Document begins

Bottom Pub Co-op — Working Group Structure

Internal working document. Not for public release. Stage 1: Gauging Interest.

Master guardrail

Working groups gather evidence and develop options. The steering group coordinates, applies Stage 1 guardrails, and decides what is ready to publish or escalate. No group is authorised to make offers, raise funds, promise returns, or imply that acquisition is available or likely.

This sentence governs every stream. If any working group output contradicts it, the steering group holds it back.

Structure

The steering group is a coordination and gate-keeping layer, not itself a working group. It owns the decision log, risk register, public-language rules, and the gate recommendation at the end of Stage 1.

Steering group composition: convenor, secretary/project manager, legal/governance lead, finance lead, building/heritage lead, comms/engagement lead.

Working groups produce evidence and options. The steering group decides what is ready to escalate, publish, or act on.

Composition plan

Planning assumption for the delegated working group: 8-12 total people.

• Core seats: convenor, legal/governance, hospitality/licensing, heritage/building, community engagement, finance/modelling
• Additional members: 2-6 extra people, either as full seats or advisory support, if the EOI pool shows skills the core six do not cover
• Final shape: confirmed by the 23 May selection meeting and adjusted against the EOI skill inventory

Stream 0 — Delegated Working Group Formation

This is the governance prerequisite for accountable work.

Remit

• Seat an 8-12 person working group from the volunteer expressions of interest, starting with the six named core seats and adding any other seats the EOI pool shows are needed
• Define authority limits: what each stream lead can say, do, sign, and spend
• Agree conflict-of-interest protocol before selecting people: any person with a potential financial interest must disclose it, and the steering group should decide whether they can advise, model, or vote on capital-structure choices
• Agree public-language rules and “what we cannot say” sheet
• Establish a decision log and fortnightly check-in cadence (not a rigid sprint — this is a volunteer group)
• Appoint a single named individual who can formally express community interest to the appointed receivers before a co-op entity exists

Why this is urgent

The 2–3 week listing window from 11 May is now or past. If the property lists before the delegated working group is seated, there is no legal person to respond. Stream 0 must produce one output immediately: a named, authorised contact who can communicate formally with the relevant agent or insolvency-process contact — not as an offer, not as a bid, but as a documented expression of community interest.

Stream 1 — Property Status & Liaison

Time-sensitive. Small authorised group, ideally 1–2 people.

Remit

• Maintain contact with the appointed receivers and any appointed property agent; log all communications
• Monitor public listing status and verify whether the pub and surrounding residential land are being handled together, separately, or under another arrangement
• Compile publicly available information: Heritage Register entry (Place ID 3472), title/zoning records, any council compliance orders
• Request access to prior due-diligence material (asbestos report, building report) with the permission of the previous potential buyers who provided them
• Understand what information would be needed before any future conditional offer could even be considered — not yet designing one

Stage 1 can do

Research, contact log, document requests, sale-status memo.

Stage 1 cannot do

Make an offer, sign anything, negotiate commercially, imply a price has been agreed.

Dependencies

Needs Stream 0 output: a named authorised contact before anything else can happen.

Stream 2 — Legal Structure & Governance

Critical path. This decision gates Streams 3 and 6.

Remit

• Research and compare: non-distributing co-op, distributing co-op, company, incorporated association, trust, hybrid asset-holding/operator models
• Prepare a legal-structure recommendation and decision criteria — do not make the decision itself without legal and accounting advice, because it affects grants, surplus distribution, member rights, debenture compliance, tax, asset lock, and exit options
• Identify whether an interim entity is needed while the co-op registers, and get advice before registering anything
• Map the Tasmanian liquor licensing pathway: who can hold the licence, what “fit and proper person” means for co-op board members as associates of the licence, whether a co-op can hold a licence directly, or whether an employed manager/tenant operator structure is required
• Draft a brief for a co-op-literate lawyer and a tax accountant
• Design the membership framework: what active membership means, what a member gets, whether membership is a civic contribution or a returnable share

Stage 1 can do

Research, options paper, decision criteria, professional advice brief, licensing pathway memo.

Stage 1 cannot do

Register a co-op, apply for a licence, adopt rules, commit to a structure, design a financial instrument.

Key question

What structure best matches the community purpose, fundraising pathway, grant eligibility, and member expectations — and what does a qualified adviser say?

Stream 3 — Finance & Capital Feasibility

Research and modelling only at Stage 1. No offer design until structure and advice are settled.

Remit

• Model the full capital stack: purchase price range, renovation range, operating float, working capital — conservative scenarios only
• Map grant eligibility: what may be available to a non-distributing co-op in Tasmania (and how structure choice affects this)
• Research legally available capital instruments: community debentures, member shares, social finance, philanthropic capital, bank lending once a business is operating
• Model scenarios for each instrument — do not design, promote, or test a specific offer
• Test non-binding interest in principle through the EOI process: ask people to indicate their level of interest, clearly labelled as not an offer, not a commitment, not an investment invitation
• Assess the residential land (~0.5 ha): can it be separated, developed, retained as community benefit, or used as security — and does this affect the capital feasibility

Stage 1 can do

Research, scenarios, assumptions book, sensitivity analysis, grant landscape map.

Stage 1 cannot do

Issue or promote debentures, invite investment, promise returns or repayment schedules, design a specific financial instrument without legal and structure advice.

Dependencies

Waits on Stream 2’s structure decision before finalising any capital instrument design. Scenario modelling can run in parallel now.

Stream 4 — Building, Heritage & Planning

Desktop research now; physical works assessment later when access is possible.

Remit

• Collate existing material: the asbestos report, the previous buyer’s building report, Lachlan’s verbal observations from the meeting
• Scope an independent structural and building condition assessment — get quotes, prepare a brief, identify who would commission and fund it
• Map heritage constraints: Part 6 of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995, Heritage Council Discretionary Permit pathway, what works require approval vs what can proceed as like-for-like
• Understand BCA/DDA compliance requirements for the existing use class and any change of use
• Define minimum viable opening scope vs full renovation scope: what is needed before the doors can open safely vs what would be desirable later
• Map a staged capital works sequence with rough cost ranges (using existing reports as the basis — not primary estimates)

Stage 1 can do

Desktop research, document collation, scope of a proper assessment, heritage pathway memo, minimum viable works definition.

Stage 1 cannot do

Commission paid assessments without funding, access the building without owner/agent permission, treat the verbal building assessment or prior buyer’s report as a formal condition report.

Key distinction

“Must do before opening” vs “desirable later.” The business plan depends on knowing the minimum viable works number.

Stream 5 — Community & Communications

Most immediately actionable. Can start this week.

Remit

• Manage the EOI database: update the 68-count, add names from the meeting, run a skills and interest inventory to match volunteers to stream needs
• Broaden reach beyond Facebook: the meeting explicitly raised that not everyone in Cygnet is on Facebook — email newsletter, local print, community noticeboards
• Maintain the website as the transparent information channel: the meeting endorsed this
• Own the public FAQ: translate complex legal, financial, and building realities into plain English
• Prepare and run the next public community meeting
• Enforce the critical vocabulary distinctions in all public communications:
  • “interest” ≠ “pledge”
  • “pledge” ≠ “investment”
  • “membership” ≠ “ownership rights”
  • “exploring” ≠ “acquiring”

Stage 1 can do

EOI management, volunteer matching, updates, meeting prep, FAQ, plain-English translations of stream outputs.

Stage 1 cannot do

Promise timelines, returns, or outcomes; imply a purchase is proceeding; publish stream outputs without steering group approval.

Stream 6 — Operating Model & Business Plan

Synthesis stream. Preliminary work now; detailed plan after Streams 2, 3, and 4 deliver.

Remit

• Map the operating options: pub only, pub + accommodation, co-working, events, community rooms, garden, mixed use — with rough revenue estimates for each
• Local competitive landscape: what existing venues does Cygnet have and how does a community-owned pub coexist without destructive competition (the meeting explicitly raised the Top Pub relationship)
• Staffing model: Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020, penalty rates, roster design, management structure
• Operator model: employed publican/executive chef, leased operation, or hybrid
• Path to profitability: what occupancy, spend per head, and revenue mix does the pub need to cover costs
• Draft a cash-flow forecast from purchase through renovation to first year of trading — conservative assumptions, clearly labelled as illustrative

Stage 1 can do

Desktop research, local market scan, preliminary revenue scenarios, staffing model, operator model comparison.

Stage 1 cannot do

Finalise a business plan — this requires building condition (Stream 4), capital structure (Stream 3), and legal structure (Stream 2) as inputs. All figures are illustrative until those inputs are available.

Research cell — Case Studies & Evidence

Not a full working group. 1–2 people feeding all streams.

Remit

• Maintain a verified precedent register: Australian community/co-op pub examples, failures, structures, funding methods, licensing patterns
• For each case study: verify the source, label what is and isn’t analogous to Tasmania and Cygnet, and flag weak analogies (the Castlemaine comparison is useful but Castlemaine is 45 minutes from Melbourne — different real estate, different business conditions)
• Push verified findings to whichever stream needs them

Guardrail

No case study published as an analogue until verified and explicitly labelled.

Dependencies

Stream 5 (community) ─── feeds all ─── seats the groups, maintains legitimacy
Stream 0 (steering)  ─── prerequisite ─ all streams need named leads
Stream 2 (legal)     ─── gates ──────── Stream 3 (capital) and Stream 6 (operating)
Stream 4 (building)  ─── feeds ──────── Stream 6 (operating)
Stream 1 (property)  ─── informs ────── all streams, sets urgency
Stream 3 (capital)   ─── gates ──────── Stream 6 (operating model detail)
Stream 6 (operating) ─── synthesises ── everything else

Priority and cadence

Cadence: agreed next steps, fortnightly steering check-in. Not a fixed sprint schedule — this is a volunteer group. Let the steering committee set its own tempo once seated.

First gate question

Is there enough credible community support and enough plausible feasibility to spend money on formal Stage 2 due diligence — including paid legal, accounting, heritage, and building advice?

If yes: recommend that the community/steering group authorise Stage 2 due diligence. If no: the community has still built a co-op knowledge base and relationships that could serve other assets.

Prepared from: 17 May 2026 community meeting transcript, multi-agent analysis (Codex, Gemini, Hermes, Claude). Internal only — not cleared for public release. Requires steering committee review before becoming operating instructions.