The Launceston City Council General Manager Robert Dobrzynski said "Overall the budget for the first quarter shows favourable results and if current trends continue we expect to come in $1.2 million ahead of budget at the end of the 2010/11 financial year. However, within this large scale operation there are areas which we will be focusing on improving immediately."
Mr Dobrzynski said "The Game On 2.0 exhibition at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) was down $341,000 on budget estimates. Whilst this world premiere exhibition attracted around 23,000 locals and visitors and feedback received from the community was extremely positive, the Council recognised there were risks associated with taking on such a large scale exhibition. However, we believed it was important to bring this high profile event to Tasmania as it provided a unique experience for the entire community, especially our young people. Game On 2.0 attracted a different demographic to the QVMAG who otherwise may not have visited this facility, including increased visitor numbers to the Planetarium. Despite being timed to coincide with two AFL games to capitalise on increased visitor numbers to the region and being backed by an extensive marketing campaign, the exhibition didn't attract enough entrants to cover the costs."
Mr Dobrzynski said "Launceston Aquatic's estimated revenue budget targets were down by $99,981. Visitor entries did not meet projected levels for the first quarter. In addition, as this is a seasonal facility and is still relatively new, we don't have historic data on usage patterns; therefore the timing of revenue flow across the budget year is difficult to judge. As we come out of winter into the busy summer months, we are continuing to roll out initiatives to ensure we meet budget targets at the end of the financial year. A major review of operating costs for Launceston Aquatic is being undertaken with a specific focus on reducing gas and electricity costs."
Mr Dobrzynski said "These Council provided facilities are essential for the community. However with an emphasis by Council on reducing rubbish to landfill and maintaining a modern regional landfill site, costs to meet standards required are considerable. "We have strongly advocated to the State Government that there is not sufficient recognition within funding the Council receives that the City of Launceston provides a range of regional programs and facilities that are paid for by a small portion of the greater city population - Launceston City Council ratepayers. We have raised this when Cabinet met in Launceston in August this year and have already sought a further meeting with the State Treasurer and Grants Commission to discuss these issues."
Mr Dobrzynski said "Launceston Aquatic's estimated revenue budget targets were down by $99,981. Visitor entries did not meet projected levels for the first quarter. In addition, as this is a seasonal facility and is still relatively new, we don't have historic data on usage patterns; therefore the timing of revenue flow across the budget year is difficult to judge. As we come out of winter into the busy summer months, we are continuing to roll out initiatives to ensure we meet budget targets at the end of the financial year. A major review of operating costs for Launceston Aquatic is being undertaken with a specific focus on reducing gas and electricity costs."
Revenue at the Launceston Waste Centre was down $151,000. This was due to a reduction in the quantity of rubbish being deposited by garbage collection contractors. Council, the community and industry work actively to encourage recycling and minimise waste generation which means less waste is going to landfill. Whether this trend will be ongoing is being investigated.
Mr Dobrzynski said "These Council provided facilities are essential for the community. However with an emphasis by Council on reducing rubbish to landfill and maintaining a modern regional landfill site, costs to meet standards required are considerable. "We have strongly advocated to the State Government that there is not sufficient recognition within funding the Council receives that the City of Launceston provides a range of regional programs and facilities that are paid for by a small portion of the greater city population - Launceston City Council ratepayers. We have raised this when Cabinet met in Launceston in August this year and have already sought a further meeting with the State Treasurer and Grants Commission to discuss these issues."
5 comments:
This Council has comprehensively demonstrated that they can spend ratepayers' money but cannot help offset rates with useful income.
Instead they put on more loss making initiatives that keep costing us more, while rewarding them with bigger budgets and salaries.
What possible relevance did a computer games exhibition have in our Museum? It isn't a science museum!
If the Council can do no better than raise rates when they have a 20% reduction in expenses, they have demonstrated conclusively that they cannot manage our money responsibly. They should focus on delivering quality service and staying inside ratepayers' ability to pay.
A bunch of losses, and cranking rates UP when expenses go DOWN, is favourable to who exactly?
It is finally time to get real and stop the nonsense. For instance, unless there is alternative evidence the Game On exhibition turns out to have lost the Director's annual salary by about three.
Another way of looking at it is, The $341 that went down the toilet is approximately equivalent to Launceston Mayor's salary plus the General Manager's salary.
Or put another way it represented approximately 10% of Council's ratepayer contribution to the QVMAG for a year.
Or put yet another way the whole exercise represents a $20 investment in a folly on behalf of 29,500 ratepayers only to return them $10 and all of this on Council's clear failure to do due diligence and on top of the $120 aprox. secret QVMAG tax per rateable property in LCC jurisdiction.
Or put another way $341,000 would be the price of substantial house in many parts of Launceston and all the General Manager can say is OOOPPZ in bureau spin.
Now that is for the museum loss alone. Then there are all the others and Council signs off on an additional $1.2 million expenditure from savings, none of it to debt retirement – spend, spend, spend!
Where is the fiscal responsibility? Where is accountability in all this? AND the heading says"Council first quarter budget shows favourable results" Like I say get real!
HEY that was $341 THOUSAND that was lost!! That really really big bickeys
$341,000 is about 10% of the Council's (ratepayers') contribution to the museum...and the GM thinks that performance is OK?
Losing 10% of the budget???
Where's this guy from? Lehman Bros?
Post a Comment