5.5. There is currently $83,000 funding allocated to this project in the 2017-18 project budget with the additional $30,000 required to complete the LED Screen being drawn from the 2018-19 annual public art project allocation.

New Town Retail Precinct public art

5.6. The additional $20,000 required for the New Town Retail Precinct Project will be drawn from the 2018-19 annual public art project allocation.

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

· Activating Public Spaces

· Nurturing creativity

· Celebrating excellence and diversity

· Connecting creative people

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Financial implications for the current financial year are:

Franklin Square: redistribution of funds from the following allocations

Playful City 2017-18 public art project allocation     $65,000
Elizabeth Street LED Screen curation 2017-18       $10,000
Remaining ‘project’ budget allocation 2017-18        $10,000

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result are as follows:

Elizabeth Street LED Screen: An additional $30,000 to be funded from the 2018-19 annual public art project budget.

New Town Retail Precinct: An additional $20,000 to be funded from the 2018-19 annual public art project allocation.

7.2.1. $15,000 primarily associated with lighting the art work may be covered through the operational budget allocation from Parks and City Amenity.

7.2.1.1. If this funding is not available, the art work would only be lit as part of the overall park lighting rather than by lighting specifically designed for the art work.

7.3. The ‘playful city’ stages two and three will be postponed until the 2019-20 and 2020-21 financial year annual project allocations.

7.4. Asset Related Implications.

7.4.1. The LED Screen will become an asset of the City of Hobart in the 2018-19 financial year rather than the current financial year.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There are no legal or legislative considerations.

8.2. The risk associated with any further expenses with Franklin Square budget has been managed through an allowance for a contingency within the overall expected final budget.

9. Delegation

9.1. This matter is delegated to the Council for consideration.

Kimbra Parker

Acting Associate Director Community Development

Date: 6 April 2018

File Reference: F18/28003; 16/427

Item No. 6.3

Agenda (Open Portion)

Community, Culture and Events Committee Meeting

Page 48

11/4/2018

REPORT TITLE: City of Hobart Art Prize Review

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Acting Associate Director Community Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. The purpose of this report is to provide further information to the Council on the findings of the City of Hobart Art Prize review, and to propose a new model.

1.2. In response to the outcomes of the review, a new biennial exhibition model is being proposed that would be delivered in collaboration with the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG).

1.2.1. It is intended that the new model would have a strong alignment with the Council’s Creative Hobart Strategy, in particular increased engagement with the local community, activation of public spaces and paid, professional development opportunities for local creative practitioners.

2. Report Summary

2.1. The review of the City of Hobart Art Prize has been completed, and as a result of research and extensive consultation undertaken, a new model is proposed.

2.1.1. The proposed new model offers a new multi-disciplinary biennial program, in partnership with TMAG, that would include work from across the creative sector including art, craft, design, literature, film, theatre and music that would be performed / exhibited at TMAG and other locations around the city.

2.1.2. The new model provides the Council with the opportunity to utilise existing resources to invest in a new, innovative exhibition where the Council is seen as a key investor. Although at the time of writing this report TMAG is the only partner, there would be considerable opportunity for other entities to become part of the biennial exhibition.

2.1.3. The total budget allocation for the biennial exhibition would be $377,442 comprised of the Council’s current art prize budget allocation of $108,206 per annum, as well as some $25,000 in sponsorship to be sought by TMAG and in-kind contribution of $136,030 from TMAG per exhibition.

2.1.3.1. It is noted that there would be potential opportunities to seek additional sponsorship once the program has been fully developed and promoted, which may reduce the ongoing financial commitment required by the Council.

2.1.4. It is envisaged that the first exhibition would be held in 2020, with the program delivered every two years to allow for a more substantial investment, bringing the program into line with comparable offerings across Australia.

2.1.5. Significant resources would be allocated to increase community engagement within the new program and to ensure the City of Hobart’s significant investment in this project is promoted and marketed appropriately.

2.1.6. The proposed program will provide significant benefits to both the City of Hobart and its residents, including:

· the program name will include Hobart in its title

· direct paid opportunities for local artists

· increased visitation to Hobart by cultural tourists

· thematic celebration / exploration of Hobart in the work of participating artists

· city activation with some of the projects to be located in external spaces in Hobart.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. The Council endorse the replacement of the existing City of Hobart Art Prize with a new model of a biennial creative sector exhibition to be staged at TMAG and other locations around the city commencing in 2020, with a total Council contribution of $216,412 over a two year development and implementation period to be funded from:

(i) The existing budget allocation within the City of Hobart Art Prize draft budget allocation of $78,206 per annum.

(ii) The current plant and equipment budget allocation for the City of Hobart Art Prize of $30,000, being reallocated to the draft operational budget allocation.

2. A jointly coordinated Council and TMAG project media launch and communication plan be implemented at the appropriate time.

4. Background

The History of the City of Hobart Art Prize

4.1. The City of Hobart has funded, managed and staged the City of Hobart Art Prize for 27 consecutive years.

4.2. The initial prize was intended as a ‘one-off’ prize in 1987 to acquire a landscape painting of Hobart to replace a photomontage.

4.3. The Council then established an annual prize for painting with Hobart as the subject that was exhibited at the Freeman Galleries in 1987, then moved to the Town Hall and the Carnegie Gallery, before settling at TMAG.

4.4. The City of Hobart Art Prize developed into a model that is open to two mediums per year, and the exhibition is free of curatorial theme.

4.5. The prize itself has offered two acquisitive City of Hobart Art Prizes, one for each category valued at $15,000 each, and a People’s Choice Award of $1,000.

Evolution of the City of Hobart’s Cultural Development Strategy

4.6. As the City of Hobart Art Prize has reached its maturity, so too has our understanding of the City of Hobart’s role in the development of culture within the City and the State.

4.7. This understanding is captured in the Creative Hobart Strategy developed in 2012 that describes functions and goals as defined by the needs of the City and its cultural communities. Creative Hobart is an aspirational strategy document, focused on profound change to the position of the Hobart City Council’s role in the cultural and creative life of Hobart’s community. This strategy outlines nine core objectives:

1. Enhancing a sense of place

2. Activating public spaces

3. Activating Council facilities

4. Nurturing creativity

5. Investing in innovation

6. Celebrating excellence and diversity

7. Connecting creative people

8. Gathering and disseminating knowledge

9. Brokering connections

Reason for the City of Hobart Art Prize Review

4.8. In 2015 TMAG (that has hosted the Prize in recent years), indicated that the venue was unavailable for the 2016 exhibition which prompted the opportunity to conduct a much needed review of the Art Prize.

4.9. 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."

4.10. With the introduction of the City of Hobart Cultural Strategy in 2012, it has become pertinent to assess areas within the Cultural Programs to measure their effectiveness against the aims of the strategy.

4.11. It is also acknowledged that prize models can be seen as being not the most optimal way of supporting artists.

4.11.1. The Art Prize costs $108,206 annually, with only $31,000 being delivered to artists and the rest going towards the running costs and administration of the event.

4.11.2. Comparatively, the Cultural Grants Program has approximately $206,500 allocated to facilitate all other cultural projects and 100 per cent of this funding goes to the artists to develop projects that strive to fulfil the objectives outlined in the Cultural Strategy.

4.12. It is noted that in 2017 the Hadley’s Art Prize was awarded in Hobart with a prize of $100,000. This prize along with other national prizes, indicates that any conventional prize would need to be of a comparable nature.

Objectives of the Review

4.13. The five key objectives of the City of Hobart Art Prize Review were to:

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

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

4.13.3. 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;

4.13.4. 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; and

4.13.5. 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.

4.14. 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?”

Details of the Review Process

4.15. An expression of interest for an external consultant was advertised nationally in July 2016. Three expressions of interest were submitted, and cultural strategist Richard Brecknock was engaged to conduct the review and commenced in July 2016.

4.16. Phase one of the consultancy was Project Initiation and Research conducted by Richard Brecknock with the assistance of the City’s Cultural Development Team. This phase included:

· consultation with the Cultural Development team

· quantitative data research

· desk-based research

· preparation of an analytical framework

· design of a survey tool

· draft of a discussion paper.

Community Engagement Process and Outcomes

4.17. As part of the review, extensive community engagement took place with details of these events and their outcomes as shown at Attachment A to this report. The key components include:

· roundtable sessions with industry leaders

· Hobart-based survey

· public forums

· visual art workshop

· regular TMAG consultations

· call for submissions

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

· media advertising of the above events

· potential partnership meetings

· call for submissions regarding the Art Prize Review Options Paper.

Options Paper

4.18. Richard Brecknock presented an Options Paper (shown as Attachment B to this report) to an Aldermanic workshop on 15 February 2017, outlining three potential options for consideration, along with detailed analysis of the findings from the research, each of the community consultation phases, roundtables, survey, and submissions.

Summary of Option Paper’s Findings

4.19. Three distinct options emerged from the research and consultation, as follows:

4.19.1. TO RETAIN: the prize model would mean to present a visual art prize held at TMAG in partnership with TMAG. There would still be potential changes to the set up and delivery of the prize, but the model would remain the same.

4.19.2. TO REVISE: would mean to present a program at TMAG but to change the program ‘envelope’ to allow more freedom to explore areas of curatorial theme, different categories within the arts (for example literature and film), and to be more inclusive of other art forms.

4.19.3. TO REPLACE: would mean replacing the current model with an alternative program, not necessarily an Art Prize.

Council report seeking endorsement of Options Paper

4.20. At its meeting held on 24 April 2017 the Council approved the recommendation that:

“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.”

4.20.1. The Review continued 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.

4.21. Accordingly, the Council widely promoted the call for submissions relating to the Options Paper, with submissions shown at Attachment C to this report.

4.21.1. A significant majority of the submissions received were in support of revising the City of Hobart Art Prize.

The Proposed New Model

4.22. Based on Richard Brecknock’s findings, including feedback from the consultation process and submissions received, a revised model for the Art Prize is being proposed.

4.23. The new model would be a biennial exhibition event developed in partnership with TMAG that would focus on works by ten Tasmanian creative practitioners, with the option to include their national peers.

4.24. The program would be coordinated by a Creative Director who would be selected on the basis of their national reputation and ground breaking approach.

4.25. The exhibition would be underpinned by a curatorial rationale that responds to Tasmania, and would be original and accessible to the public.

4.26. Exhibitors could be selected from any area of the creative sector including literature, music, visual art, craft and design, theatre and film.

4.27. While the exhibition would be primarily situated in TMAG, it is intended that satellite works would be located at public sites within the city.

4.28. Ten artists would be displayed per exhibition with each person paid $15,000.

4.28.1. This would include a minimum of two artists producing work to be presented outside of TMAG in a public space.

4.29. Rather than any single artist being awarded a prize, it is proposed that each of the participants selected by the Creative Director be paid a fee to develop work for the exhibition.

4.30. With the Art Prize transitioning from an annual program to a biennial model, funds for program delivery could be significantly increased, making it a far more competitive program nationally.

4.31. The new model provides a much greater level of in-kind support from TMAG with them taking a leading role in the management of the program, including:

· provision of TMAG Argyle Galleries 1-4

· management of the guest Creative Director, exhibition development, and installation of works in TMAG

· a dynamic public program, including the development of educational programs by TMAG’s Centre for Learning and Discovery.

4.32. This proposal includes the expansion of the exhibition outside of TMAG to include at least two installations (potentially ‘public art’) within public spaces in the City.

4.33. Secondary partnership discussions have also occurred with Jacqui Allen, the Deputy Secretary of the State Government’s Department of State Growth, and Noel Frankham, University of Tasmania’s Dean of the Faculty of the Arts.

4.33.1. Both Ms Allen and Mr Frankham have indicated enthusiasm about the new model and a willingness for their organisations to be involved in the future.

4.34. It is considered that the new model, with its emphasis on innovation and contemporaneity, would have the opportunity to attract additional partners and potential sponsors. As part of the development of a communications and branding strategy, these opportunities would be fully explored.

4.35. A key priority for the model would be the development of programs that would enhance the community’s ability to engage with the exhibition, including:

· artist and Creative Director talks

· exhibition/performance in public spaces

· mentoring

· Creative Hobart forum with Creative Director as key note speaker

· exhibition tours (led by TMAG volunteer art guides)

· UTAS / school course programming

· educational and learning programs.

4.36. The new model responds to a significant number of the suggestions and issues raised in submissions to Richard Brecknock’s Options Paper, and complies with all of the eight key proposals from leading local visual arts agency Contemporary Art Tasmania’s submission including:

· a curated exhibition

· staged in partnership with TMAG

· selected by a nationally renowned curator

· presented on a biennial basis with the benefit of funds from two financial years

· non-acquisitive, with the possibility of acquisition by TMAG

· resourced to provide all participating artists with an exhibition fee

· inclusive of a range of practitioners working at different career stages

· open to professional artists/designers/craftspeople working across Australia.

4.37. The new model would have a defined governance structure including the formation of a steering committee.

4.37.1. The steering committee would have an operational focus, and be comprised of representatives from relevant cultural institutions and independent creative practitioners, including:

· University of Tasmania nominated representative

· TMAG Principal Curator of Art

· City of Hobart cultural project manager

· Four Tasmanian creative practitioners with background in visual arts and design, performing arts, music, writing or film.

4.37.2. The role of the steering group would be to ensure the project adheres to the brief, working with the guest Creative Director to deliver the strongest project possible.

4.38. The proposed program will provide significant benefits to both the City of Hobart and its residents, including:

· the program name will include Hobart in its title

· direct paid opportunities for local artists

· increased visitation to Hobart by cultural tourists

· thematic celebration / exploration of Hobart in the work of participating artists

· city activation with some of the projects to be located in external spaces in Hobart.

4.39. It is acknowledged that in the past the City of Hobart has not received adequate recognition for its significant to contribution to the City of Hobart Art Prize. This will be addressed in the new model through the naming of the new program and by more attention being given to brand development and marketing.

4.40. It should be noted that in March 2018 Hadley’s Orient Hotel contacted the Council requesting an annual $10,000 cash investment to sponsor a “City of Hobart and Mercury People’s Choice Award”. This will be the subject of a separate report to the Council.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that the Council endorse the new model for a biennial creative sector exhibition in TMAG and throughout the city, replacing the existing City of Hobart Art Prize.

5.2. This new model be funded from the existing budget allocation in the City of Hobart Art Prize budget of $78,206 per annum, with an additional $30,000 per annum that is currently allocated to the plant and equipment budget allocation for the City of Hobart Art Prize being reallocated to the operational budget. This provides a total budget allocation of $216,412 for the biennial event.

5.3. This program would be delivered in partnership with TMAG, with the first exhibition being held in 2020.

5.4. A curatorial brief would be written and advertised for approval by a newly formed steering committee comprised of local cultural leaders.

5.4.1. A curator would be selected and creative practitioners sought.

5.4.2. TMAG would directly manage the curator to deliver a series of work within TMAG, while City of Hobart staff would coordinate the installation of projects throughout Hobart’s public spaces.

5.4.3. Significant work would be undertaken to promote the program within the local community and interstate, as well as to engage diverse local communities in a range of activities related to the event.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This review addresses Strategic Objective 1.5 of the Capital City Strategic Plan 2015-2025 by ensuring that the recommended art prize model options outlined align with the objectives of the Council’s Creative Hobart Strategy.

6.2. A key objective for reviewing the City of Hobart Art Prize was to ascertain whether it achieves beneficial public outcomes for the City and its community in line with the Creative Hobart Strategy.

6.2.1. The proposed new model contains numerous recommendations that would give this program greater alignment with Creative Hobart, including:

“Strategy 1.1.3: art in public places - exhibition partially displayed//performed in city spaces

Strategy 2.2.2: ideas incubator staged in city spaces - to encourage the exploration of new understandings about Hobart

Strategy 3.1.2: cultural sector connections - the inclusion of practitioners working across the cultural sector.”

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. There will be no expenditure from the current year’s Art Prize budget allocation for this proposal however, additional costs for other projects may be allocated from the savings in this budget line.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. The total cost of delivering the new program is estimated at $377,442 over two years (or per exhibition).

7.2.2. This would be comprised of $136,030 in-kind support from TMAG, sponsorship of $25,000 to be sought by TMAG, and a proposed $216,412 allocation from the City of Hobart over two years.

7.2.3. The proposed City of Hobart contribution includes both the existing budget allocation within the City of Hobart Art Prize budget of $216,412 over two years (or $108,206 per annum). This existing annual budget allocation is made up of:

· A $78,206 the operational allocation.

· A capital allocation of $30,000 which would be transferred to the operational budget in the 2017-18 draft annual plan allocation.

7.2.4. It is also noted that there would be potential opportunities to seek additional sponsorship once the program has been fully developed and promoted, which may reduce the ongoing financial commitment required by the Council.

7.2.5. The proposed City of Hobart allocation of $216,412 (per exhibition / every two years) would cover the following:

· Fee to Creative Director including travel costs $35,000

· Artist fees including materials, installation and potential travel costs $150,000

· Publicity $10,000

· Opening $3,500

· Catalogue $3,500

· Audience engagement and education programs $4,412

· Gallery modification $10,000.

7.3. TMAG has advised that it will seek to secure sponsorship of $25,000 to be utilised towards operational costs including public programming, education programs, marketing and gallery modification.

7.4. The allocation of $108,206 would need to be allocated for this project in the Council’s Annual Plan budget allocations annually.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. There may be a perceived impact on the visual art sector, as the proposed new model will include a broader cross section of creative practitioners.

9. Social and Customer Considerations

9.1. One of the major objectives of the new model would be to develop increased community engagement in both the process and final display of works.

9.2. This would be achieved by performance and display of content in public spaces outside of TMAG.

9.3. Also, in contrast to the previous Art Prize model, there would be considerable human and financial resources allocated to the development of programs to promote broad engagement with the new model.

9.3.1 These programs could include artist talks; education programs for both school and university students; mentoring, or the curator being a key note speaker at Creative Hobart Forum.

9.4 The new model proposes that rather than two artists winning prize money, ten artists selected by the Creative Director would be paid a fee to develop new works to form part of the exhibition.

10. Marketing and Media

10.1. The review process was promoted extensively in order to maximise opportunities for public feedback.

10.1.1. The two public forums and the calls for submissions were advertised in local media, through the Creative Hobart mailing list networks, in City News, on the City of Hobart website, on ArtsHub, through the Creative Hobart E-news, on Arts Tasmania’s E-news, and through the extensive industry leader’s networks who attended the Industry Leader Roundtable meetings.

10.2. A jointly coordinated Council and TMAG draft marketing and communications plan has been developed for implementation at the time of the launch and media announcement of the exhibition.

10.2.1. It is noted that an associated branding exercise will also be undertaken by the Council’s City Marketing Unit.

10.2.2. Included in this plan would be a comprehensive update about the results of the review process to stakeholders and the community.

10.2.3. An exciting launch campaign and identity would be developed to promote the new model which would be promoted both locally and interstate.

10.2.4. This would include the biennial announcement of a new Creative Director and selected participants.

10.2.5. Publicity for the new program would be developed for both local news media and national and international arts media.

11. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

11.1. Extensive community engagement was conducted during the review process including roundtable meetings, forums, surveys and correspondence as detailed in the options paper.

12. Delegation

12.1. This matter is delegated to the Council for consideration.

Kimbra Parker

Acting Associate Director Community Development

Date: 6 April 2018

File Reference: F18/28248; 16/210

Attachment a: Community Engagement Summary ⇩

Attachment b: Richard Brecknock Options Paper ⇩

Attachment c: Options Paper - Feedback Submissions ⇩

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.