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