Supplementary Agenda of Economic Development & Communications Committee Meeting

Item No. 10.1

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

Economic Development & Communications Committee Meeting

Page 4

25/8/2016

REPORT TITLE: Derwent River Ferry Transportation

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Group Manager Executive & Economic Development

Economic Development Project Officer

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report responds to a Notice of Motion presented by Aldermen Cocker and Thomas at the Council meeting held on 9 May 2016, in particular:

That an urgent report be provided that investigates what information and evidence would be required to test the viability of a River Derwent ferry service being reintroduced.

2. Report Summary

2.1. This report has presents the outcomes of consultations with a number of stakeholders, both private and public.

2.2. Many stakeholders agree that a ferry service should be reconsidered in light of the changes in Hobart in recent years and the significant growth in visitor numbers. However, there are differing points of view on how best to achieve this. There is currently only one publicly available model of infrastructure - which has been put forward by Incat founder Mr Robert Clifford. This model is yet to be fully detailed and costed.

2.3. It is considered that the best model will be one that caters to commuter traffic in mornings and evenings and tourists during the day.

2.4. However, significant work is required to explore on-shore facilities, (such as car parking and bus connections) and how they will be provided and by whom.

2.5. It also appears that the State Government does not have a clear position on the issue which is leaving stakeholders and potential operators uncertain as to how to progress the matter.

2.6. Accordingly, if it wishes there is a role for the Council to bring together stakeholders and seek to achieve a common view on how to progress the matter.

3. Recommendation

That the Council resolve whether it wishes to convene a roundtable of stakeholders to progress discussions on the development of a River Derwent ferry service.

4. Background

4.1. At its meeting of the 9 May 2016 the Council requested an urgent report into matters relating to a viable Derwent River ferry transport service as per Attachment A to this report.

4.2. In researching this report a number stakeholders and government representatives have been consulted.

4.3. Generally speaking there is a consensus that a ferry transport option should be further investigated and tested. There are no current business plans for the service, although this has been investigated in the past.

4.4. In 2013/14 the State Government commissioned Sinclair Knight Merz to undertake a Stakeholder Consultation Forum and associated report. The City of Hobart was represented in this process along with 24 other stakeholders.

4.5. The final report from this forum was reasonably indecisive in its conclusions; however this appears to be more a reflection of the differing points of view of stakeholders rather than the quality of the work undertaken.

4.5.1. As there was a change in Government not long after this report was completed, it is understood that no further work was undertaken on the subject.

4.6. The most recent and extensive business case analysis was in 2009 when a significant ‘desktop’ economic analysis was commissioned by the State Government and undertaken by respected analysts AECOM.

4.7. That study identifies five likely land falls for a ferry service:

4.7.1. Bellerive

4.7.2. Howrah

4.7.3. Lindisfarne Bay

4.7.4. Montagu Bay

4.7.5. Watermans Dock

4.8. Using these sites, four key routes were developed for analysis:

4.8.1. Bellerive – Waterman’s Dock

4.8.2. Lindisfarne – Montagu Bay – Bellerive – Waterman’s Dock

4.8.3. Lindisfarne – Montagu Bay – Waterman’s Dock

4.8.4. Howrah Point – Bellerive – Waterman’s Dock.

4.9. At the time the estimated capital cost of infrastructure for each destination was:

Port of Call	Estimated Capital Cost
Bellerive	$110,000
Lindisfarne - option 1	$764,000
Lindisfarne - option 2	$1,239,000
Montagu Bay	$135,000
Howrah	$1,342,000
Waterman’s Dock	$102,000

4.9.1. It is noted the 2 options for Lindisfarne relate to whether sufficient depth for a vessel could be achieved.

4.9.2. It is also noted that Brooke Street Pier has now been completed which presumably obviates the need for a new facility at Waterman’s Dock.

4.10. The study estimated that the cost of a small catamaran vessel would be $450,000.

4.11. Using these figures, the study concluded that the viability of a service was questionable without a government subsidy.

4.12. The study concluded the following indicative annual operating model:

	Route 1	Route 2	Route 3	Route 4
Operational Cost	$176,900	$214,700	$201,900	$213,100
Vessel Cost	$67,800	$67,800	$67,800	$67,800
Infrastructure Cost	$34,800	$181,800	$163,800	$237,600
Total Yearly Cost	$279,500	$464,300	$433,500	$518,500
Yearly Revenue	$20,200	$31,020	$37,100	$55,900

4.12.1. In generating these figures the consultants assumed that ticket prices would be the same as the comparable metro bus service, which seem to be a reasonable assumption.

4.13. The above table demonstrates a considerable annual shortfall based on a straight commuter operation model.

4.14. In discussions with current commercial operators they are supportive of the principles of the above analysis.

4.15. However since the above analysis was undertaken, the City has continued to see an increase in visitor numbers and in particular the advent of a visitor ferry service to MONA.

4.16. The continued viability of this service raises an interesting point and one that has been discussed with commercial operators in the preparation of this report. The combination of an operation that can provide both a commuter service in the mornings and evenings and a visitor service during the day may in fact be more viable. This would be on the basis that the visitor ticket would be at a different price point to a commuter ticket and would therefore help to underwrite or subsidise a regular commuter service.

4.17. As noted in the original notice of motion discussions have also been taken place with Incat founder and Chairman, Robert Clifford.

4.18. His model suggests that a number of single person operated small catamaran craft using purpose built wharf infrastructure may be viable (sample drawings are included in the leaflet produced by Mr Clifford at Attachment B). Mr Clifford also supports the notion that craft should operate a visitor service during the day to support viability.

4.19. Mr Clifford believes the City to Bellerive, City to Howrah and City to Lindisfarne services are the key routes in the first instance.

4.20. Services to Blackman’s Bay / Kingston and South Arm may work but these would need a larger vessel due to a greater variety of sea conditions. These services would come at a later date once an initial service proved to be viable.

4.21. Mr Clifford’s model would be:

4.21.1. Incat builds vessels and jetty/wharf infrastructure as the two are designed to connect to each other when the ferry is berthing.

4.21.2. Incat lease the ferries to a private operator on a commercial arrangement.

4.21.3. The wharf infrastructure is purchased and maintained by State and / or local government.

4.22. Mr Clifford has advised that the ideas he released to the media and attached to this report (Attachment B) are concept only and there is still considerable work to undertake to finalise a cost of the vessels, infrastructure and hence overall viability. However, given his obvious and extensive involvement with boat building and ferry operation he is clearly of the view that it could work.

4.23. A key issue for any potential ferry service cross the Derwent will be how people can access it.

4.24. A ferry service has to provide a cost and time effective option to the travelling public to encourage that change of mode of transport.

4.25. For people who currently travel by car into the city each day, there will need to have park and ride facilities at wharf areas – for example Kangaroo Bay, Lindisfarne and Howrah Point.

4.26. It is reasonably clear that there will need to be a significant change of use and direction by the Clarence City Council and Crown Land Services for such areas to be provided at those locations. An initial conversation with the General Manager of Clarence City Council indicates that the provision of terminal infrastructure for a ferry service is not currently on the Council’s agenda.

4.27. It is understood that Glenorchy City Council similarly do no not have a formal position on river transport, albeit noting the work that has been undertaken at Wilkinson’s Point which can cater for ferries.

4.28. Similarly, for commuters who currently use bus transport, the bus network would need to clearly connect with a ferry service.

4.29. Initial discussions have been held with Metro and although supportive of exploration of the concept, there would need to be a number of issues considered and potential policy changes from the State Government.

4.29.1. Logically there would need to be a common ticketing system.

4.29.2. Currently Metro only has a government charter for road based transport with an emphasis on servicing particular segments of the community.

4.29.3. Research indicates customers do not necessarily like changing modes of transport for a journey.

4.29.4. The main bus route for the northern suburbs is Main Road. A diversion from Main Road to various access points along the river would potentially be lengthy in time and negate on time advantages a ferry may offer.

4.30. While it was not appropriate for representatives of Metro to discuss a business model for a ferry service, it was noted that the bus and ferry services in Brisbane and Sydney have a common ownership model.

4.31. It was also noted that the Brisbane ferry service also relies heavily on the tourist market.

4.32. During the federal election campaign, the General Manager and Group Manager Executive and Economic Development were able to arrange a meeting with the infrastructure adviser to the Prime Minister as well as the advisor to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure.

4.33. In terms of federal funding for a river transport solution, a very clear message was given. Proposals had to be innovative and integrated. It was unlikely that funding would be forthcoming for just another ferry project (or light rail for that matter). Projects need to show how they were targeting local needs and in some way demonstrating innovation.

4.34. The Australian Government is interested to see:

4.34.1. How such projects can positively affect land use, density and economic opportunity.

4.34.2. That there is a regional approach to problem solving and defining benefit.

4.34.3. The strength of community engagement in a project.

4.34.4. The use of technology and the open sourcing of data.

4.34.5. What is the land value capture of a project?

4.34.6. Engagement from the State Government.

4.34.7. Local cash contributions.

4.35. Importantly, the Australian Government will also progress its idea of a ‘30 minute city’, meaning that citizens should have access to services, employment and education within a 30 minute trip from their residence.

4.36. How this will apply to Hobart specifically is still to be determined but it does seem to be a platform that is aimed much more at the larger cities where the commute times for large proportions of the population are considerably in excess of 30 minutes. This does not necessarily hold true for Hobart.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. In researching this report it seems that there is agreement by many stakeholders that a ferry transport option could work but that there is significant detail lacking. Furthermore, there was a previous study undertaken that questioned the viability of a service without a significant subsidy.

5.2. Whether such a service should be subsidised is beyond the scope of this report but it is a reasonably natural observation to make that if buses are subsidised and ferries are seen as part of a public transport solution then they should also be subsidised.

5.3. It is clear however that there is a lack of leadership on the issue. This is not intended as a negative comment necessarily, rather just a fact that many stakeholders are waiting for someone else to take the lead.

5.4. To date this has not been the State Government, presumably because firstly it has a study that says the service is not viable, secondly it has been focussing its efforts on Metro and thirdly there is no clear voice calling for a ferry service and proving its business case.

5.5. However this year has brought the topic of congestion into sharper focus. There are many different points of view about the perceived increase in traffic flows this year and as to what the causes are and ways to deal with it.

5.5.1. It is unlikely however to improve in the long term without some sort of external intervention whether it be through efforts to assist vehicular movement or through efforts to change people’s mode of transport.

5.5.2. Aldermen will be aware that studies to date indicate that there is only a need to seek an 8%-12% change in commuter modes of transport to alleviate congestion.

5.6. Accordingly it is proposed that if the Council wishes, there is a clear role in coordinating a more focussed assessment of the current opportunity with regard to ferry transport.

5.7. It seems that the matter will not progress without a champion – the Council needs to resolve whether it wishes to take on that role.

5.8. This could be through the form of a roundtable discussion initially to gauge just how committed other stakeholders would be to investigating the idea again in the context of what has changed in Hobart since the last studies were undertaken.

5.8.1. The purpose of the group should be to drive a project, not just talk about what information is or is not available. Accordingly there would need to be some positive commitment from participants.

5.9. The Council could also consider making a formal direct approach to the State Government seeking to have the concept again put on the transport agenda however it is suggested that it would be better to wait until a stakeholder group has become organised and has a clear agenda.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. It is in the Council’s interest to lead a conversation into ferry transport as the City is the recipient of most of the peak hour traffic of a morning and again as it exits in the afternoon.

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. None arise from this report specifically; however the Council may need to consider whether it is prepared to contribute to further feasibility studies in the future.

7.2. Impact on Future Years’ Financial Result

7.2.1. As for 7.1 above.

8. Legal, Risk and Legislative Considerations

8.1. None arise from this report.

9. Environmental Considerations

9.1. Whether a ferry service is more environmentally friendly than any other form of transport is beyond the scope of this report. However presumably the change of mode of people from cars to ferry (or bus) will reduce the overall Co2 emissions.

9.2. It is understood that emission standards for modern marine engines have improved dramatically in recent years.

10. Social and Customer Considerations

10.1. These would be discussed in significant detail should a feasibility study be undertaken. Nevertheless the reported traffic issues in Hobart earlier this year would indicate that there is strong public interest into the issue of congestion and ways to alleviate it.

11. Marketing and Media

11.1. Depending on Council’s decision, there may be an opportunity to engage the media in this project.

12. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

12.1. In preparing this report, a number of individuals and organisations have been consulted.

12.2. To help drive this project it is suggested that the Southern Tasmanian Council’s Authority (STCA) should be engaged as a key partner.

12.3. Broadly speaking, the stakeholder groups that should be engaged if the Council chooses to proceed are:

12.3.1. STCA

12.3.2. State Government

12.3.3. Private Ferry operators

12.3.4. Incat

12.3.5. Metro

12.3.6. Tasports

12.3.7. Key tourism operators

13. Delegation

13.1. This matter is one for 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.

Tim Short

Group Manager Executive & Economic Development

Lucy Knott

Economic Development Project Officer

Date: 24 August 2016

File Reference: F16/82669; 13-1-9; 36-20-1

Attachment a: Notice of Motion Ferry Service - extract from the Council Minutes 9 May 2016 ⇩

Attachment b: Incat Ferry Information Leaflet ⇩

Item No. 10.1

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

Economic Development & Communications Committee Meeting

Page 13

25/8/2016

ATTACHMENT a

11. DERWENT RIVER – FERRY TRANSPORTATION – FILE REF: 13-1-9; 36-20-1

ALDERMAN COCKER

ALDERMAN THOMAS “That an urgent report be provided that investigates what information and evidence would be required to test the viability of a River Derwent ferry service being reintroduced.

Rationale:

Given the pending Federal election, the current community debate and the presentation of a credible proposal by INCAT founder, Mr Robert Clifford, we ask the Council to consider this notice of motion as a matter of urgency.

As a city with one of the world’s best harbours it seems an anachronism that greater Hobart does not have a public ferry service. Following the recent proposal by Mr Robert Clifford, and ongoing recent public and media interest it is clearly time that the concept of a regular, reliable and cost effective public river transport system was properly considered.

Hobart has been blessed with good road infrastructure that has adequately served its population for many years. However this has been by luck more than good design, as had Hobart and Tasmania experienced the growth rates as the rest of Australia over the last 50 years, the current situation would be much worse than it actually is.

The increasing public opinion as well as sentiment expressed in recent media reports demonstrate Hobart’s growing transport problems and our inherent reliance on motor vehicle transport. While some traffic engineers suggest there is no ‘technical’ traffic problem in Hobart, if you ask the average Hobartian they will quickly relay a story of frustration and missed appointments due to unforeseen traffic delays. This is exacerbated if you are trying to use the Tasman Bridge and travel West to East or East to West and there is a breakdown or accident on or near the bridge – the result is often a long delay.

Our reliance on just a few routes into and out of the City is a factor of our geography – but this must be challenged. Why wait until Hobart’s traffic is as bad as our mainland cities before we investigate this solution? Why has a public ferry service not been more adequately supported by successive state governments? There needs to be consideration of cross river routes to such areas as Wilkinson’s Point, Lindisfarne, Bellerive, South Arm, and Kingston into Hobart.

If we as the leaders of the State’s capital are serious about reducing vehicle traffic into the City then clearly we need to lead the debate as the State Government is deafening in its silence on this issue. This report is not asking for the business case to be done – that is the responsibility of a wider group. However in the interests of public debate there are some key tasks that we should initiate. Accordingly I seek that the report cover the following points:

1. Discussion with Clarence, Kingborough and Glenorchy Councils.

2. Discussion with Metro to ascertain the potential linkages that the bus network could provide.

3. Discussion with private sector operators, including Mr Clifford, to understand ‘commercial reality’ of such a service.

4. Investigation of subsidy models of other city ferry services such as Brisbane and Sydney and the relevance of those models to Hobart.

5. Commentary on current demographics of greater Hobart suburbs and current methods of travel into Hobart City for work.

6. Advice on how best to consult with potential passengers of a service to test market demand.

The outcome from this report should be a cogent argument that can be put to the State Government to seek funding for a detailed study.”

The General Manager reports:

“In accordance with Clause 5 of the Notice of Motion Procedures, I provide the following qualification as to whether the substance of this Notice of Motion resides within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council:

This matter resides within the jurisdiction of the Hobart City Council as it proposing a new form of transport for the City, which may also assist in potentially alleviating traffic congestion within the City.”

Item No. 10.2

Supplementary Agenda (Open Portion)

Economic Development & Communications Committee Meeting

Page 24

25/8/2016

REPORT TITLE: Traditional Christmas Tree

REPORT PROVIDED BY: Manager City Marketing

Director Community Development

1. Report Purpose and Community Benefit

1.1. This report responds to a Notice of Motion presented by Alderman Zucco at the Council meeting held on 11 July 2016, in particular:

“That a report be prepared that provides options for Council to consider the installation of a traditional Christmas tree in Salamanca, and or other parts of the city, for the 2016 season.

The report canvas various options for this to occur and in particular the Council officers liaise with Norske Skog regarding this proposal with an intent to discuss options for a potential sponsorship arrangement that may provide Council with an appropriate tree for this purpose.”

1.2. The report also responds to a Council resolution of 6 June 2016, inter alia, as follows:

“That: 1. The Council endorse the display of the existing Salamanca Square Christmas tree, including the following additions:

(i) ‘Wishing wall’ structures / elements installed around the tree;

(ii) A Christmas themed sonic or aural experience to be developed in partnership with the community; and

(iii) Additional lighting;

and that the finalised design proposal for these elements be submitted to the Council for formal approval, prior to fabrication.

2. An inspection opportunity for Aldermen of the Salamanca Square Christmas tree and new associated elements be arranged prior to their installation.”

2. Report Summary

2.1. Officers met with Norkse Skog to consult on the use of one of its plantation trees and have been advised that a cut radiata pine, in an outdoor environment would rapidly degrade and not be an optimal proposition for the current six week period of the Christmas decorations program.

2.2. The City of Hobart previously accepted donated, cut trees for use in Elizabeth Mall but changed this practice to using an artificial tree due to the complexities of sourcing a donated tree, and the limited lifespan of a cut tree in an outdoor setting.

2.3. The City of Melbourne sources a Sequoiadendron Giganteum Wellingtonia from Victorian suppliers, however the mainland supplier has advised that it would not be able to ship the same variety of tree to Tasmania, given mortality concerns post fumigation. This supplier has however proposed an alternative variety, Metasequoia.

2.4. At its meeting held on 23 June 2016, the Council resolved that officers further investigate options for a large new LED illuminated artificial Christmas tree in the context of the 2017 Christmas decorations program. Officers are now investigating artificial as well as live Christmas trees.

2.5. It is therefore suggested that a comparison between the costs of a new large LED illuminated artificial Christmas tree and a potted live Christmas tree, be undertaken and presented to the Council for consideration for the 2017 Christmas decorations program.

2.6. Correspondence has been received from Salamanca Square Inc. (as shown as Attachment A to this report) advising that the group is not supportive of a cut live tree for use in Salamanca Square In stating this, the group did suggest that a decorated planted live ‘Christmas’ tree in the Square could also be considered. This option has not been specifically explored in this report, but it would involve many of the timing and cost considerations outlined for a potted live tree. Salamanca Square Inc. has also subsequently indicated that its members are more favourably disposed to a more creative approach such as the current fabricated tree including its proposed modifications.

2.7. Further, the Salamanca Square Inc. committee has restated its support of the existing fabricated tree and requested that it be installed in the Square as a permanent fixture with the star and decorations added for the Christmas period.

2.8. Design work has been undertaken to provide for additional lighting for the fabricated Salamanca Square Christmas tree for 2016 in line with the June 2016 resolution of the Council. The design solution that is being proposed is flexible enough so that the Salamanca Square committee’s request to retain the tree on a permanent basis could be accommodated.

2.9. While this design does deviate from the Council resolution of 6 June 2016, in that it does not provide for a ‘wishing wall’ or sonic elements because of cost considerations, it will add to the Christmas themeing of the tree and the associated lighting effects.

2.10. It is proposed that the tree would still be activated by decorations as part of a number of on-site child and family focussed workshops leading up to Christmas 2016.

2.11. The proposed new Christmas elements could also be readily installed and removed and in the remaining months of the year, with the tree being activated for Dark Mofo and other major and community events using its existing LED lighting infrastructure.

2.12. The proposed design and approach as shown in Attachment B to this report has received positive comment from Salamanca Square Inc.

3. Recommendation

That:

1. A comparison between the costs and logistics of a new large LED illuminated artificial Christmas tree, as resolved by the Council at its meeting held on 23 June 2016, and a potted live Christmas tree be undertaken and a report presented to the Council for consideration for the 2017 City of Hobart Christmas decorations program.

2. The proposed design for an additional lighting/decorative element for the fabricated Salamanca Square Christmas tree as shown in Attachment B to this report be approved for implementation in 2016.

3. Taking account of design and construction contingencies, the General Manager be authorised to approve expenditure of up to $35,000 (exclusive of GST) on the fabrication of these new elements.

4. If however after the final detailed design has been completed, the projected cost of the modifications exceeds $35,000, the matter be referred back to the Council for further consideration.

5. An inspection opportunity for Aldermen of the Salamanca Square tree and new associated elements be arranged prior to their installation.

6. A number of family and child focussed workshops be staged in Salamanca Square to decorate this Christmas tree.

7. The request by Salamanca Square Inc. to have the existing fabricated tree installed in Salamanca Square on a permanent basis without the star or other Christmas elements, following its temporary installation leading up to Christmas 2016 be supported, subject to planning approval being received.

8. The General Manager be authorised to provide landlord consent to the making of a planning application for the permanent installation of the existing fabricated tree in Salamanca Square including the specific elements as shown in Attachment B to this report for display at Christmas, following its temporary installation in November and December 2016.

4. Background

Norske Skog

4.1. Council officers met with Mr Arnold Willems of Norske Skog and were advised that the type of tree grown by the company, Pinus Radiatus (radiata pine), would not be optimal as a cut Christmas tree in an outdoor environment.

4.2. Norske Skog also advised that given the growing conditions (promoting height rather than limb growth) for its standard plantation trees, these trees are not ideally suited for use as a Christmas tree display in an open public place over a number of weeks, even if presented in ‘live’ form.

4.3. It is understood that a cut radiata pine is donated annually by Norske Skog for the ABC Giving Tree. This tree is required for approximately three weeks and situated in a sheltered environment.

4.4. Norske Skog has confirmed that outdoor conditions would give rise to a rapid degradation of a cut radiata pine. The current approach by the City is to have all Christmas decorations installed by the Hobart Christmas Pageant, this year 19 November, meaning that any cut or living tree would need to be viable for six weeks.

4.5. It is noted that the live tree used in Melbourne Square is a different species, a Sequoiadendron Giganteum Wellingtonia, and is a potted, living tree sourced from a Victorian supplier.

Purchasing locally

4.6. The City of Hobart nursery has made local enquiries in regard to the availability of trees suitable to be used in 2016 and has not yet identified a local supplier which could assist this year.

4.7. It is understood that the only trees presently available are immature and would take at minimum six years to grow to the required size.

4.8. Further efforts would be undertaken to source a tree locally if the Council supported pursuing the acquisition of a live Christmas tree.

Purchasing from interstate

4.9. Officers have contacted mainland nurseries in regard to purchasing a tree and have been advised that tree orders need to be made in May due to the quarantine arrangements into Tasmania. Subsequently, there will not be an opportunity to source a live tree from interstate for 2016.

4.10. Using the City of Melbourne as an example, the cost of a Sequoiadendron Giganteum Wellingtonia is approximately $15,000 for the tree itself.

4.10.1. The current tree used by the City of Melbourne weighs approximately 4 tonne dry with another ½ tonne added when it is hydrated and holding water.

4.10.2. This tree is 6.2 metres tall from the bottom of its root ball to its highest peak, with a spread of canopy 3 metres at its widest point.

4.11. After a tree is dug, it is usually transferred into a temporary pot. The tree will be in this temporary pot for the first 6 months and may need at some stage need to be re-potted into a larger pot, at a cost of approximately $2,000.

4.12. The City of Melbourne selects its tree in August, digs it up in October, and then displays it in November of the same year. It understood that it kept its last tree for eight years, after which it became too large and had to be replaced.

4.13. The City of Melbourne has built a frame that the tree sits within and then hangs decorations on the frame. Bigger and better decorations can be hung from a frame as it is difficult to attach them directly to the tree. The estimated cost for the frame is $40,000.

4.14. The City of Melbourne process for installation of the tree is as follows:

· Crane the tree into position

· Build the base around the tree root-ball

· Crane the remainder of the frame into position

· Decorate the tree with decorations and lighting

4.15. Once in position, the tree requires twice daily watering.

4.16. The City of Melbourne has advised that the costs associated with a live, potted tree, in the first year of establishment could be in excess of $85,000.

4.17. The delivery cost of this kind of tree to Tasmania would be a proportional cost of a $10,000 container.

4.18. The mainland supplier to the City of Melbourne has advised that it would not be willing to ship the same variety of tree as Melbourne City use to Tasmania, given the cost of the tree and potential mortality concerns post fumigation. The supplier has suggested as an alternative a Metasequoia Glyptostroboides which they have previously imported to Tasmania.

4.19. Advice from the City’s nursery is that the risk relating to a tree purchased on the mainland is that it is often the case that trees suffer from needle drop as a result of the quarantine fumigation process. This risk would need to be managed should the City of Hobart proceed with importing a live tree to Tasmania.

4.20. In line with the large scale artificial Christmas tree considered by the Council in June this year, the placement of a large scale living tree in a non secured public location would also require overnight security arrangements, which could be in the order of $20,500 to $24,000 over a six week display period.

Donated trees from the public

4.21. A number of years ago, prior to the roof being installed in the Elizabeth Street Mall, a donated tree was used for the city centre Christmas tree.

4.22. The public was invited to contact the City if they had a suitable tree. The process of choosing a tree from those nominated by the public could take a week or more.

4.23. As many of the public-nominated trees were mature, they could be difficult to access and to fell.

4.24. These trees were cut at the base and this limited their use to three to four weeks (this correlates with the advice received from Norske Skog).

4.25. The direct costs related to securing the tree at that time were in the order of $8,000. The costs of stabilising/securing the tree, applying fire retardant, decorations and maintenance were in addition to this cost.

4.26. The tree would be discarded and the process repeated from year-to-year.

Salamanca Square – cut tree

4.27. Correspondence received from Salamanca Square Inc. dated 26 May 2016 (as shown as Attachment A to this report), advises that this group is not supportive of cutting a live tree for use in Salamanca Square.

4.28. In stating this, the group did suggest that a decorated planted live ‘Christmas’ tree in the Square could also be considered. This option has not been specifically explored in this report, but it would involve many of the timing and cost considerations outlined for a potted live tree. Salamanca Square Inc. has also subsequently indicated that its members are more favourably disposed to a more creative approach such as the current fabricated tree including its proposed modifications.

4.29. The committee also wrote in November 2015 and again in February 2016 and both letters expressed their support of the fabricated Christmas tree.

4.30. Specifically, the committee has requested that the star be removed and the Salamanca Square tree be installed as a permanent fixture, with the star and decorations added for the Christmas period.

4.31. It is noted that in response to a request by the committee, the Council resolved in June to reinstall the tree for Dark Mofo 2016.

Salamanca Square – fabricated tree

4.32. Design work has been undertaken to provide for additional lighting for the fabricated Salamanca Square Christmas tree for 2016 in line with the June 2016 resolution of the Council, (as shown as Attachment B to this report).

4.33. This features an internal brass or gold coloured metal cone with laser cut-out Christmas shapes forming a decorative pattern around the high sheen metalic skin supplemented by internal lighting, to further animate the tree both during the day and at night.

4.34. While this design does deviate from the Council resolution of 6 June 2016 in that it does not provide for a ‘wishing wall’ or sonic elements because of cost considerations, it will add to the Christmas themeing of the tree and the associated lighting effects.

4.35. The design additions are seen to be sufficiently robust to mean that the tree would not require a security presence.

4.36. The internal brass or gold coloured metal cone would be installed for Christmas, together with the illuminated star, and would transform the structure for Christmas.

4.37. It is proposed that the tree would still be activated by decorations as part of a number of on-site child and family focussed workshops. In line with this, the holes in the new metal cone would also allow for the adding of Christmas wishes by supplying small brass hooks and paper to the public.

4.38. The design solution that is being proposed is temporary and would allow for the existing fabricated tree to be installed in Salamanca Square on a permanent basis, subject to planning approval.

4.39. In the remaining months of the year, the tree would be activated for Dark Mofo and other major and community events, in line with other City of Hobart colour capable lighting infrastructure.

4.40. The proposed design and approach as shown at Attachment B to this report, has received positive comment from the Salamanca Square Inc.

4.41. The current estimated cost of the proposed modifications is expected to be in the order of $30,000 to $35,0000 (exclusive of GST), including all fabrication and electrical works.

Artificial Christmas tree

4.42. At its meeting held on 23 June 2016, the Council resolved that officers further investigate options for a large new LED illuminated artificial Christmas tree in the context of the 2017 Christmas decorations program.

4.43. Officers are now investigating artificial as well as live Christmas trees.

4.44. It is therefore suggested that a comparison between the costs and logistics of a new large LED illuminated artificial Christmas tree and a potted live Christmas tree, be undertaken and presented to the Council for consideration for the 2017 Christmas decorations program.

5. Proposal and Implementation

5.1. It is proposed that sourcing and maintaining a cut tree as an outdoor Christmas tree is difficult and not a practical option for the six week Hobart Christmas decorations period.

5.2. It is understood that there is no support from the Salamanca Square committee for a cut tree to be placed in the Square for Christmas. This group has restated its support for the fabricated Christmas tree.

5.3. It is proposed that the design work that has been undertaken to provide for additional lighting for the fabricated Salamanca Square Christmas tree, in line with the June 2016 resolution of the Council, is flexible enough so that the Salamanca Square committee’s request to retain the tree on a permanent basis could be accommodated, subject to planning approval being provided.

5.4. It is proposed that the new Christmas elements for the fabricated Salamanca Square tree could be readily installed and removed and in the remaining months of the year, the tree would be activated for Dark Mofo and other major and community events using its existing LED lighting infrastructure.

5.5. It is also proposed that the tree would still be activated by decorations as part of a number of on-site child and family focussed workshops as part of the Christmas program.

5.6. Taking account of design and construction contingencies, it is proposed that the General Manager be authorised to approval expenditure of up to $35,000 (exclusive of GST) on the fabrication of these new elements.

5.7. If however after the final detailed design has been completed the projected cost of the modifications exceeds $35,000, it is proposed that the matter be referred back to the Council for further consideration.

5.8. The Council has previously resolved that officers provide a report on a large LED illuminated artificial tree as well as a live traditional tree. It is proposed that a comparison between the costs of both types of trees would be presented to the Council in the context of the 2017 Christmas decorations program.

6. Strategic Planning and Policy Considerations

6.1. This proposal aligns with Goal 1 - Economic Development, Vibrancy and Culture “City growth vibrancy and culture comes when everyone participates in city life” within the Capital City Strategic Plan (2015-2025).

7. Financial Implications

7.1. Funding Source and Impact on Current Year Operating Result

7.1.1. The total capital cost of the approved 2016 City of Hobart Christmas decorations program is $63,300, the operating deliverables cost is $36,700 and the projected Civil Works installation and removal operating cost is $50,000.

7.1.2. A provision for operational costs in the order of $86,700 is included in the City Marketing Function of the 2016/2017 Annual Plan.

7.1.3. $70,000 has been allocated to Christmas decorations in the asset replacement budget for 2016/2017.

7.1.4. The current estimated cost of the proposed modifications to the current Salamanca Christmas tree is expected to be in the order of $30,000 to $35,0000 (exclusive of GST) including all fabrication and electrical works.

7.1.5. While this is in excess of the $12,000 allowed for in the report on this matter to the June 2016 round of Council meetings, this could be accommodated by Plant and Equipment carry forwards within the City Marketing function.

7.1.6. The cost of community decoration and activation would be met by the City Marketing function in the current financial year.

7.1.7. No specific capital allocation has been made for the purchase of a large scale living tree in the City Marketing function in the 2016/2017 Annual Plan. Nor has there been any operating budget allocation been made to cover associated security costs.

7.2. Asset Related Implications

7.2.1. If the Council were to approve the additions to the Salamanca Christmas tree it could be expected additional annual depreciation of $2,500 per annum would be incurred.

7.2.2. No write off is likely to be incurred for the disposal of old or redundant decorations in the 2016/2017 financial year.

8. Social and Customer Considerations

8.1. Aldermen are reminded of a survey undertaken of City of Hobart residents earlier in 2016 and reported to the Council in May 2016 that provided feedback on community expectations of the City of Hobart Christmas decorations program.

8.2. A total sample of 400 completed surveys was achieved providing sufficient data to be comfortable with the key findings whilst also enabling a comparison across demographic sub-groups.

8.3. In regards to funding of the decorations, 30 percent of respondents in total nominated up to $150,000 per annum as an appropriate annual investment in the City’s Christmas decorations. 16 percent nominated between $150,000 and $200,000 and 22 percent between $200,000 and $500,000.

8.4. It is suggested, given these results, the City’s current approach to Christmas decorations has been generally in alignment with community expectations in terms of scale, scope, thematic and expenditure.

9. Delegation

9.1. This matter is delegated to the Council.

Iris_Goetzki

Iris Goetzki

Manager City Marketing

Philip Holliday

Director Community Development

Date: 24 August 2016

File Reference: F16/96230; RFS16-0093

Attachment a: Letter from Salamanca Square Inc. dated 26 May 2016 ⇩

Attachment b: Images of Proposed Additional Lighting for fabricated Christmas Tree ⇩