2015-03-03 Infrastructure & Services Committee Agenda

INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA   3 MARCH 2015




                                                      Page 55 of 80

INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                            3 MARCH 2015

 20 | Review of the Cooroy Butter Factory Arts Centre Report                        @sipter

 Comparative assessment of proposed concepts
 The following section is a comparative assessment of each of the five lead concepts.

 One Tenant - U3A
 U3A offers the easiest, most convenient solution for Council: one ongoing tenant that
 proposes to use the space regularly and will administer the CBFAC for use by other users ona
 user pays based system. The U3A is well established and has a proven ability to deliver its
 programs. There would likely be a small cost or some support needed in assisting the group to
 promote the CBFAC and run some of the online systems.
 Of all the proposed concepts, this is the least strategic and most administrative based program
 delivery model. The model of management is not a best fit, as the U3A are focused on their
 priorities and their members, which are aged over fifty and no longer working full-time.
 Although offering the facility to schedule the space for other users, users will need to actively
 pursue and investigate using the space.

 Community Managed Model - Cooroy Lower Mill Board (recommended)
 The community managed model is the recommended model. It has particular merits over the
 other proposals in its over-arching, inclusive, community-driven approach that is actively
 inclusive and encompassing of other groups, arts, cultural, and other potential activities. The
 CLM Board is an established community group presence in the Cooroy community and has a
 proven record for delivering on projects.
 As indicated in the CLM Board’s proposal, funding would be required for the development of a
 business plan, the establishment of online systems, communication and programming
 infrastructure and ongoing program delivery and minor building modifications to enable
 multiple concurrent users. The CLM Board’s grounded and pragmatic approach, focused on
 generating income (e.g. through a membership fee structure), a user pays system, on cost
 recovery and on financial sustainability is complemented by a strategy to significantly extend
 community use and involvement in the CBFAC through extended opening hours, cultural
 programs, events and other activities. Some of this may need to be balanced within Council’s
 policy guidelines and be tempered with the limitations of income generation in arts and
 cultural programming and exhibitions.
 This model could accommodate three of the other community proposed concepts, including
 the U3A, the Centre for Ceramic Excellence and possibly the Interpretation Centre (if this
 were feasible in a downsized, volunteer-driven model). The CLM Board, U3A and the CCE
 have indicated in principle agreement to be included in this approach.
 Council has identified risks associated with multiple independent community group users. In
 order to manage these risks, it is recommended that Council clearly establish roles and
 responsibilities, governance, partnership or Memorandum of Understandings between each
 group and with Council. Expectations and boundaries would need to be clearly and sensitively
 established and a mode of communication between groups developed and agreed across
 parties and routinely monitored.

                                                                                                Page 55 of 80