Skip to the record
Accept no substitutions.

Original source · versioned page text

2015-09-15 Infrastructure and Services Committee Agenda

of 73

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.

INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                            15 SEPTEMBER 2015


It is anticipated that CLMB would commence operating the BFAC on 1 January 2016, with a
transition occurring from October. Council would continue to undertake day-to-day operations
during the transition however the CLMB and their staffing would work with Council staff to
understand the building and plan for programming and exhibitions to commence from January. A
subsidy of $12,600 would be required for CLMB to staff the transition period October to
December 2015. This amount can be met within the current budget.
As highlighted in the Infrastructure & Services Committee meeting report to Council on 3 March
2015, ‘There [remain] some risks associated with this proposed model. While individual CLMB
members have facility management experience, the CLMB itself has not managed a community
facility and their successful relationship to other stakeholder groups and individuals needs to be
developed. In order to manage these risks, it is recommended that Council clearly establish roles
and responsibilities by way of a Memorandum of Understanding [or Agreement] between Council
and the CLMB.’
The 12 month trial will allow CLMB to test programming and operational assumptions to
determine whether continued CLMB operation of the BFAC is viable. If it is not, then the other
options in this report can be further explored.
As noted in section 2, the business planning process has allowed the CLMB to start building
relationships with stakeholders and interested parties. This puts them in a good position to
commence greater activation of the BFAC should Council adopt Option A.
This model also meets the preferred outcome of community management of the BFAC identified
through the community engagement process undertaken in 2014/15.

Option B. Council continues to operate the BFAC under a ‘caretaker’ model.
Under this option, Council would operate the BFAC in a ‘caretaker’ model primarily offering the
facility as a venue-for-hire and overseeing the Pottery. Cooroy Library staff would manage the
building, take bookings and facilitate access. There would be limited Council programming or
curated exhibitions and the building would only be open to the public if a hirer undertook this.
This model could be funded within the current net budget for the 2015/16 financial year of
$233,311 including depreciation and corporate overheads.
It is important to note that the PopUp Art exhibitions are nearing the end of their current life and it
is not expected that exhibiting will continue beyond December 2015. Any further programming or
exhibitions would require Council staff to source exhibitions or artists in the community to step
forward and hire the venue and staff exhibitions.
The benefit of this model is that it would determine what the “latent” demand for the facility
actually is i.e. how many requests to use the facility will be made if it is not being actively
marketed or promoted.
This model does not meet the preferred outcome of community management identified through
the community engagement process undertaken in 2014/15 but it would be the cheapest of the
community use based options.

Option C. Council continues to operate the BFAC and undertake an ‘activation’ role.
Programming of exhibitions and events would be managed by Council staff with additional
support provided by volunteers. While the arts focus would continue there would be no significant
increase in community engagement or ownership.
In order to further activate the use of the BFAC, staffing levels would need to increase to program
and staff the facility. The estimated impact of this would be $80,622, resulting in an adjusted
budget for the 2015/16 financial year of $313,933.
This model was identified as unsustainable through the community engagement process
undertaken in 2014/15, and it does not meet the preferred outcomes identified through that
process. It would be the most expensive of the community use based models.

                                                                                       Page 48 of 73
Log in to download the original file

2015-09-15 Infrastructure and Services Committee Agenda(PDF, 8MB).pdf · 7.9 MB (large file)

Large file: the download may take up to a minute.

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.