Document begins
Bottom Pub Co-op — Workplans by Stream
Internal working document. Not for public release. Stage 1: Gauging Interest. Prepared from: 17 May 2026 community meeting transcript, site research briefings, audit trail, and multi-agent analysis. Requires working-group review before becoming operating instructions.
How to read this
Each workplan has three time horizons:
- Now: things that can start immediately, using people and information already available
- Next: things that become possible once the delegated working group is seated and Stream 0 delivers its first outputs
- Later: things that depend on outputs from other streams or on paid professional advice
Not every task has an owner yet — where a seat on the delegated working group would naturally own a task, it’s noted. Where no one has been named, that’s a recruitment need.
Working-group sizing assumption: 8-12 total people, with six core seats and additional members or advisory support added only if the EOI skill inventory shows a genuine gap.
Every group should maintain the same four-part register as it works:
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| FACT | Sourced and independently verified |
| ASSUMPTION | Plausible but unverified — needs checking |
| CHOICE | Strategic preference requiring delegated working-group decision |
| RISK | Could block feasibility or damage community trust |
| TODO | Needs professional advice, physical access, funding, or a delegated working-group decision |
No stream produces promises. They produce evidence, options, and questions labelled by type.
The delegated working group’s own workplan is at the end, because it operates differently from the working groups: it coordinates and gates, it doesn’t produce research.
Stream 0 — Delegated Working Group Formation
Owner: No one yet. This is everyone’s first job.
Now
| # | Task | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | Call a delegated-working-group formation meeting from the EOI volunteers who offered to help | Billie has the names. The meeting should be face-to-face if possible — this group needs working trust fast |
| 0.2 | Agree the conflict-of-interest protocol before selecting people | A person who has indicated willingness to invest should not be the same person designing the capital structure. Same principle applies at smaller scale: someone who is a heritage consultant shouldn’t be the sole voice on building scope decisions. Write it down before anyone takes a seat |
| 0.3 | Fill the six core skill seats and size the working group to around 8-12 people: convenor, legal/governance, hospitality/licensing, heritage/building, community engagement, finance/modelling | One person per core seat, with additional members if the EOI pool shows other needed skills. Some seats may have two people (one local, one with specialist expertise). The meeting transcript has names for some of these — Lachlan for building, Molly for co-op law, someone with legal/commercial experience. The room had numerous volunteers |
| 0.4 | Appoint a single named individual who can formally express community interest to the appointed receivers | The co-op doesn’t exist yet. Until it does, someone needs authority to contact the appointed receivers’ insolvency-process contact on behalf of the community interest — not as an offer, not as a bid, but as a documented point of contact. This is the single most time-urgent output |
| 0.5 | Agree public-language sheet: “We are exploring” / not “We are acquiring”. “Expressions of interest” / not “pledges”. “Community-owned model” / not “investment opportunity” | The site already enforces this. The delegated working group needs to own the same standard in every conversation, email, and document that leaves the room |
| 0.6 | Set up a shared decision log and a fortnightly check-in | A simple document or shared folder. Not a project management platform — this is a volunteer group. Fortnightly check-in with agreed next-step actions, reviewed at the next meeting |
Later
| # | Task | Depends on |
|---|---|---|
| 0.7 | Decide whether to incorporate an interim entity before the co-op registers | Legal advice from Stream 2 first |
| 0.8 | Transition delegated working group to elected board at first AGM | Depends on co-op formation timing (Stream 2) |
Stream 1 — Property Status & Liaison
Owner: Convenor (as public face), with legal support for any formal correspondence. Two-person maximum — this is a narrow channel, not a committee.
Now
| # | Task | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Re-establish contact with the relevant contact at the appointed receivers | The 11 May email suggested 2-3 weeks to market. That window may have passed. A single, documented, non-committal contact: “The Cygnet community group is exploring a cooperative model for the Commercial Hotel. We’d like to stay informed about the property process. Who should we be talking to?” Nothing that constitutes an offer |
| 1.2 | Log all property communications in a single dated file | Every email, every phone note, every meeting. Who said what, when. This is a research record, not a negotiation file |
| 1.3 | Compile publicly available property information: Heritage Register entry (Place ID 3472), title search, zoning, any Huon Valley Council compliance orders | This is desktop research. Title search costs money — the steering group will need to decide whether to fund it now or wait |
| 1.4 | Confirm the title structure: is the commercial building and ~0.5 ha residential land a single title, or can they be separated? | Reported at the meeting as “may be handled as a single title” — not yet confirmed. The title search will answer this definitively |
| 1.5 | Request the asbestos report and building report the previous prospective purchaser provided to the steering group | Billie mentioned at the meeting that the steering group has access to these. Get copies. They’re informal, not a commissioned report — but they’re real data |
Next
| # | Task | Depends on |
|---|---|---|
| 1.6 | Request physical access to the building for a condition walkthrough | Needs agent/owner permission. The authorised contact from task 0.4 makes this request |
| 1.7 | Determine what a conditional offer would require: what information, what timeline, what conditions | This is research — not designing an offer. Legal advice from Stream 2 on what conditions are legally possible for an unformed entity |
Guardrails
- No offer. No price discussion. No “we’d like to make a bid.” The language is: “We’re a community group exploring whether cooperative ownership is possible. We want to understand the process.”
- All communications through the single authorised contact.
Stream 2 — Legal Structure & Governance
Owner: Legal/governance seat. Molly (meeting transcript) has co-op law expertise and is a potential resource, if willing and conflict-checked.
Now
| # | Task | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | Research and compare legal structures: non-distributing co-op, distributing co-op, incorporated association, company limited by guarantee, trust, hybrid asset-holder/operator model | The site’s governance, legal, and financial briefings have already done the initial desk research. This task is to turn that research into a decision matrix with pros, cons, and what each structure enables or blocks |
| 2.2 | Map the liquor licensing pathway in Tasmania | Specifically: who can hold the licence (s.22 requires a natural person), what “fit and proper person” means for co-op board members as associates under s.3A, whether a co-op can hold a licence indirectly through an employed manager, and what the application timeline looks like (8–12 weeks with a 14-day public objection window) |
| 2.3 | Prepare a decision brief for the steering group: structure options, what each costs to set up, what each enables (grants, debentures, membership rights), and what cannot be reversed later | The distributing vs non-distributing choice is the one that gates everything else. This choice should be brought forward early because it determines whether grants are available, whether returns can be paid, what “member” means, and what happens to assets on wind-up |
| 2.4 | Draft the professional advice brief: what questions go to a co-op-literate lawyer and a tax accountant | The research can be done by volunteers. The answers need to come from qualified professionals. The brief should be specific enough that a lawyer can give a written opinion without open-ended discovery |
| 2.5 | Research whether an interim entity (e.g. incorporated association) is needed to hold communications, enter agreements, and receive EOI data before a co-op registers | If the property comes to market next week, someone needs legal capacity to act. A co-op takes time to register. What’s the fastest legitimate interim structure? |
Next
| # | Task | Depends on |
|---|---|---|
| 2.6 | Deliver the structure recommendation to the steering group for decision | Task 2.3 brief plus legal opinion |
| 2.7 | Draft CNL-compliant co-op rules (once structure choice is made) | Task 2.6 decision |
| 2.8 | Prepare the member/formation disclosure pathway (if distributing co-op is chosen) | For co-operatives, the primary disclosure pathway is under Co-operatives National Law and registrar requirements, not Corporations Act Chapter 6D — though Corporations Act issues may also arise. The brief for legal advice (task 2.4) should identify exactly what applies |
| 2.9 | Advise on the membership framework: what active membership means (s.156 BCCM SMART test), what a member gets, whether membership is a civic contribution or a returnable share | Tied to structure choice |
Guardrails
- Don’t register anything until the structure decision is made and legal advice confirms.
- Don’t draft rules, disclosure statements, or financial instruments until the co-op type is settled.
- The audit page records that the earlier draft proposed distributing co-op features (5% dividends, capital return) alongside non-distributing features (community grants, surplus reinvestment). A non-distributing co-op cannot distribute surplus or share capital beyond permitted limits; a distributing co-op can permit member returns but generally loses grant eligibility. That straddle is not CNL-compliant if embedded in the rules, offer materials, or public promises. The choice has to be clean.
Stream 3 — Finance & Capital Feasibility
Owner: Finance/modelling seat. Qualified accountant preferred.
Now
| # | Task | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | Build assumptions book: every number that goes into a model, where it came from, how uncertain it is | Purchase price range ($1.3M previous buyer, $1.6M earlier offers reported — meeting-reported, not verified). Renovation range ($900K–$1.2M, meeting-reported, not verified). Working capital, contingency, compliance costs from the feasibility briefing. Every assumption labelled as verified, meeting-reported, or estimated |
| 3.2 | Model the full capital stack under both structure scenarios (distributing and non-distributing) | Two versions: what’s possible if non-distributing (grants + member shares + community debentures), and what’s possible if distributing (member shares + debentures with returns, fewer grants). The numbers change depending on the structure choice — that’s the point of running both |
| 3.3 | Map Tasmanian and federal grant eligibility for each structure type | Non-distributing co-ops can access many of the same grants as not-for-profits. Distributing co-ops generally cannot. This is a concrete, researchable question with real dollar implications |
| 3.4 | Compile the capital instruments available under Tasmanian law: member shares, community debentures, social finance, philanthropic capital, bank lending (once operating) | The site’s capital pathways briefing has already started this. Extend it with Tasmanian-specific research and the Co-operatives National Law provisions on debentures and share capital |
| 3.5 | Assess the residential land (~0.5 ha): can it be separated, developed, retained, or used as security? | This is a planning/title question that overlaps Stream 1. The answer may change the capital feasibility materially — if the land can be subdivided and sold or developed, the numbers look different |
Next
| # | Task | Depends on |
|---|---|---|
| 3.6 | Design the specific capital instruments (membership tiers, debenture terms, grant applications) | Stream 2 structure decision first. Can’t design a debenture without knowing whether the law permits it and on what terms |
| 3.7 | Update the EOI to gauge non-binding interest levels (not dollar commitments) | Stream 5 has the EOI channel. The finance stream frames the questions; the comms stream asks them. Clearly labelled as interest, not a pledge or investment invitation |
| 3.8 | Run sensitivity analysis: what happens at -20%, +20% on purchase price, renovation cost, and opening revenue? | Needs the assumptions book (3.1) first. This is where the project learns whether it’s viable across a range of scenarios or only at optimistic assumptions |
Guardrails
- No debenture design, no interest rate promises, no repayment schedules, no “investment opportunity” language.
- The assumptions book labels every number with its source and confidence level. No number enters a model without an attribution line.
- The meeting transcript has $1.3M and $1.6M figures as third-party planning numbers — they go in the model as “meeting-reported, not verified” with a sensitivity range around them.
Stream 4 — Building, Heritage & Planning
Owner: Heritage/building seat. Lachlan (meeting transcript) is a potential resource, if willing and conflict-checked — local builder, 26 years in Cygnet, has inspected the building.
Now
| # | Task | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | Collate existing material: the previous prospective purchaser’s notes (shared with permission), the asbestos report, the previous buyer’s building report, Lachlan’s verbal assessment from the meeting | Organise what’s already known. Lachlan gave a detailed verbal account at the meeting: kitchen workable but not ideal, upstairs rooms need total renewal, asbestos issues, veranda $100K+, freezers and refrigeration need upgrades, outbuildings degrading, heritage facade constraints |
| 4.2 | Desktop heritage research: Part 6 of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 (Tas), Heritage Council Discretionary Permit pathway, Heritage Register entry for Place ID 3472 | The site’s heritage briefing already covers the legal regime. This task is to turn it into a practical works classification: what can be done without approval, what needs Minor Works Approval, what needs a Discretionary Permit, and what the likely timeframe is for each |
| 4.3 | Define minimum viable opening scope vs full renovation scope | What’s needed before the doors can open safely and legally vs what would be desirable later. This is the single most important output for the business plan — it determines the capital requirement range |
| 4.4 | Scope an independent structural and building condition assessment: who would do it, what it would cost, what it would deliver, who would commission and fund it | The existing reports are informal and from a previous buyer’s perspective. A co-op exploring purchase needs its own independent assessment. Get quotes from a heritage architect and a structural engineer with Tasmanian heritage experience. Don’t commission yet — just know what it costs and how long it takes |
| 4.5 | Research BCA/DDA compliance requirements for Class 6 (hospitality) change of use on a heritage-listed building | Fire safety, accessibility, kitchen ventilation, structural upgrades — all on a building where Heritage Council approval is needed for works that affect significant fabric. This is a real, knowable, researchable constraint |
Next
| # | Task | Depends on |
|---|---|---|
| 4.6 | Commission independent building condition and structural assessment | Task 4.4 scope, steering group approval to fund, Stream 1 for physical access permission |
| 4.7 | Map a staged capital works sequence with cost ranges | Tasks 4.1 and 4.6 combined. “Minimum viable opening” first, then phase 2 (upstairs), then phase 3 (outbuildings, car park). Every cost line labelled with source and confidence |
Key distinction
“Must do before opening” vs “desirable later.” The business plan (Stream 6) depends on knowing the minimum viable works number. That’s the number that makes or breaks the feasibility case.
Guardrails
- Don’t treat Lachlan’s verbal assessment or the previous purchaser’s documents as a formal condition report. They’re real data from informed people, but they’re not a commissioned independent assessment. Label them as meeting-reported and third-party respectively.
- Don’t commission paid assessments until the steering group has approved the expenditure and Stream 1 has arranged access.
Stream 5 — Community & Communications
Owner: Community engagement seat. Most immediately actionable — can start this week.
Now
| # | Task | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | Update the EOI database | The 68 count is from meeting day. Add names from the meeting itself (people who signed the butcher’s paper), remove duplicates, confirm contact details. This is the core asset of Stream 5 |
| 5.1b | Reconcile all EOI intake streams into one authoritative count | Three sources are currently open in parallel: the site form (Cloudflare D1), a second collection (D2), and Billie’s Google Form. They must be merged, deduplicated, and reconciled into a single verified figure before any public number is confirmed. Once reconciled, bring a recommended public wording to steering for approval. Launch options: “around 68” (if reconciled count supports it) or “more than 60” (conservative floor until reconciliation is complete). The public dashboard spec depends on this being resolved before launch |
| 5.2 | Run a skills and interest inventory from the EOI list | The steering committee volunteers are a start. But numerous people expressed interest — some will have relevant professional skills (accountants, builders, lawyers, hospitality operators, heritage specialists). Map them |
| 5.3 | Open non-Facebook channels | The meeting explicitly raised that not everyone in Cygnet is on Facebook. Options: email newsletter (simplest), local print (Cygnet classifieds, Huon News community noticeboard), physical noticeboards at the Town Hall, IGA, and other community hubs |
| 5.4 | Prepare the next community meeting agenda and logistics | Date, venue, format, what to present, what to ask. The delegated working group should be seated before this happens — the community needs to see that the structure exists, not just good intentions |
| 5.5 | Own the public FAQ: translate stream outputs into plain language | The site does this for the wider public. The FAQ for the community meetings needs more detail — what’s known, what’s being researched, what the timeline is, and what the community can do to help |
| 5.6 | Enforce vocabulary standards in all communications | ”Interest” not “pledge.” “Exploring” not “acquiring.” “Membership” not “ownership rights.” “Community-owned model” not “investment opportunity.” Every email, poster, and meeting handout gets checked against this list |
Next
| # | Task | Depends on |
|---|---|---|
| 5.7 | Run the second community meeting | Task 0.1 (delegated working group seated), tasks from all streams producing first outputs |
| 5.8 | Frame the interest-level EOI update: “Would you like to receive information later about any legally approved membership or capital options, if the project reaches that stage?” | Stream 3 designs the questions; Stream 5 asks them through the EOI channel. Keep dollar bands out of public/EOI forms until lawyer-reviewed |
| 5.9 | Publish delegated working group membership and decision log once formed | Transparency builds trust. The community needs to see who’s doing the work and what’s been decided |
Guardrails
- No timelines promised. No returns projected. No purchase implied.
- All stream outputs go through the steering group before public release. Community meetings can share research and options — not commitments.
Stream 6 — Operating Model & Business Plan
Owner: Hospitality/licensing seat and finance/modelling seat jointly. This is a synthesis stream — it doesn’t produce original research, it integrates research from Streams 2, 3, and 4.
Now
| # | Task | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 6.1 | Desktop research: local market and competitive landscape | What existing venues does Cygnet have? What’s the Top Pub? What’s the relationship? How does a community-owned pub coexist without destructive competition? The meeting raised this question explicitly — it needs an honest answer |
| 6.2 | Map operating options: pub only, pub + accommodation, co-working, events, community rooms, garden, mixed use | The Castlemaine model runs offices in part of the building. a community member’s contribution at the meeting was clear: “use your imagination, there are many things it could do.” Map the options with rough revenue estimates for each |
| 6.3 | Draft staffing model: Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020, penalty rates, roster design, minimum viable opening team | The site’s feasibility briefing already flags this. The operating model has to comply with the Award — no volunteer substitution for paid operational roles (the audit page records this as a Fair Work Act risk) |
| 6.4 | Compare operator models: employed publican/executive chef, leased operation, hybrid | Who actually runs the pub day to day? A co-op board doesn’t run shifts. A professional operator does. What does that relationship look like, and what does it cost? |
| 6.5 | Compile comparable turnover and operating data for regional Tasmanian pubs | Tourism Tasmania regional snapshots (ADR $154–$175, RevPAR $131–$175 for Huon–Far South) are in the feasibility briefing. Extend with local data. What does a pub in Cygnet actually turn over? |
Next
| # | Task | Depends on |
|---|---|---|
| 6.6 | Draft path-to-profitability model: what occupancy, spend per head, and revenue mix does the pub need to cover costs? | Stream 3 capital modelling, Stream 4 minimum viable works scope, Stream 2 legal structure choice |
| 6.7 | Draft cash-flow forecast: purchase through renovation to first year of trading | All figures labelled as illustrative until Stream 2, 3, 4 deliver. Conservative assumptions. The feasibility briefing calls this out: “sensitivity is the test” |
| 6.8 | Define what a “go/no-go” decision looks like: what conditions would make the project viable, and what would kill it? | This is the stream’s most important integration output. The steering group should be able to look at the answer and say “we should proceed to formal Stage 2” or “the numbers don’t work and we should tell the community” |
Guardrails
- All figures are illustrative and labelled as such. No presentation of the model as a business plan or a financial offer.
- The model assumes Award-compliant staffing. No volunteer substitution for operational shifts.
- Path-to-profitability must include the recurring compliance and insurance costs the feasibility briefing identifies (public liability, WorkCover, D&O, RSA, Food Safety Supervisor, music licensing, food registration, annual licence fees).
Research Cell — Case Studies & Evidence
Owner: 1–2 people, not a full working group. Feeds all streams.
Now
| # | Task | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| R.1 | Build a verified precedent register: Australian community/co-op pub examples, structures, funding methods, outcomes | The site’s case studies briefing has already started this (Castlemaine, Sea Lake, Pleasant Hills, Hotel Theodore, Renmark, Mogumber). Extend with verification: are they still operating? What’s their legal structure? What funding model did they use? |
| R.2 | For each case study, label what’s analogous and what isn’t | Castlemaine is 45 minutes from Melbourne. Cygnet is 45 minutes from Hobart. The tourist flows, real estate prices, and business conditions are different. Flag weak analogies explicitly |
| R.3 | Push verified findings to the stream that needs them | Finance stream needs capital precedents. Legal stream needs governance precedents. Building stream needs heritage approval precedents. Don’t accumulate — distribute |
Guardrail
No case study published as a direct analogue without verification and explicit limitation. The site’s audit page already enforces this for public content; the research cell applies the same standard to internal outputs.
Steering Committee — Coordination & Gating
Owner: The steering committee itself. Seven people (six skill seats plus convenor), meeting fortnightly.
Ongoing
| # | Task | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| S.1 | Maintain the master decision log | Every significant decision, who made it, when, what information it was based on. Simple shared document |
| S.2 | Maintain the risk register | What could go wrong, how likely, how severe, what mitigations are in place. Starts with: property sells to another buyer before the co-op can act; legal structure choice is wrong and expensive to reverse; community momentum stalls |
| S.3 | Review and approve all stream outputs before public release | The master guardrail applies to everything that leaves the room. No working group publishes independently |
| S.4 | Gate recommendations at end of Stage 1 | Based on all stream outputs, answer the 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/working 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 |
| S.5 | Own the public-language standard across all channels | The site enforces this for the web. The steering committee enforces it for meetings, emails, and conversations. One consistent voice |
First meeting agenda (suggested)
- Confirm delegated working group membership and conflict-of-interest declarations
- Appoint the single authorised contact for the appointed receivers (task 0.4)
- Agree public-language sheet (task 0.5)
- Agree fortnightly meeting cadence
- Review and assign working group leads
- Set first deliverable dates for each stream
Cross-stream dependencies
Stream 0 (steering) ─── prerequisite for everything ─── seats the leads, authorises the contact
Stream 1 (property) ─── informs all ─── sets urgency, provides property data
Stream 2 (legal) ─── gates 3 and 6 ─── structure choice enables capital design and operating model
Stream 3 (finance) ─── gates 6 ─── capital model feeds business plan
Stream 4 (building) ─── feeds 6 ─── scope and cost feeds business plan
Stream 5 (comms) ─── feeds all ─── maintains legitimacy, runs EOI
Stream 6 (operating) ─── synthesises ─── waits on 2, 3, 4 for detail
Research cell ─── feeds all ─── pushes verified precedents on demand
What can genuinely start this week: Stream 0 (formation meeting), Stream 1 (re-contact agent), Stream 4 (collate existing reports), Stream 5 (update EOI, open channels), Stream 6 (desktop research). Stream 2 and 3 research can start immediately; their design outputs wait on the steering committee being seated.
What blocks: Stream 2’s structure recommendation blocks Stream 3’s instrument design and blocks Stream 6’s detailed model. Stream 1’s physical access blocks Stream 4’s independent assessment.
Stage 1 exit 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?
Stream outputs answer parts of this. The steering group synthesises and makes the call. The document describes a process — it does not itself authorise escalation.