Alison Andrews heading in the Examiner yesterday "Aquatic centre in a sea of red" was very cold comfort for Launceston's ratepayers ... click here to read more"A $30,000 review has been urgently commissioned to find ways to stop the Launceston Aquatic Centre from bleeding $1.2 million a year." Again $30K seems like a magic number ... wasn't that what it cost the then GM, Frank Dixon, for dancers to open the place?
Launceston City Council's newish GM, Robert Dobrzynski "wants their (the consultants') recommendations on his desk by early next month so that there is time to use their findings in the preparation of the council budget for next financial year." Word has it that he's already told them what they must tell him but there you go that's how bureaucracy works these days – expensive consultant advice at almost every turn.
Now ratepayers told Council – Aldermen & officers – back in August 2007 in a MEDIA RELEASE that this foolhardy venture was bound to cost ratepayers dearly. Trouble is it was FREE ADVICE and totally dismissible because it came from ratepayers ... click here to read the 2007 Media Release
Curiously, Mr Dobrzynski's allies, as he sees it on this issue, are most likely to be "the ratepayers" since there are Aldermen who would prefer to keep all this stuff behind closed doors – especially in an election year. He knows that if this happens he'll end up wearing all the odium of poor Aldermanic decision-making down the line. This is demonstrated by the trouble he is having getting a unanimous Aldermanic tick of approval for a public consultation meeting for the 2011-2012 budget.
You see quite a few of them believe in the 'Divine Right of Aldermen' and the abdication theory. That is the one that goes, ratepayers have voted us in so we do not need to consult them because in voting for us they passed all responsibility to us. Apparently, in this theory accountability is discretionary.
It appears that the aquatic centre was over budget by more than $416,000 for the last quarter alone, with fears that the annual loss will rise above $1.2 million. However, down at Town Hall the budget process is a lot to do with smoke and mirrors and the REAL LOSSES are likely to be much greater if all the project's costs are counted – and they are not likely to be. It seems "quality assurance" and "performance assessments" are sensitive terms.
It also seems that the Aldermen, like mushrooms, are in the dark here and fed copious quantities of male bovine excrement. There are good arguments to suggest that the FULL cost of the centre have been hidden away for some reason.
Back in 2007, when ratepayers predicted all this, Launceston's ratepayers were never told about the full costs of the project or that they will be subsidising and paying off this Regional facility forever at the rate of some $86 per ratepayer per annum. As rates rise there are fewer places to hide as ratepayer turn over more rocks looking accountability.
It was time then but isn't it also about time now that all of Launceston ratepayers were democratically and directly polled on this project – its an election year remember. Or, do we need a 1,000 signature petition to hold a plebiscite to vote on the future of the Aquatic Centre? Or, do we need to indulge in civic amnesia for the benefit of the Aldermen who championed this diabolical, and ego boosting, project in the face of contrary advice, reason and logic.
This is but one issue but let's see if Mr Dobrzynski gets his public consultation meeting on the budget, and if he does, let's see what it reveals. General Managers go and new ones come but many of the Aldermen who burdened the ratepayers with an aquatic centre they could ill afford are still there. Let's see them scurrying for cover in coming weeks as their budget strategies ( past & present) unfold and unravel.
In the end there is no comfort at all in being able to say "I told you so."
Launceston City Council's newish GM, Robert Dobrzynski "wants their (the consultants') recommendations on his desk by early next month so that there is time to use their findings in the preparation of the council budget for next financial year." Word has it that he's already told them what they must tell him but there you go that's how bureaucracy works these days – expensive consultant advice at almost every turn.
Now ratepayers told Council – Aldermen & officers – back in August 2007 in a MEDIA RELEASE that this foolhardy venture was bound to cost ratepayers dearly. Trouble is it was FREE ADVICE and totally dismissible because it came from ratepayers ... click here to read the 2007 Media Release
Curiously, Mr Dobrzynski's allies, as he sees it on this issue, are most likely to be "the ratepayers" since there are Aldermen who would prefer to keep all this stuff behind closed doors – especially in an election year. He knows that if this happens he'll end up wearing all the odium of poor Aldermanic decision-making down the line. This is demonstrated by the trouble he is having getting a unanimous Aldermanic tick of approval for a public consultation meeting for the 2011-2012 budget.
You see quite a few of them believe in the 'Divine Right of Aldermen' and the abdication theory. That is the one that goes, ratepayers have voted us in so we do not need to consult them because in voting for us they passed all responsibility to us. Apparently, in this theory accountability is discretionary.
It appears that the aquatic centre was over budget by more than $416,000 for the last quarter alone, with fears that the annual loss will rise above $1.2 million. However, down at Town Hall the budget process is a lot to do with smoke and mirrors and the REAL LOSSES are likely to be much greater if all the project's costs are counted – and they are not likely to be. It seems "quality assurance" and "performance assessments" are sensitive terms.
It also seems that the Aldermen, like mushrooms, are in the dark here and fed copious quantities of male bovine excrement. There are good arguments to suggest that the FULL cost of the centre have been hidden away for some reason.
Back in 2007, when ratepayers predicted all this, Launceston's ratepayers were never told about the full costs of the project or that they will be subsidising and paying off this Regional facility forever at the rate of some $86 per ratepayer per annum. As rates rise there are fewer places to hide as ratepayer turn over more rocks looking accountability.
It was time then but isn't it also about time now that all of Launceston ratepayers were democratically and directly polled on this project – its an election year remember. Or, do we need a 1,000 signature petition to hold a plebiscite to vote on the future of the Aquatic Centre? Or, do we need to indulge in civic amnesia for the benefit of the Aldermen who championed this diabolical, and ego boosting, project in the face of contrary advice, reason and logic.
This is but one issue but let's see if Mr Dobrzynski gets his public consultation meeting on the budget, and if he does, let's see what it reveals. General Managers go and new ones come but many of the Aldermen who burdened the ratepayers with an aquatic centre they could ill afford are still there. Let's see them scurrying for cover in coming weeks as their budget strategies ( past & present) unfold and unravel.
In the end there is no comfort at all in being able to say "I told you so."
16 comments:
What seems to be ignored here is the million plus dollars per year that ratepayers are up for in loan repayments and interest.
IF the council leases out the Windmill Hill facility as is rumoured my guess is that we the ratepayers will finish up paying the lease-holder money to provide a service. So on top of the loan and its interest there’ll be this amount hidden in the bureaucratic smoke screen.
Ratepayers cop it in the neck every which way.
God save us!
Mr Dobrzynski is reported as having an objective to put a model to Aldermen before the budget that will markedly turn around the financial operation of the pool. If he is so sure he can achieve this why hasn't he already done it, he is being paid to manage after all , indeed, why hasn't the highly-paid pool manager taken such an initiative ?
If the Aquatic Centre was over budget by $416,000 in the last quarter - the summer season when there should have been less energy cost to warm the pool and the most punters going through the doors, what hope is there for the winter season ?
Where is the alleged community criticism about much of the infrastructure not being used ?
The only criticism I hear is about the awful waste of ratepayers money this whole sorry saga has been.
I am suspicious that this is just a set up by Council's management to argue that Launceston City Council should waste more ratepayers money to set up a gymnasium and other facilities in competition with existing gymnasium businesses around the town that pay rates.
A quick scan of the Yellow Pages will tell you there is no shortage of gyms and fitness centres in and around Launceston. Council can't argue there is a market failure to justify setting up in opposition to hard working private operators already doing it tough !!
London to a brick that these consultants were previously known to Mr Dobrzynski and they will recommend further expenditure of ratepayer's money on creating new services, like FREE childcare so the space is used. The only way to stem the bleeding is to close the place down altogether and write it all down to experience.
It is obscene that while some ratepayers huddle together in a room with a single bar radiator, they are being forced to pay rates so others can swim in tropical conditions. No surprise Mr General Manager, that energy consumption is high and 'very significant'. All those acres of glass and inadequate insulation means the building will never pass even the most basic tests for energy efficiency.
Hmmm, I had a look at my crystal ball, highly paid consultants run workshops with council management and pool staff, (lots of the best catering brought in, throw in a trip to Melbourne on a Thursday to do site visits and stay for the footy on Saturday), come up with a plan to spend another $400,000 or more to buy gym equipment and then lease the LOT for a peppercorn rent to some mate of the Aldermen with the loudest voice!
Next year, ratepayers will be asked to pick up a tab for $1.8 million as the leasee could not make a go of it.
This has been happening at the Albert Hall in recent decades too!
All this while the three Mayoral candidates for later this year (Soward, Sands and McKendrick) vote not to have public consultation on the LCC Budget.
Alderman Soward a mayoral candidate?? Interestingly I have said nothing about that so Im interested to read " Jane's " speculation.. I would not support an attempt to use ratepayers money to set up a gymnasium and other facilities in competition with existing gym businesses around the city that already pay rates.
There is no shortage of gyms and fitness centres in Launceston and these private operators are already doing it hard in the tough economic climate we face.
Further to this on the subject of consultation on the council budget I can safely say I receive dozens of emails, letters and phone calls suggesting projects for council to consider as part of its budget and in my role as alderman I take those to officers to examine. The wishes of the community are always at the forefront of the way I work and I always take these suggestions to the table.My point around consultation on the budget was a common sense one in that its easy to say " I dont use Aurora Stadium and hate football so dont give it any money" which is a comment I get from some ratepayers.Further to this is the idea that people have said to me that rates should be cut- if this happened where would council find monies to fund other things it does like discounted refuse deposit for pensioners, the free Tiger bus etc. A budget has to be seen in its entirety- I for one pay a huge medicare levy to the federal govt each year through tax and go to the doctor once a year but understand that its about a community sharing the cost. To me budgeting is year long process and I will always take community suggestions seriously and to officers and council for costings and exploration of including them in the budget.
Ok then, where are the responses from those Aldermen who approved this ill-fated development at Windmill Hill?
Even the more-recently elected Aldermen are not absolved from responsibility here, because the out-of-control operating costs have been allowed to occur during their "watch".
So come on, speak please.
Jane seems to have hit a raw nerve there, but Alderman Soward has not denied he will be a candidate for Mayor.
Mr Soward, as a self-funded retiree, living in the same home I have owned for 35 years, but now increasingly unaffordable with the rates payable on it, I would welcome the opportunity to go back to the $1700 a year in rates I paid 5 years ago and pay for my own bus and true cost ofa swim twice a week.
The alderman doth protest too much, methinks. The purpose of community consultation is precisely to guage the community's opinion on expenditure such as free buses and 'other' services of dubious value dreamed up by a bureaucracy intent on bulking up its budget. Mr Soward has clearly not questioned the cost versus benefit of these two 'services'let alone other budget items that serve to extract income from Launceston's long suffering citizens.
You can bet on Mr Dobrzynski not telling his consultants about the consultation that is going on here. It is all a bit too frank and not what a consultant should see.
No raw nerves there "TARZAN", I just find it interesting when people state "facts" on the internet when they have not been investigated nor confirmed ..as an Alderman I can't make anonymous statements on the internet that have no factual basis.I have had several people and groups / organisations ask me if I was intending to stand for Mayor or Deputy Mayor[ as I'm sure they have also asked other alderman] and I have made no commitment to that several months away from nominations either way.So to read here that I'm a mayoral candidate was most informative ;-)
I also look forward to seeing members of this forum at our budget sessions in the upcoming weeks and look forward to hearing their contributions and their written submissions. I seriously hope theres lots of people who attend and have their say after taking the time to read through the budget papers as they are made available.One of the things I have learnt is it is about trying to make as many things as possible work properly in our community and juggle those with in the budget.The Tiger Bus is something some have been cynical about but it provides an important service for people without cars,or people who want to keep cars out of the city, its free and the usage is growing.Its also supported by good research has outlined in the Gehl report and wil lget better as hopefully more park and ride centres are identified.Id personally like to see it run from Youngtown, from Mowbray and Norwood to provide good coverage across the city area.I also think the State government should do more here to support our initiative given they have done that with the Kingston scheme.Alderman Dean moved a motion which I seconded where we wrote to the Minister Nick McKim about this.
Post a Comment