While there is no standard definition of “indirect cultural investments”, the project was based on three reports:

1. Municipal Cultural Investment in Five Large Canadian Cities: An appendix to this report on direct cultural investments in the five large cities, prepared by Hill Strategies Research in January 2012, provides a brief overview of policies, plans and non-financial supports for culture in the five cities.
2. City of Toronto briefing note: 2013 Operating Budget Briefing Note: Accounting of Arts and Culture Funding (BN #39, Jan. 8, 2013).
3. The Intermunicipal Comparative Framework Project: Phase One Pilot Report, Creative City Network of Canada, 2006.

The report on direct cultural investments compared the per capita investments in culture in the five cities in 2009. In the five cities combined, net cultural investment amounted to $35 per resident in 2009 (including operating, grants and capital expenditures, but excluding municipal investments on libraries). Montréal’s cultural investment was $55 per capita, followed by Vancouver ($47), Calgary ($42), Ottawa ($28), and Toronto ($19).

Using these documents as a guide, the following nine elements were considered for inclusion as indirect cultural investments:

1. Below-market or nominal rent
2. Property tax rebates / exemptions (whether through local decision-making or provincial statutes)
3. Free or below-market rates for advertising on city structures (e.g., bus shelters, buildings, etc.)
4. In-kind services for festivals, special events, film, etc. (e.g., permits, fire, police, EMS, waste management, transit, etc.)
5. Heritage conservation incentives (indirect / non-monetary)
6. Density bonusing (i.e., allowing higher building density in return for community benefits)
7. Community use agreements / public use of private spaces (e.g., a re-zoning condition allowing for cultural use of private space at a nominal rent)
8. Modified planning regulations to support cultural sector (with no direct financial implications)
9. Loan or line-of-credit guarantees by the city

The table on pages 5 and 6 provides a summary of the responses to these questions. As can be seen in the table, the five cities provide a relatively similar “suite” of indirect supports for the cultural sector. A count of the number of indirect supports available in each city shows that, out of the nine types of indirect supports:

• Vancouver provides eight supports.
• Toronto provides seven supports.
• Ottawa provides six elements.
• Montréal and Calgary each provide five indirect supports.

A count of the cities providing each of the indirect supports shows that three elements are provided by all five cities:

• Below-market or nominal rent
• Property tax rebates / exemptions (whether through local decision-making or provincial statutes)
• In-kind services for festivals, special events, film, etc. (e.g., permits, fire, police, EMS, waste management, transit, etc.)

In addition, all five cities are involved in the approval, development, or planning of formal cultural districts. (Because the staff involved in developing formal cultural districts were included as direct cultural investments in the report on this topic, this item is not also included as an “indirect” cultural investment.)

Three other indirect supports are provided by four of the five cities. It is worth noting that the city responding “no” was different for each of these supports.

• Heritage conservation incentives (indirect / non-monetary)
• Density bonusing (i.e., allowing higher building density in return for community benefits)
• Modified planning regulations to support cultural sector (with no direct financial implications)

The remaining three indirect supports are provided by only one or two cities:

• Free or below-market rates for cultural organizations' advertising on city structures (e.g., bus shelters, buildings, etc.)
• Community use agreements / public use of private spaces (e.g., a re-zoning condition allowing for cultural use of private space at a nominal rent)
• Line of credit / Loan guarantees

Estimates of the value of these indirect supports have not yet been conducted by most of the cities. During the short timeframe for the preparation of this report, it was not possible to develop and implement a common methodology to estimate the value of each of the indirect supports. As such, estimates of the possible value of these services are not provided in this report.

Other indirect supports were mentioned by Montréal and Vancouver. In many cases, these straddle the line between “direct” supports and “indirect” supports. Often, these services are provided by City staff members but do not have a precise value for the local arts, culture and heritage community:

• Montréal’s Design Office
• Montréal’s Municipal Cultural Presenting Network
• External Cultural Signage in Montréal
• Montréal: Expert Advice for Cultural Organizations
• Vancouver: Artist residencies in 9 Park Board Field Houses in 2013
• Vancouver: Arts Programmers in Community Centres
• Vancouver: Capacity Building workshops provided at no charge for cultural non-profits
• Vancouver: Facilities Maintenance & Operating Support for more than 30 cultural tenants & major exhibiting institutions