LAUNCESTON ACQUATIC: A RESPONSE TO THE SMOKE, MIRRORS & SLEDGEHAMMER

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

It seems that the Launceston City Council practice of using smoke and mirrors and a sledgehammer has a new variant. This in its virtually illegible Facebook 'infographic' here: 

https://www.facebook.com/CityofLauncestonOfficial/photos/a.683841008381743.1073741830.668302109935633/804427306323112/?type=3&theater 

This new charm offensive sure lays on sweetness and light and some motherhood for good measure. 

Why upgrade and spend more money on a massive black hole that loses more money than ever budgeted and steadily increasing no matter what they try to stem the losses. The promise is to improve the situation but that fails to happen, it only gets worse. Last year budgeted loss $1.8M, this year budgeted loss more than $2.0M.

Here is where the sweetness recedes and the spin begins. Sure, there is such a thing known as the Proposed Statutory Estimates and sure enough the estimates were put out for public consultation for a second time on 27 April http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=769&langID=1 

At the bottom of this page you find:

 http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/_council/community_engagement/councils_budget_201516/10__recreation_and_sport.pdf 

This document highlights presumably the most important expenditure that Council wishes ratepayers to be informed about. There is reference to: Launceston Aquatic - Waterplay equipment upgrade ($20,000). This project will retrofit new interactive waterplay equipment. 

So council is spending some money on the kiddies, who is going to object to that. And that is the objective of this carefully prepared factsheet. It is more a red herring to stop anyone from enquiring further. With the benefit of hindsight we now know there is a budget somewhere, challenge is to find it. But the question can reasonably be asked, why highlight a relatively small expenditure and not the higher expenditure. 

On the same page, there is a link to the Statutory Estimates

 http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/upfiles/lcc/cont/_council/council/council_meetings/council_meeting_agendas/27_april_2015/attachment__proposed_2016_budget__statutory_estimates_2016.pdf 

Use the link and hope that your connection is fast, it will take a while to see it if not. The challenge then is to go through it, then make a written submission by no later than 12 noon on Monday, May 11. Easy. Sure enough on page 35 of 73 there it is in its radiant transparency are 5 projects adding up to $275,000 fence, pool covers, outdoor gym equipment, a new sign (no one knows where the pool is, if only a sign would being in the punters). An ugly, no doubt illuminated sign is next. 

This is community consultation when you don't want consultation and you don't care about the community, tick the box. 

The true measure of the consultation is in the quality and quantity of response. Ratepayers are never told that. How many responses were there to the consultation overall and how many were gushing in support of the fence, the pool cover, the sign, the play equipment, the outdoor gym equipment , how many were against? 

Wonderful, no question as to how the current design security is deficient, who is responsible for the brief that resulted in the deficient design. The council has no doubt identified a host of pool users that love placing their towels on the large area covered in pine needles. 

Shocking. 

Wonderful, if the council really had an energy efficiency program it would have built a better, albeit smaller but still adequate building. What are the heat loses of the outdoor pool, for how many months of the year is the pool heated. Pool covers need labour to install and remove each day, there is no operating expenditure allowance in the budget. What activities will be dropped to allow the resources for the operation of the covers. 

Lovely. No mention of the land that is being taken away from public access by this action. A lot of people never go to the pool, that is why its losses amount to nearly 4% of rate revenue. 

Nothing special here, all Development Applications are advertised. But the process leaves no room for other community concerns like loss of public open space, cost and the like. 

Inadequate sketchy details in Development Application are a contributing factor, the Development application drawings are deliberately difficult to read, and cannot even be printed onto paper. A press release from the Mayor highlighting the waste and cost would have ensured different reporting.

So why weren’t these figures included in the development application? There was nothing to hide except that Launceston residents are losing more than 1,000 square meters of public open space so that in can become private space for the Council Owned gym. Why not run bootcamp gym classes in the park as is? 

This does not ring true given Examiner report 12/10/15 that reads During Monday's council meeting, Launceston City Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski asked to withdraw the application. 

Mr Dobrzynski asked that time be provided to further assess the strategic merit of the fence, before returning to a future council meeting for discussion. 

There is no confusion in the public’s mind, the proposal smacks of incompetence and a wilful disregard for ratepayer concerns, the small error in the Examiner drawing is just that, a small error. Why not issue a press release from the Mayor and General Manager showing their united position on the project instead of a hard to read ‘infographic’. 

PO'ed Management Consultant Ratepayer