PRE BUDGET ADVICE FOR LAUNCESTON

Well the new year is almost upon us and ratepayers are at the beach or somewhere else NOT thinking about fiscal matters. Curiously on the last working day in 2012 when the LCC Offices are closed, when the GM is on leave, when presumably all LCC Directors are on ‘compulsory’ leave this email is sent out to ratepayers asking them to make an input into the Launceston City Council’s financial planning process. For those who didn’t get the email it reads:

“2013/14 Budget - Get involved for your chance to win the latest iPad!

It's budget time for Launceston City Council and we want to hear from you prior to the 2013/14 budget formulation. Please take 1 minute to complete the Quick Poll and 3 minutes to complete the 2013-14 Budget Survey. Your responses will provide us with valuable information to help us meet your expectations. By completing the survey you could win an iPad! Have your say today on the 2013/14 Budget at http://yourvoiceyourlaunceston.com.au/2013-14budget”

Now you can imagine what a cynic might say about this and just how much notice the budgeters will be taking of the so so few responses quite deliberately sought right now. NOT TO MENTION the so so few who will be up for the incentive of an iPad. Apparently the GM thinks that these things are just the cats whiskers but if you write to him today this is what you get in reply: “ Thank you for your email. I am currently on leave, returning on Monday 14th January 2013. If the matter is urgent please forward your email to my office to linda.tourancheau@launceston.tas.gov.au or janine.walter@launceston.tas.gov.au whom may be able to assist in my absence.
Kind Regards, etc. etc.”

When you get this you know that everyone at Town Hall is hanging out for your input. However, over at Glamorgan, Spring Bay Council Mayor Bertrand Cadart is out today showing leadership and exploring ways to permanently solve his community's medical services problem. Mayor Bertrand Cadart sets a pace others seem reluctant to emulate.

2012: How [Launceston's] aldermen rated

                                                                    The Examiner By PATRICK BILLINGS Dec. 26, 2012, 11:04 p.m.
JUST THE POINT SCORES
1.   Jeremy Ball: 8.5 … At times oblique and short on detail.

2.   Hugh McKenzie: 4.5  …. Underwhelming …. but beneath the surface alderman McKenzie has been busying himself

3.   Jim Cox: 7.5 The former  Labor local government minister who returned to politics in 2011

4.   Danny Gibson: 7.5 … The young Turk has hit the ground running in his first year.

5.   Annette Waddle: 4.5  …. Known as the mayor of Mowbray, Alderman Waddle protects the interest of northern Launceston in almost tribal fashion

6.   Albert van Zetten: 8 … Alderman van Zetten places great emphasis on the ``chairperson'' role of the city's mayor.

7.   Rob Soward: 7 …. A conviction politician who wears his heart on his sleeve

8.   Tony Peck: 6 … Always an active proponent for development and business in Launceston

9.   Robin McKendrick: 6.5 ….  Alderman McKendrick celebrated 10 years as head of the York Park and Inveresk Precinct Authority in 2012

10. Ian Norton: 5 … Alderman Norton's best moment this year was organising the council's regional economic summit,

11. Rosemary Armitage: 6.5 … Strong-willed, energetic, stubborn and smart …

12. Ted Sands: 7 …  A council long-termer who will often pick up and run with a cause …

THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS WHEN WILL THE EXAMINER RATE THE OTHER COUNCILS IN ITS REGION
AND
 THE PERFORMANCE OF LAUNCESTON’S GM

COMMENTS ONLINE                  

• ... if they are so good why are our rates so high and why did we waste over $250,000 on a bike track in newstead and why did we waste $250,000 on attempting to put in trees on wellington st and why .........
• ... and why don't the above group of whingers put themselves forward as candidates for the council so they can be rated next time. I wonder how they would all fare? .........
• ... and why can't you find your caps lock key? You're hurting our eyes, please turn it down .........
• ... Can only assume that is a score out of 100 ?? .........
• ... The Normanstone Road fiasco is an example of wasted money and inflated egos of these whizz kids who keep reinventing the wheel! ......... Help us from them and their impracticable grandiose ideas and repeated stuffups! .........
  

AND THERE ARE MORE AND QUITE LIKELY MORE STILL BY NOW

Click on this link to read the full story ... http://www.examiner.com.au/story/1205577/2012-how-the-aldermen-rated/?cs=95

[PERMATECTURE TIMES] West Tamar Council: Here is a problem worth solving

Click Here ... To put this advertisement in context. the challenge is now out for an environmentally sustainable and aesthetically appropriate solution with community support

We trust that it will be possible for the Council 

make this an exemplar that sets the pace

--
Posted By EDITOR to PERMATECTURE TIMES on 12/26/2012 04:30:00 PM

Mayor Treats Ratepayers With Distain

Click on the image to enlarge

LETTER TO LCC: Launceston City Council Special Meeting 17 December 2012

Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc.
P.O. Box 1035,
LAUNCESTON TAS 7250
03 6331 6144

17th. December 2012,
 
Mayor Albert van Zettan
Launceston City Council
Town Hall
St John Street
LAUNCESTON   Tas      7250

Dear Mayor,                                    URGENT COMMUNICATION

Re: Launceston City Council Special Meeting 17 December 2012
 
We wrote to you concerning the Inveresk site and UTAS on 14th December, and are very disappointed that we did not receive a reply from you.
 
The communications from the General Manager and belatedly from the Director of Corporate Services do not constitute replies to the requests for information we are quite properly seeking.
 
It is of considerable concern to ratepayers to learn that the concept of developing housing on the Inveresk site was an initiative of the General Manager, who approached UTAS just over a year ago, to entice them from otherwise developing land they already own and favoured at Newnham.
 
This is not the first time that UTAS has also sought freehold ownership of other land and buildings at Inveresk, because it was in the period when Bob Campbell was General Manager that UTAS approached Council and was firmly refused.
 
It is also of concern to learn that the General Manager approached Treasury in November 2011 to ask them to lift restrictions on development at Invermay, that the State Government had imposed as a condition of them funding the Flood Levee Reconstruction project. Treasury has apparently had a change of view following the departure of Don Challen, and current personnel have somewhat conceded that this housing project could be excluded from the embargo applying to other Invermay/Inveresk property owners.
 
This housing project has been incorrectly called Student Housing, whereas it is in fact housing for low income residents, some of whom may be students, but certainly not exclusively or even in the majority.
 
UTAS has had an approval for 770 NRAS units.  This means they get in rough terms $770*$10,000*10years.  So for Launceston they get 120*$10,000*10years = 12 million over 10 years plus rent at 80% of the going rate.  After 10 years they are free to sell to whoever.

The tenants are chosen by the UTAS as the administrator.  Tenants are meant to be anyone with a lower income.  It is not just for students, but we could well imagine that at least 120 students would apply.
 
The following link gives greater detail:
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programs-services/national-rental-affordability-scheme/national-rental-affordability-section-round-4-outcomes

NRAS provides a substantial annual tax-free incentive, called the NRAS Incentive, to the business sector and community organizations who build and rent dwellings to low and moderate income households at a rate that is a least 20 per cent below the prevailing market rate.
We believe that by undercutting local rentals by 20%, the existing local rental market, particularly that occupied already by students, will be decimated. This is, in our opinion, a most destructive action that does not advantage the local economy.
 
Current Incentive
The annual income-tax free Incentive for NRAS projects is currently $9,981 per dwelling, and is indexed each year to the rental component of the CPI.
The Incentive comprises:
•               an Australian Government contribution of $7,486 per dwelling per year (paid as a refundable tax offset or payment); and
•               a State or Territory Government contribution of $2,495 per dwelling per year (in direct or in-kind financial support).

On 27 February when the Launceston Planning Scheme was amended, the planner stated
The desirability of locating student accommodation within the Inveresk Precinct:
An opportunity has arisen (in partnership with the University of Tasmania) to seek funding for the development of new student accommodation in conjunction with educational facilities within the Inveresk Precinct.
There are a number of strategic benefits to this.

The site is a desirable and central location to provide for dedicated student accommodation.
 
It was argued that:
“Student accommodation can be differentiated from private dwellings as importantly the residents are non permanent and temporary in nature.  Should flood inundation then occur the impacts and disruption to the community would be less severe and easier to manage.”
Importantly, it must be noted that the NRAS scheme is NOT STUDENT ACCOMMODATION but permanent housing for low income people.

The General Manager said on 26 November 2012
 
The General Manager replied that Council is not going outside its core business in terms of the student accommodation at Inveresk. The student accommodation is EMRAS funded from the Commonwealth and that is in fact low income housing rather than student accommodation specifically. In this instance it is being used for low income and student accommodation. UTAS' ability to gain funding from the Commonwealth is contingent upon the number of units constructed being occupied by low income individuals for them to gain the grant funding. In terms of core business of Council one of the Heads of Agreement signed in 1992 relating to the transfer of that particular Inveresk site to Council related to the provision of low income housing accommodation on that particular site and it is a very specific part of the Heads of Agreement signed by the State Government, the Launceston City Council and Australian National Railways.

The GM statement is not in agreement with the Planning amendment notes.
If one observes the parties that get money for this type of housing development, many are ultra commercial operations, and there is no need to give the land away for free and make them exempt from paying rates to the City.

There is no need for the remaining UTAS buildings to be given to the University. Universities are changing and it could well be that the physical footprint of the university shrinks to Hobart as more courses go online.
 
We need hardly remind LCC  Aldermen of the sale of land to the Store it Safe  buildings for it only to be bought back at huge cost later.

The Agenda for your special meeting was not made public until it was placed on Council's website at the end of the afternoon on Friday 14th December. This denial of information has denied the ratepaying public of any knowledge of this matter, its detailed implications and the ability to make representations to Council, either in writing or in person.
The only public information has been a relatively obscure newspaper notice on 12 December, stating :
 
·     UTAS Student Accommodation at the Inveresk Precinct
 
This in no way alerts ratepayers to what Council is to consider at the Special Meeting today, and does not identify the value of assets proposed to be given away to UTAS.
 
Accordingly, we urge Council to defer any decision on this agenda item until it next meets in January 2013, so as to give Launceston ratepayers the proper opportunity to familiarise themselves with this proposal and for Aldermen to take into account the community's viewpoint.
 
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Lionel J. Morrell
President
for and on behalf of Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

Mr Tidey responds with a value?

click on the image to enlarge

RECEIVED @ 4:09 PM

Request for Property Values at Inveresk

 Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc.

P.O. Box 1035,

LAUNCESTON TAS 7250

03 6331 6144

14th. December 2012,

Mr. Michael Tidey

Corporate Services Director

Launceston City Council

Town Hall

St John Street

LAUNCESTON   Tas      7250

Dear Mr. Tidey,                                    URGENT COMMUNICATION

Re: Launceston City Council Special Meeting 17 December 2012

The General Manager has advised that you are working on providing the information concerning the value of certain properties at Inveresk, about which I raised a question at the Launceston City Council's Annual General Meeting last week.

I am writing to you now, having already written to the General Manager, to ascertain the reason why it is now the end of the second week since the question was asked, and I am yet to be provided with the information.

I would have thought this information would be readily available from Council's files and database, and ought not be an onerous task to ascertain. I also note that Council is holding a Special Council Meeting on Monday, and that the officer's recommendation is that these properties be handed over to UTAS. I would have expected that considering the likely value of these ratepayer-owned assets, you would have already established a value for each part of this property, as part of a due diligence procedure associated with the officers' recommendations to Council.

Please email the information to this address as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,

 Lionel J. Morrell

President

for and on behalf of Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

GM Robert Dobrzynski Responds

From: Robert Dobrzynski
Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012 2:39 PM To: Lionel Morrell Cc: Mayor; records Subject: RE: Launceston City Council Special Meeting 17 December 2012 Hi Lionel,

I regret that we have been unable to provide more advanced notice of the agenda for the Special Meeting beyond the legislative requirements. As you would be aware it is the Council's practice to endeavour to do so whenever possible. I received the last, and most critical piece of information for the agenda at 4.56pm yesterday. My staff have advised me that the specific button for access to the agenda on the Council's website page will be available within the hour. 

In regard to your question taken on notice at the Council Annual General Meeting, I understand that Mike Tidey is preparing the information.

Regards,

 
Robert Dobrzynski
General Manager
Launceston City Council
M 0417 158 541
T 03 6323 3102
F 03 6323 3493   

Dear Robert,

Thankyou for sending me the relative legislative basis for Special Council Meetings. I had already researched this, and I am not sure if this accords with Council’s policies for such which are additional imposts on the process, of course.

I continue to be disappointed that you have not included the Agenda and associate documents, and I am surprised these are still not available.

I do not understand the urgency for the particular items that would warrant a special meeting. These matters seem to me at least, rather routine.

I also take the opportunity to remind you that the question I raised at the AGM about the value of ratepayer’s assets at Inveresk, still has not been answered as we near the end of the second week. You made the aside when I asked the question of the Mayor, that had it been asked in writing, then you would have provided it at the AGM.

Of course, the question of gifting these assets to UTAS wasn’t known publicly at the time the deadline for written questions had closed, so it wasn’t recognised as an issue.

I hope that my earlier letter to the Mayor will also be answered by him, as I don’t think you have covered the whole matter as the individual with the legislative authority to prepare the Agenda for Special Meetings of Council.

Regards,

Lionel Morrell

President 

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

From: Robert Dobrzynski 

Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012 11:03 AM

To:  Lionel Morrell

Cc: Mayor; Aldermen

Subject: Launceston City Council Special Meeting 17 December 2012

Dear Lionel,

I note your communication to the Mayor and Aldermen regarding the availability of the agenda for the Special Council Meeting to be held on Monday December 17. I note further your inscription URGENT COMMUNICATION on the communication.

As the individual with the legislative authority to prepare the agenda for Special Meetings of Council and in view of the urgency you have attached to the requirement for a response, I have expedited my consideration and reply to the matters you have raised.

Please find attached an extract from the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005. In particular, I would refer you to the provisions of Regulations 8 (1) (b) (i) and 8 (8).

The Council is complying with all provisions of the regulations in regard to the notice and agenda for Special Meetings of Council. The very nature of Special Meetings are outside of the normal scheduling of Council Meetings at which decisions are made by Aldermen. The requirements for notice of such Special Meetings are accordingly significantly shorter than those imposed upon Ordinary Meetings of the Council in order to accommodate the atypical circumstances of matters which come before Special Meetings for consideration.

Please be assured that the Council makes every endeavour to provide as much notice as possible of Special Meetings, including details regarding the reports and issues that will be considered at such Special Meetings. On occasions however circumstances beyond the Council's control vitiate these endeavours.

Robert Dobrzynski 

General Manager 

Launceston City Council 

M 0417 158 541 

T 03 6323 3102 

F 03 6323 3493 

URGENT LETTER TO LAUNCESTON'S MAYOR & ALDERMEN

Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc.
P.O. Box 1035,
LAUNCESTON TAS 7250
03 6331 6144
14th. November 2012,

Mayor Albert van Zettan
Launceston City Council
Town Hall
St John Street
LAUNCESTON Tas 7250

Dear Mayor, URGENT COMMUNICATION
Re: Launceston City Council Special Meeting 17 December 2012

Launceston City Council published an advertisement in The Examiner newspaper on 12 December 2012, advising there will be a Special Meeting of Council to be held, listing the following 4 items as items to be discussed:

• Representation to Interim Planning Scheme
• UTAS Student Accommodation at the Inveresk Precinct
• Albert Hall Cafe and Venue Management
• Strategic Facility Development - Aurora Stadium
  

There has been no Agenda published or made available for this meeting.

As of the afternoon of 13 December (yesterday) there was no Agenda on display at the Service Centre; the LCC website had no reference to there being a Special Meeting on 17 December, or was there an Agenda listed there, and the website continued to announce that Council in recess from 10 December 2012until 29 January 2013.

A reasonable person may well ask

• Is the Special Meeting still to proceed on 17 December?
• How can members of the public be informed on the business to be conducted, recommendation/reports to be considered and whether they wish to be present to make a deputation?
• Has this meeting been announced in accordance with statutory requirements, the policies, principles and procedures of Council, and
• Is Council conducting itself in a fair and transparent manner that is in the public interest?
  

Your urgent response to the issues we raise here would be appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Lionel J. Morrell
President
for and on behalf of Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY GOING APPARENTLY GOING NOWHERE IN TASMANIA

Support for climate action on farms

3 November 2012
DAFF12/418LJ
Joint media release
Senator The Hon. Joe Ludwig, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator for Queensland
Mark Dreyfus QC MP, Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Member for Isaacs

---

Applications are now open for the Gillard Government’s $64 million Carbon Farming Futures Extension and Outreach Program.

Individuals and organisations can apply for grants to assist farmers and land managers to adopt technologies and practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and participate in the Carbon Farming Initiative.

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig, said the program will help farmers to financially benefit from creating Carbon Farming Initiative carbon credits.

“This program provides farmers with the one-to-one assistance they need to make land sector emissions management part of their normal business decision making,” Minister Ludwig said.

“Funding is available for agribusinesses, farming groups, industry organisations and extension organisations to deliver climate action information to people on the ground.

“Many greenhouse gas abatement practices also have productivity benefits that make sense for farmers to adopt—this program is about extending that to real world, on-farm adoption of the new technologies and practices.”

“This is a great opportunity to take climate research to the next level and share its benefits with farmers and land managers, with funds available over the next five years,” said Mark Dreyfus, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

“These grants will also provide funding for targeted industry and regional initiatives. That could mean anything from industry-specific decision support tools to district workshops,” he said.

Applications are open until April 2016, while funds remain, with a bulk assessment at least twice each year. To be included in the first assessment, applications are due 5 pm, 19 December 2012.

To find out more visit www.daff.gov.au/cff, email EandO@daff.gov.au or call 1800 283 940.

A New Option For Rubbish Management to Consider and Reject

AN author and environmental entrepreneur is claiming that fly farming could help save the planet. Jason Drew, author of The Story of the Fly and how it could save the World, believes that the insect, widely regarded as a pest, should be used to provide a protein-rich diet for chickens and fish. Fly larvae provides a natural alternative to fishmeal as an animal feed - helping reduce the pressure on our overfished seas, he argues ... CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

It's All About Rubbish Management!

WHAT DOES LAUNCESTON'S COUNCIL THINK OF BIOCHAR AND PYROLYSIS?

Well it seems that the argument goes like this:  "Biochar is a pyrolysis process that can be termed as one treatment option under the 'Biomass' banner of treatment options. Biochar has been raised over the last few years as the panacea of treatment options to lock up carbon and apply that to the soil. The technology is unproven and no plant exists in Australia. There have been 2 large overseas plants (Austria - $400M) but both have failed. The treatment option was identified in the report 'Opportunities for Launceston Resource Recovery Facility' by Blue Environment which reported that 'Smaller scale systems are not currently technically or commercial proven for mixed Municipal Solid Waste.' Any research of this technology is at least a state government initiative or more likely a federal issue."

Despite being alerted to the opportunities, and presumably the funding that has been available, the Council recalcitrantly sticks to its lazy thinking an apparently is even refusing to research their options in consultation with a Council that is on its was to making this kind of thinking looking like it is, tiny minded ... click here to read more and see the emerging opportunities

http://tasmaniansustainablecommunities.blogspot.com.au/p/biochar-pyrolosis_3.html

Melbourne City Council seems to be on the ball and the case!

http://www.theland.com.au/news/state/agribusiness/general-news/big-future-for-biochar/2254619.aspx

If some Councils cannot see ahead farmers seem to able to imagine a better future!

RUBBISH MANAGEMENT IN LAUNCESTON

Click here to go to this story's source

THIS IS AN OLD STORY BUT A GOODY

First Posted: Tuesday September 2, 2008

It’s a frightening concept: the average Australian produces about one ton of waste. Good news is, the average Lismore resident has cut their waste down to about half that. How?

It all began at the beginning of the millennium, when Lismore City Council began desperately encouraging residents to cut down on garbage used in landfill.

Considering how much of our waste comprises food and garden materials (the average Australian’s domestic waste comprises 30% is food materials and about 25% garden), Council wanted to effectively break down its domestic waste.

The best way to do this is to encourage everyone to use a compost bin and a worm farm. But Lismore City Council is special, with many special residents. One guy, named Nick Try, thought it’d be a better idea to build a worm farm for the whole town: the biggest worm farm in the southern hemisphere .... click here to read much more

Click here for an explanation of how the worm farm works

WASTE-TO-ENERGY-TO-BIOCHAR : The solution Launceston rejects out of hand!

Lismore considers biochar project

Javier Encalada

 

 30th Aug 2012 3:09 PM ... click here to go to source

Lismore City Council [in NSW] is considering becoming a business partner in a new Biochar and Waste-to- Energy project developed by Ballina Council.

The project involves the construction of a slow-pyrolysis processing plant to convert organic waste into biochar and electricity.

The plant will be located at the Ballina Waste Management Centre and has secured $4.25 million in funding from the Regional Development Australia Fund - 50% of the money required for the project.

Phillip Klepzig, manager of commercial services at Lismore City Council, confirmed that both councils are currently trying to agree on a way to work together to provide the best value for money in waste management.

"We can sign a supply agreement or we can become a full business partner in this project and we are trying to decide what will work better for everyone," Mr Klepzig said.

Rod Dawson, manager of water, sewer and waste at Ballina Council, explained that slow-pyrolysis is "heating organic waste in an oxygen-starved environment, so it is 'cooked' instead of burned".

The process produces gas, which is used to generate electricity on-site. The second product of the process is biochar, a charcoal-like solid, high in carbon that is used to improve soil quality in agriculture.

This means that greenhouse gases would be offset and carbon will be sequestered on a large scale at the Ballina Waste Management Centre.

Ballina Council will require other council's green waste, as garden waste contains up to 50% water, meaning that only half the material can be considered a "dry tonne" to be converted into biochar.

The plant would be able to process up to 16, 000 dry tonnes a year, generating 1-1.3 megawatts of renewable electricity and 5000 tonnes of biochar.

Mr Dawson confirmed that similar discussions are underway with Byron and Richmond Valley councils to ensure most of the green waste in the Northern Rivers is processed by the plant, which is to be completed by the end of June 2015.

ENDNOTE:

• In the 2006 Census of Population and Housing, there were 38,461 usual residents living in Ballina Shire. Of this count, 18,463 (or 49%) were males and 19,998 (or 52%) were females
• In the 2006 Census, held on 8 August 2006, there were 28,766 persons usually resident in Byron Shire: 14,146 residents (49.2%) were males and 14,620 (50.8%) were females
• In the 2006 Census of Population and Housing there were 42,210 usual residents living in Lismore City Council. Of this count, 20,543 (or 48%) were males and 21,667 (or 51%) were females
• In the 2006 Census of Population and Housing there were 24,579 usual residents living in Richmond Valley Council. Of this count, 10,507 (or 49%) were males and 10,806 (or 51%) were females.

ALSO

• Click here for the Minister's letter in support  ... "Through RDAF, the Australian Government will provide Ballina Shire Council with $4.3 million to get the $8.5 million plant powering ahead, matching the commitment already made by the Council to the project.It's expected that 94 full time-equivalent jobs will be created during construction, along with 10 full time-equivalent ongoing jobs."

• Pacific Pyrolysis Pty Ltd have developed, and are commercialising, slow-pyrolysis technology to deliver waste to energy and biochar solutions. The technology converts non-food biomass into renewable energy and a proprietary biochar called Agrichar™, that has been proven by independent trials to increase food production and sequester carbon over long periods of time. Pacific Pyrolysis is developing projects which utilise the technology to solve a number of the sustainability issues facing businesses. Please see PacPyro flyer for more information .... click here to read more

• FARMERS in north western New South Wales have seen first hand technology that turns invasive native scrub (INS, also known as woody weeds) into an agricultural resource at a Central West Catchment Management Authority field day ... click here to read more and watch the video

• F. Strie Submission to LCC: Waste Management & Pyrolysis ... click here

• Gerald Dunst introducing his work on fertile soils at Sonnenerde, Austria "Creating humus-rich fertile soils from waste products is Sonnenerde's expertise. The green wastes that communities and households deliver to the composting facility of Gerald Dunst in Austria for disposal are used here as feedstock for making highly fertile humus-rich soils. In 2012, the SME began working with a PYREG plant that converst papermill sludge into Biochar which is then combined with composting of nutrient-rich soils. This mixture is the most promising approach in state-of-the-art Biochar research. Mr Dunst explains his work in this exciting video." ... click her to make the link ... click here for a map of biochar projects in Europe

NOTES:

According to correspondence received from Mr H. Galea,Director Infrastructure Services, Launceston City Council has made, or is committed to, the following expenditures in relation to Waste Management:

• $60,000  for two consultancies in past three years relating to the Launceston's Waste Management
• $2.4 million expended on the Waste Transfer Station at the Launceston Waste Centre
• $5.8 million to be expended upon the construction of the landfill cell at the Launceston Waste Centre
• $24.5 million is the anticipated capital expenditure at the Launceston Waste Centre over the next 10 years;
• $2.6 million per annum is the current annual operating cost of the the Launceston Waste Centre

URGENT LETTER TO LAUNCESTON'S ALDERMEN

Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc. 

P.O. Box 1035, 

LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 

03 6331 6144 

23rd. November 2012, 

Alderman Albert van Zettan 
Mayor City of Launceston 
Town Hall St John Street 
LAUNCESTON Tas 7250 

Dear  Mayor, 
Re: Launceston City Council Meeting 26 November 2012 Item 19.2 -UTAS Student Accommodation at the Inveresk Precinct (Consolidation UTAS Campus Buildings and Land to Freehold). 

We refer to the Agenda item, and express our opposition to the proposal to transfer the land to freehold, particularly unless it is transferred at full market value. 

There are many reasons for TRA to oppose this proposal, not the least of which is that this proposal wrongfully deals with these very valuable ratepayer's assets. It would appear that UTAS is taking advantage of timing here, not only to attempt to force the hand of Launceston City Council to give over the land for the proposed student accommodation, but at the same time compelling the hand over of the freehold of the other substantial building and land assets that UTAS presently occupies on a long term leasehold. This "bushranger" action is remarkable and not becoming of a venerable institution like UTAS. 

We question why this matter has only just now been revealed to the public under the guise of concealment being headed as UTAS Student Accommodation at Inveresk, and that there has been no time given to the ratepaying public to give any meaningful consideration to the merits of such a proposal, if any in fact exist. The value of these ratepayer assets is not given, but is clearly in the $millions of dollars. 

We cannot but surmise that the critically short timing for a decision regarding the transfer of such major assets to freehold, is not accidental, but an intentional plan to deny the public any time to consider the demands of UTAS. Council has been aware of this manoeuvre for a while, sufficient time to engage a Devonport solicitor to advise it on suitable conditions, but yet there has been no publicity or media statement issued. 

It is stated in the Agenda, that this proposal for student accommodation is more expensive than any other area suitable for such development as identified by UTAS. The decision to develop student accommodation at Inveresk can only be viewed as an opportunistic demand for freehold ownership of other property as the essential motivator. 

The buildings and development land at Inveresk are valuable ratepayer assets, and presently the Launceston City Council's Flood Protection Authority is spending $millions constructing flood levees to protect the area. Along the North Esk River, having previously put sheet piling in place to protect the development site, the Authority has recently announced it will now spend considerable additional funds to construct a concrete wall levee, over and above the cost of the previously-planned earth levee, so as to facilitate space for this UTAS development for student housing. 

UTAS doesn't pay municipal rates, land tax or the State Fire Levy. All of these statutory charges for Launceston are spread over the charges that other ratepayers are levied, resulting in UTAS facilities at both campuses being heavily subsidised in the Region by Launceston ratepayers alone. There are undeniable benefits to the Region and Tasmania generally from UTAS and the Australian Maritime College, however it is unfair and inequitable for this burden to be borne only by the 28,000 Launceston ratepayers. 

The proposed new student accommodation units won't pay rates and these other statutory charges either, but they will take business away from private rental landlords presently satisfying the needs of student accommodation for UTAS and landlords who do pay rates/land tax and fire levy. 

LCC ratepayers significantly subsidise the Inveresk Precinct with capital expenditure and operational losses amounting to $millions/year, and of course UTAS will still expect LCC to provide and maintain carparking facilities and subsidised bus services for their Inveresk facilities. 

Alderman McKendrick has publicly stated that the North Esk development site is valued by YPIPA at a sum in excess of $5million, capital that could be returned to LCC ratepayers, perhaps by a reduction in rates. 

The development of this North Esk Site for student accommodation will deny Launceston's road users the only vacant corridor for an East-West Connector Road incorporating the Lindsay Street corridor and linking the Northern Outlet and Kings Wharf development areas to Invermay Road and then onto Henry Street/Ravenswood and the future Eastern Bypass corridor. This would relieve pressure on Elphin Road and Vermont Road, and when completed, on Wellington/Bathurst Streets. 

If this "deal" is approved by Council, the City will forfeit any income by way of capital-raising and rates investment from an alternative development and use of the Inveresk Precinct land and buildings by private sector developments. The City will also lose a rent-paying tenant worth $30,000 because UTAS are demanding that the Powerhouse Cafe also be handed over to them. This is not a UTAS facility or part of the UTAS Campus. Where will these demands end? 

In conclusion, we ask that, at the very least, Council defer any decision regarding this proposal at its meeting on Monday 26 November, so as to allow for community input and for ratepayers to be consulted properly & openly about this matter. 

Yours faithfully, 

Lionel J. Morrell Lionel 

President for and on behalf of Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.