Letter to The General Manager: Budget Submission

COPY

• The General Manager
• Mr. Robert Dobrzynski
• Launceston City Council
• P O Box 396, LAUNCESTON, Tas. 7250 
• Fax: - 6323 3001 
• 5th May, 2015 

Dear Sir, 

Subject: - Budget Submission 2016 

With the ever increasing pressure on household budgets over the past four or more years, which has been particularly evident in Northern Tasmania, I believe that it is time for the Launceston City Council to cut its cloth in a meaningful way. 

One could only presume that the proposed Draft Budget is the “officers’ budget” thus setting the parameters for a contest with Alderman in obtaining a majority vote.  

It is difficult to respond in an adequate way, as only limited information is made available to the ratepayer by the General Manager, who appears to have no desire for any open public consultation. 

The Consumer Price Index for Hobart in the twelve months to March being only 0.9 of 1.00%, together with in part the past inertia of Council to apply efficiency dividends, there is an overwhelming case to argue for a zero rate increase, including all other charges/fees. 

Many ratepayers have commented on the Council’s ever increasing lack of engagement throughout the community, with some saying that Council appears oblivious to the little wealth creation following the collapse of the forest industry, the latter due in part to the lack of Council support. 

As a member of the Glenara Inc. Trust as an example I am more than aware of the deep financial pain being currently experienced in our community and it is disappointing that you as General Manager appears to be so out of touch in formulating the 2015/16 Budget. 

Another aspect that is unknown, is what percentage increase has been budgeted for employee labour cost increases and does the Budget identify a reduction or increase in employee Full Time Equivalents. 

In today’s environment it is unjustifiable for an organisation defined under the Charitable Act to remain exempt from the Fire Services Levy, for example the University of Tasmania, private schools, private hospitals, aged care facilities and including many benevolent organisations who have access to fire services, I did take this anomaly to the State Government many months ago. 

On the whole, the economic conditions within our city remain more than marginal and it is time for Council to take a lead and act in a responsible manner by living within its means. 

As presented, the Budget raises so many more questions with the ordinary person left feeling hopeless and dissatisfied; due to Council imposing increases that they will undoubtedly find are beyond their financial capacity to pay. 

Yours faithfully, 

Ian J N Routley cc: - 

• Mayor & Alderman 
•  Divisional Managers 
•  Minister for Local Government & 
• Elected Representatives Launceston Chamber of Commerce

Proposed Capital Expenditure

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

QUESTIONS TO THE GENERAL MANAGER
The proposed budget's Capital Expenditure raises questions to do with what and why given there is no line item articulation of proposed major expenditure made available. Of some interest is:

• ITEM 4 – What is intended to be purchased with this allocation? I seems that a Landfill Cell may make up a part of the allocation but some time ago Council was aiming to remove or divert 80%(?) 90(?) of the waste stream. IF this expenditure is for a Landfill Cell what is the current status of the 'diversion policy'?  In addition, if the diversion policy is in action, is there any income being derived from resource recovery? 
• ITEM 5 - A outline of proposed expenditures has been provided.
• ITEM 8 – What is intended to be purchased with this allocation?
• ITEM 17 – What is intended to be purchased with this allocation?
• ITEM 18 – What is intended to be purchased with this allocation?
• ITEM 19 – What is intended to be purchased with this allocation?
• ITEM 20 – This allocation has been articulated elsewhere?

Other questions may emerge between now and May 11

Please provide responses to these questions via email to mycommunitytasmania.budget@blogger.com   

QVMAG 2015/2016 ... DRAFT Capital Expenditure Budget

Given that the draft budget consolidates expenditures the QVMAG relies upon the institution's Director was asked to provide a breakdown of the QVMAG's capital expenditure budget.

NOTE: This is a draft budget and will not be confirmed by Council until after the consultation period. This posting aims to facilitate a contribution to this consultation. 

What was once considered Capital Works is now split between Major Operations (which is considered ongoing maintenance and is listed in the Operations Budget) and Capital Works (new work Capital Works). 

The QVMAG has $46,000 under Major Operations. The breakdown of this is: 

• $10,000 - TAFE store roof and downpipe repair, science collection store, Wellington Street
• $10,000 - Modify air conditioning unit Spirit store, science collection store, Wellington Street
• $26,000 - Secondary glazing first floor windows Art Gallery, Wellington Street 

• Plus Princess Theatre 
• $35,000 - Internal painting Princess Theatre, Brisbane Street 

      $81,000 – Total 

 QVMAG has $90,594 under capital works. The breakdown of this is: 

• $2,094 - Power supply units to prevent power outage, Inveresk 
• $3,000 - Security swipe card system for Armoury, Inveresk 
• $16,000 - Five entomology storage cases, science collection store, Wellington Street 
• $36,000 - Protection awning over railway carriage, Inveresk 
• $16,000 - Replacement of indoor and outdoor public seating, Inveresk 
• $15,000 - Roof replacement Conservation building, Inveresk 
• $2,500 - Folding machine for printed material 

• Plus Princess Theatre 
• $460,000 - New auditorium and dress circle seating 
• $435,000 - Replacement auditorium floor and carpet 
• $40,000 - Dress circle carpet 
• $85,000 - Five new lighting bars, Earl Arts Centre

     $1,110,594 – Total

 
Information provided by Richard Mulvaney  – Director,  City of Launceston Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery and Princess Theatre 

 Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2015 8:17 AM 

Followup information has been provided verbally by the Director in respect to the QVMAG's Recurrent Budget and in summary the following has been reported as being the case: that is broadly speaking the QVMAG's 2015/2016 Draft Budget (QVMAG ALONE) is the institution's 2014/2015 budget outcome PLUS 2.5% and by extension:

1. Given this, the circumstantial evidence points to there being an assumption that the State Govt will maintain its current level of funding;
2. The evidence is missing that would suggest that the the QVMAG's current Strategic Plan [LINK] reflects the institution's quest for sustainability;
3. The evidence is missing that would suggest that the institution has a 2015/2016 business/enterprise plan relative to the draft budget;
4. The circumstantial evidence points to the ratepayers' contribution to the QVMAG's recurrent budget remaining at the 2014/2015 level PLUS 2.5% despite the CPI being less than a 1% increase;
5. The circumstantial evidence suggests that the QVMAG will remain a LCC COST CENTRE at its current level of ratepayer funding despite the GM's assertions 2013/14 that the QVMAG operation was unsustainable at its then current level;
6. The circumstantial evidence points to the institution's staff level and profile remaining as it is currently – and by extension broadly status quo operational model;
7. The evidence is missing, in the document, that would suggest the institution's policy sets are under proactive review and aiming to deliver best practice museology in a 21st C context towards achieving an appropriate level of sustainability and delivering appropriate outcomes/dividends – fiscal, social & cultural;
8. The evidence is missing that would suggest that the institution will continue to receive the same level of grant monies, sponsorships, donations fees and other earned income.

Without a budget breakdown with line item allocations it is not possible to divine the risks the institution needs to manage nor assess the opportunities it may have before it given its allocated resources. All in all, the draft recurrent budget bears the hallmarks of a 'slush fund' lacking true accountability in respect to outputs being measurable against inputs. The attendant risks in this are a legion.

This Contribution

Ray Norman 

Independent Researcher & Cultural Geographer

zingHOUSEunlimited

Trevallyn

Are Launceston's Ratepayers Being Treated With Distain By Their Council?

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE IT

LINK: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=769

"Submissions should be marked "Budget Submission - 2016" and must be received 12 noon Monday, 11 May 2015"... Gee Whiz speak up quick or shut up! Then it is cough up or else we will prosecute you!

If the community's representatives, the aldermen, will not, or cannot be held truly accountable for the budgets they sign off on then why do they stand for election and why do we elect them? 

As is often said, we get the aldermen we vote for or failed to vote for. No matter, they must be held to account, and if we do not, we deserve to suffer a dysfunctional council and pay the consiquences.

Where we were coming from. Where we were. Where are we going!?

The Examiner's LOCAL GOVT REPORTER ROSITA GALLASCH gave us her verdict on the Launceston City Council's performance for 2014 back in January. Edited for space .... CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

NOTE: AT BUDGET TIME it is time to look at the promises, the rhetoric, the performances and what is being served up to ratepayers and the surposed rationales. If you pay rates it is worth asking what you are actually getting for your commitment to the city. It is also worth remembering  that Launceston City Council virtual spends $100 million per year and its probably the most expensive city in Australia to pay pates!

"THE Launceston City Council had a memorable 2014 - there were some good highs, yet also some shocking lows ... The council ticked off many big projects aimed at "revitalising" the city in the Josef Chromy $20 million Penny Royal redevelopment and the Errol Stewart $16 million Silos Hotel and announced the City Heart Project. Yet the council increased rates by 2.5 per cent, is locked in arbitration with TasWater over a $6.8 million a year bill and continues to groan about being a regional centre with little help from the state government or neighbouring councils .... The election itself, then went downhill and was marred in rumour and dirty politics that involved the leaking of an internal report, as well as threats made against one alderman. .... So here's a warts and all appraisal of the aldermen who retained their seats in November, as it was deemed too unfair to rate those who have been in the job just a few months. 

1. Mayor, Albert van Zetten There's no doubt being the mayor of the largest council in the state is a busy job and Alderman van Zetten is always in attendance for an opening or ribbon-cutting event. He follows process to a tee but felt the ire of some aldermen behind closed doors this year for a perceived lack of action over a certain leaked report. Never before have I met a mayor who will say, they're not commenting to the media on a matter and defer it to the general manager - why? 
2. Deputy Mayor, Alderman Rob Soward Although he offers a few alternative opinions at times, many in the council chamber would probably think Alderman Soward must just like the sound of his own voice. ... He has a long way to go if he wants to be anywhere near as respected or engaged with the community. 
3. Alderman Jim Cox As many before him and I'm sure many to come, the ex-state Labor minister has chosen to retire slowly and slip out of public life while sitting on the council. He's got good background knowledge, knows how the political game works and is forthright with residents' concerns. Alderman Cox is probably the one to never, ever, take your eye off.
4. Alderman Hugh McKenzie  had his sights set on the top job - and by all accounts he has the credentials to do it. He's down to earth and certainly doesn't mind asking the simple, blunt questions during a council meeting to fully understand an issue. By all accounts, he's liked and respected by his colleagues. 
5. Alderman Danny Gibson has retained his "young gun" title in the new council and is not afraid to stand up and raise concerns about following due process - when it's blatantly lacking. He listens to both sides and makes decisions based on what he believes is the best for the council and the ratepayers at that specific time. Appears to remain impartial on matters. 
6. Alderman Robin McKendrick The last of the real old guard, a gentlemen of the council - Alderman McKendrick just scraped into the current line-up ... He's an active, community-minded alderman who likes a laugh and keeps his colleagues entertained with his quips, and is not afraid to speak out on issues. He has a talent for making a great argument for a motion, but then finishes it by saying he can't actually vote in favour of it. 
7. Alderman Ted Sands Outspoken on issues close to his heart or just those he feels need to be addressed - but getting that support from his colleagues is where he falters. He struggles on the follow through. Very community minded and actively gives his time to those who need it,.... The five new aldermen represent a significant shift to a younger, alternative vision for the city to 2018. A snapshot of their vision for the next four years: 
8. Alderman Darren Alexander With his Twitter account Mayor of Taz, Alderman Alexander openly admitted it has been a steep learning curve but he's keen to see some processes streamlined for greater effectiveness and engagement. He has broad international business experience and intends to provide a different perspective on matters, thereby hopefully opening people up to another way of thinking ... he was also interested in looking at how the council and the facilities it runs, could be more cost effective within the city and region. 
9. Alderman Andrea Dawkins is keen to keep many of her precouncil interests at the forefront of her mind, such as her involvement with Reactive Launceston. She intends to use her involvement in this group to help broaden the scope of the City Heart Project and what might stem from that in regards to how the city could be reinvigorated but also what the council hopes to achieve through it. This could be through how empty buildings and shops are used, business opening times, as well as encouraging more people to live in the city. 
10. Alderman Janie Finlay There's no denying Alderman Finlay is back in the chamber, as she came out firing at her first meeting and does not appear to be easing up. Alderman Finlay said she had already seen and/or experienced significant differences since her first time on the council and it was important to look beyond the four-year period and put the many council reports done to date, into practice. Her three key focus areas are - help build the elected "team", develop a relationship with the general manager and the community. 
11. Alderman Emma Williams While Alderman Williams knows that "roads, rates and rubbish are important for the day-to-day functionality" of the council she is keen to focus her efforts on the people. "At the same time, there is a need and a space within our city's representation for science and innovation, something that I hope to bring to my role, as well as fuller representation of our community," she said. Her ultimate aim is to see an increased rate of engagement by and with, all residents regardless of demographics. 
12. Alderman Simon Wood Following on his successful election campaign, Alderman Wood is keen to tackle some of the many issues raised with him, particularly around improving infrastructure, recreation areas, parking and inner-city living. He is also keen to attract more tourists and value-add to events already offered in the North. "Launceston is a great place to raise children so I commit to working hard towards a positive and sustainable future for all Launceston families," Alderman Wood said."

BUDGET CREDIBILITY & LCC

The Launceston City Council has a responsibility to demonstrate good governance in framing the forthcoming 2015/16 Budget to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability.

With the Consumer Price Index for Tasmania to March 2015 being only 0.9%, the Alderman have no other option than to declare a zero rate increase, including indirect fees and charges.

To speak of a rate increase of some 2.5% reflects poorly on our elected representatives who appear to not understand the depths of despair currently prevailing in our city.

Ian Routley

Launceston

Launceston's Aldermen