LATEST NEWS: COUNCIL MOVES TO MEET CHALLENGES OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Following last night's announcement by the Federal Government regarding expanded social distancing measures, the City of Launceston will transition to internet and telephone-based customer service systems from close of business today.

To comply with the new measures, the following closures will also take place until further notice (including ones already announced):

• Town Hall Customer Service Centre (front desk)
• Visitor Information Centre
• All Council-owned playgrounds and skate parks, including Riverbend Park, the playgrounds at City Park and Cataract GorAll Council-owned community centres and halls
• Albert Hall for functions and conventions
• All Council-owned barbecue facilities, including Punchbowl Reserve, Heritage Forest and Riverbend Park
• Launceston Leisure and Aquatic Centre
• Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (both sites)

All Council parks, such as City Park and Royal Park, will remain open.

City of Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten said the Council's number one priority was the safety and wellbeing of the Launceston community, Council staff and those people who use the affected Council facilities.

"There will be impacts following these closures, but it's extremely important that the Council follows the advice and directives of the federal and state governments and the Director of Public Health," he said.

Mayor van Zetten said that anyone who required assistance with any Council services could still call the Customer Service hotline on 6323 3000 for all inquiries, email contactus@launceston.tas.gov.au or use the Council's 'Report an Issue' web portal at www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Council/Report-an-Issue

"Alternatively, you can go to our website - www.launceston.tas.gov.au - for the latest information on the Council's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to access our many online services," Mayor van Zetten said.

All Planning applications currently on public exhibition can be viewed online on the Council's website.

For anyone unable to access the website, all current planning applications are available for viewing during Council's normal businesses hours by booking an appointment on 6323 3220.

"The Council is currently working with the State Government and other councils to provide as much flexibility as possible to progress planning applications throughout this pandemic," Mayor van Zetten said.

"This situation is unprecedented and we are having to make unprecedented decisions that will affect the everyday lives of people in the Launceston community.

"Ultimately, it is in everyone's interest that we do everything possible to stop the spread of coronavirus.

"From my perspective, it's absolutely heartbreaking to see our business sector in Launceston decimated by this pandemic. To see hardworking people lose their jobs, having to close their small businesses and stand down staff.

"But it's important we do not lose hope - we will recover.

"Unfortunately, we just don't know when this will happen. However In Tasmania we have a unique opportunity - being an island state - that if everyone does the right thing, we can have a significant impact on reducing that timeframe."

Mayor van Zetten said the Council was working through the finer details of its Community Care and Rescue Package and would be in a position to announce the details next week.

"That package will look at options such as rates relief for small businesses, fees and charges relief, one-off grants, assistance for the organisers of cancelled events, help for community groups and other support measures," he said.

"Ahead of the release of the care and recovery package, we've already taken steps to reduce impacts on small businesses where we can.

"For example, we've put a freeze on rent to businesses who lease Council premises — pending the Council's decision — and have elected not to pass on water or electricity charges to business tenants, and we've introduced a weekly payment system to suppliers instead of fortnightly.

"In addition, we are reminding suppliers that we have negotiable terms on any payments which may be due to us.

"Finally, I would just ask everyone to be mindful of those in our community doing it very tough right now. Be kind, be patient and be considerate of others."

City of Launceston: Ordinary ratepayers left out of council's consideration yet again

City of Launceston's unhealthy and 

unsustainable relationship with UTAS

Date: Saturday, 21 March 2020 at 11:14 am

To: Mayor  & Councillors

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

Members of the Concerned Citizen’s Network, and others, have raised a range of concerns relative to UTAS’s “sweet heart deals” that have apparently reached a point that yet again needs to be called-out. Even before the current crisis there were calls of alarm from ratepayers in regard to the flow-on expenses that will be reflected in the city’s general rate demand much of which comes out of Council’s confidential dealings with UTAS and what is being called-out as ‘inept planning decisions’.

Indeed, it is also being argued that at a time when proposed budgetary measures have been consigned to ‘further review’, this bears the evidence of such flow-on consequences. It is time for the city to seriously review its relationships with UTAS in order to find a more balanced way forward.

The concerns being presented relative to the arrangements between Council and UTAS in respect to the proposed Inveresk Car Park now are as follows:

• Typically, commercial tenants are required to pay all maintenance costs and other expenses relevant to the property and their tenancy. Here it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities and without paying any kind of fees or charges relative to the ‘proposed Inveresk Car Park’ and its infrastructure. Given that this is indeed the case it is not an appropriate arrangement and especially so now.

• Typically, tenants pay for their use of electricity for lighting and infrastructure maintenance. Here it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities and it should be obvious that this lacks credibility and indeed it fails any ‘pub test’. That this situation is being entertained it beggars belief. In addition, there appears to be no plan to generate solar power on the site either on UTAS’s part or council. In a time when a ‘climate emergency has been declared’ this is sloppy planning on both party’s part. It is also an opportunity where yet again it appears that the ball is being deliberately dropped. Or, is this a case of incompetence?

• Typically, tenants as responsible tenants are required to maintain the property they occupy and in particular the landscaping, Again, here it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities and that only compounds the problems being passed on to ratepayers and residents who will pay one way or another via their rate demands and other fees and charges – all of which are being flagged to increase and unsustainably.

• Typically, tenants are required to keep their property as a clean, tidy and healthy place and to ensure that rubbish is managed by themselves or via Council via a fee/charge. Here again it appears that UTAS is being excused such an obligation and again well beyond credible explanation. Indeed, this sets a very poor example for the city’s ratepayers and residents. In fact, if Council can see its way clear to ‘look away’ in this way, it is beyond belief.

• Typically, the revenue from parking metres is either collected by Council and directed towards covering the costs identified above OR they are collected by the tenant and directed to that purpose. Moreover, if a tenant is collecting parking revenue they carry the cost in maintaining the metres and ensuring that they remain in good working order. Here again it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities which only serves to compound the incredulity being expressed by concerned citizens. Others it seems are inclined to keep a low profile in fear of some unexpected consequence of their speaking up.

• Typically, a tenant is required to meet all water charges. Here again it appears that UTAS, as a non-ratepayer, is being excused such liabilities and it is an untenable arrangement that must be called into question and especially so when Council has declared a ‘Climate Emergency’. Moreover, UTAS is not being required to appropriately manage stormwater ‘on site’ and this too is a circumstance that needs to be called-out in the context of 21^st C civic planning and ‘placemaking’.

• Typically, a tenant is required to carry all the appropriate insurances and given that there is a deafening silence in regard to this issue concerns are being raised. It seems safe to assume that Council will be required to meet that obligation on the tenant’s behalf unless it is assured that this obligation is being met by UTAS. This apparent assumption of some lopsided version of the status quo – and here it is untenable!

• Typically, a tenant, one way or another, would be required to pay for the upkeep of curbing and guttering and roadway surfacing on the property they occupy in some way. Likewise, ‘boom gate’ repair and maintenance would fall to the tenant. Here again it appears that UTAS is being excused all such liabilities and again this is an untenable arrangement that places an unfair burden upon ratepayers and residents – not to mention the poor example it sets within the community.

• Typically, the cost of any outcome due to vandalism would fall to the tenant and not to Council albeit that Council has role to play in mitigating against such anti-social behaviour. That this and the matters above are unclear, undiscussed and apparently unacknowledged, raise serious alarm among residents and ratepayers.

The Auto Museum

Reports coming to the community from multiple sources suggest that the property title to the building is currently resting with UTAS while it is supposed to have been transferred to the City of Launceston long before now. Presumably maintenance of the site falls to the city and not UTAS. It is obvious that the title to the property must rest with the city.

That the transfer has been on, and apparently remains on, the ‘gunnado list’ is both astounding and alarming.

Moreover, it is yet another example of the city’s unhealthy and unproductive, indeed expensive, relationship with this corporate citizen cum developer.

Continually looking away in the hope of a productive outcome has proven to be both pointless and way too expensive from ratepayers’ and residents’ perspective. Up to now criticism has been serially and somewhat surreally rejected. The time for change is now, not next month or sometime out, but right now.

Equitable fiscal arrangement with corporate citizens and developers

Launceston’s ratepayers’ and residents have a right to expect that the city’s corporate citizenry meet their obligations as are all ratepayers and residents. To be seen as giving UTAS serial ‘free kicks’ in the end is not only untenable, it is unsustainable – not to mention unethical.

In the instance of the arrangements being countenanced by Council in regard to the Inveresk UTAS Car Park this is more than astounding. The burden it places on ratepayers and residents is unacceptable and that Council is entertaining and condoning all this, well it beggars belief.

As it is being put to me, relative to the UTAS Inveresk Car Park, Council is forgoing a potential income of $600 per day in this instance alone. This comes on top of the city’s planned loss of amenity, and income, in respect to the Willis Street Car Park.

This is not a trifling concern but more to the point it is symptomatic of a relationship that has turned toxic, and something that is showing no signs of this being acknowledged and addressed. And all this at the cost of ratepayers and residents, who unknowingly for the most part are being left to ‘carry the can’. – as hapless ‘suckers’ it seems.

Moreover, UTAS seems to be claiming that it operates with ‘high moral authority’ but that myth is being debunked state-wide day by day. Once ‘universities’ defined themselves, and understood themselves, as “communities of teachers and scholars”. It is more than evident that UTAS has not understood itself in that way for quite some time. Clearly, the city’s relationship with UTAS needs to be reviewed and rejigged.

In conclusion

On behalf of the concerned citizens, ratepayers and residents, facing unknown financial threats I ask that Council review its unhealthy, lopsided and unsustainable relationship with UTAS across the board. I look forward to Council openly addressing this issue in the press in the very near future as a component of its current ’budgetary realignment’ process.

Yours sincerely

Ray Norman

For and on behalf of a network of concerned citizens

Ray Norman

zingHOUSEunlimited

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody 

ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison

https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/

WHAT IS SAID IN THE EXAMINER

The University of Tasmania is a step closer to building an approximately $4.5 million car park in Inveresk for students, staff and the public, after the Launceston City Council handed it the lease to the land.

The car park is expected to be completed by 2021, subject to permit approval, and will create more than 850 spaces for students, staff and the public.

The Launceston Show Society will cease its lease on the Forster Street car park and UTAS will take it over to meet the demands of its $360-million campus relocation.

Coronavirus: All the latest updates on COVID-19 for Tasmania

Council's chief executive officer Michael Stretton said the lease would be for a period of 20 years with an option to extend.

"[UTAS] will be responsible for funding and constructing the private and public car parks on the land," he said.

"The council will receive all revenue from the public car park at all times and from the private car park during events, with the exception of UTAS staff/students that have a valid parking permit."

The show society approached UTAS in August 2019 to discuss a car park expansion. It owed the council $151,736.55 and it will be paid back as part of the lease surrender.

Launceston Chamber of Commerce chief executive Neil Grose said surrendering the lease allowed the show society to develop a new vision for their future.

"It's a strong signal to the north that the university transformation is continuing as normal," he said.

"It's a strong signal we are looking forward, that [the relocation] will go ahead, that those local jobs will stay and that local money will stay in our economy."

The car park development will still need to attain a planning permit from the council, with construction planned to begin after this year's Launceston Show.

Councillor Paul Spencer voted against the decision as he said he wanted more information about the council being responsible for "reasonable maintenance" of the car parks.

"It's a great outcome for the show society, but I don't think it's fair on the ratepayers to be paying for all the maintenance," he said.

Mr Stretton said the maintenance expectations would be finalised with UTAS at a later date.

GO TO SOURCE https://www.examiner.com.au/story/6690053/council-grants-utas-lease-for-new-carpark-vision/?cs=12

URGENT LETTER TO LAUNCESTON'S MAYOR & COUNCILLORS

18 March 2020

URGENT COMMUNICATION

Mayor and Councillors

City of Launceston Council, Town Hall, St John Street LAUNCESTON 7250

Dear Councillors,

RE : MEETING AGENDA DOCUMENTS - LCC Budget 2020-21 and the impacts of the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19 health Crisis).

This is not the time to impose rate increases on your ratepayers who will be experiencing unprecedented financial hardships, whether they be business ratepayers, residential ratepayers, both pensioner residents and working ratepayers be they full time or part-time employed and the only responsible thing to do is to rewrite the Budget.

Instead of trying to promote and justify a 3.9% rate increase, and a list of non-essential capital works projects, a rate reduction more like 10%, should in fact be considered.

The current emergency will have long lasting impacts on Tasmania and Launceston citizens and businesses. Whilst you may argue that the budget is in line with the 10 year plan and other documents, none of these considered the potential of the current emergency situation, and when the situation changes, so must the plans have to change.

Regardless of the present dire circumstances, there can be no justification for ramming through the following programme:

“The proposed structures of the community information and consultation process are:

·      19 March 2020 - Council resolves to approve the release of the proposed annual plan and statutory estimates for comment.

·      four week period for comment.

·      17 April 2020 - Submissions close at 5.00pm.

·      21 May 2020 - Submissions will be presented to Councillors for consideration.

·      11 June 2020 - Council adopts the annual plan, determines the rating resolution and adopts the budget.”

Council must go back immediately and revise the entire budget and not approve the current plan for release on the 19^th.

This is not just a matter of striking a rate, but also a reconsideration of proposed fees.

Item 19.1 Council Fees 2020/2021

TRA asks for wholesale review of the Fees and Charges. The fees for adult entry to the Aquatic centre are not in accordance with council’s own guidelines below:

“Principles for setting fees

The review of fees for 2020/2021 continues to be predicated on the same principles applied in previous years.

“The real value of fees should be maintained over time; must increase annually by at least the consumer price index (our emphasis) . In the context of the 2020/2021 budget a general baseline of 3% increase has been applied. This has been affected by rounding in many instances. The majority of fees and charges should (ordinarily) be commercially appropriate.

·      Competitive in the market (not subsidised by rates).

·      Provide an adequate business return.

·      Fees and charges that relate to services provided should be cost reflective.

·      Fee concessions should be provided in a consistent and strategic context.

·      Targeted provision of concession.

·      Appropriate relativity between full and concessional fees.

·      Structure fees with payment incentives rather than payment penalties (where

·      appropriate).

·      Structure fees to assist with the achievement of strategic customer outcomes and behaviours.

·      Continued simplification and consolidation of fees wherever possible.

·      The appropriate setting of fees is an important way in which the City of Launceston can obtain a wider contribution to regional facilities.” (Agenda 19 March, page 111)

TRA has not been able to examine each and every proposed charge but it is noted that the Leisure and Aquatic Centre Adult Casual entry from 2019-20 at $7.60 is unchanged in 2020-21.  This fee, in any event, is therefore in breach of your own principle “The real value of fees should be maintained over time; must increase annually by at least the consumer price index” 

Furthermore there is no specific comment to explain why it has been considered inappropriate to increase the above fee by the general 3% baseline.  Perhaps (again) this is in the expectation, neither the councillors or the community will pick this up!

It is recommended that all fees be reviewed and the data presented in a manner that makes easy comparison of the fee in the last 2 years and the proposed fee for 2020-21. 

The Leisure and Aquatic Centre is a large cost borne by ratepayers, many of whom do not gain benefit from using it.  Council should have a plan to make it a self-sustaining operation funded by users and apply to its fees the principle above it purports to use.

Budget

19.2 Draft Proposed 2020/2021 Annual Plan and Statutory Estimates (Budget)

This item comprises a few pages of blurb in the agenda itself plus 3 separate attachments.

1 Annual Plan (ECM Document Set ID 4259234)

2 Proposed Statutory Estimates including the Capital Projects 2020/2021 (ECM Document Set ID 4259258)

 3 Major Operational Projects 2020/2021 (ECM Document Set ID 4259264)

These 3 give precious little detail.  There is nothing we can find on the Vehicle Driving Centre at Lawrence Vale Road for instance, in spite of the media stating that $1m is to be spent there!

There should be a detailed spreadsheet with every single line item of expenditure but we cannot find it.

In conclusion, we find it remarkable, that your Agenda for the Council Meeting could have been written with complete disregard for the rapidly spiralling health emergency and impacts on the Tasmanian economy. The predicted impacts have been in the public arena for weeks, yet City of Launceston Council seems to be existing in some sort of bubble, divorced from the grim reality.

Please understand the emergency faced in Launceston and withdraw the Agenda items as published.

Yours faithfully

Lionel Morrell

Lionel. J. Morrell

President

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

COVID-19 AND QUESTIONS TO LAUNCESTON'S COUNCILLORS AND MANAGEMENT

COMMUNICATION TO LAUNCESTON GM & MAYOR

At this time when the community is in crisis. – fiscal, social and cultural – constituents are looking for answers.  

The emerging and ever increasing levels of alarm evident in the community means the COVID-19 CRISIS is the most important issue at home and internationally. 

Local governance has a very important role to play in regard to all this. 

Actually, residents and ratepayers are looking to "their council" for guidance, locally relevant advice, clarification in regard to various issues and more still. Indeed, this is advice that they have made a significant investment in towards having  such advice and support being there and available.

This poses a number of questions, many of which are being commented upon by people who lack the authority and/or the expertise. Council employs a considerable number of people who purport to have some authority and/or indeed the expertise needed at times like now.

So, some of the kind of questions hanging in the air looking for and waiting for answers are:

• Is council providing a dedicated telephone 'HELP LINE' that both helps constituents and enables council to allay fears and more importantly discover the community's concerns and issues?

• Is Council considering replacing the advice people get while holding for extended periods when they call Council given that current messaging is past its use-by-date?

• Is council openly and proactively 'workshopping' the COVID-19  crisis towards building better understandings of this emergency in order that Councillors and officers are better placed to deal with COVID-19 issues?

• Are Councillors being proactive in making themselves available to constituents relative to COVID-19 matters?

• Indeed, is council being proactive in initiating digital fit-for-purpose communication networks and protocols employing off-the-shelf technology to facilitate effective communication with its ratepayers and residents?

• Is Council actively considering some/any form of public forum relative to COVID-19 matters and if so when and in what form?

• Will council consider providing 'rate relief' for people who lose income as a consequence of the COVID-19 crisis  and if so how and in what form?

• Is Council being proactive in adjusting its budget in order that it is better placed to meet ratepayer's and residents changing circumstances? If so, in what way and in what anticipated timeframe?

• Is Council investigating how it might cut rates in the coming financial year and by something in the order of 10%? If not, why not?

• Is Council preparing a budgetary adjustment for the current financial year looking for savings and the means of funding mechanisms for unanticipated and unanticipatable expenditures given the emerging and entirely anticipatable financial crisis flowing from consequences relative to COVID-19 matters?

Ratepayers and residents are looking to 'GOVERNMENT' for advice and support and Local Government has an important role to play!

Council addressing the concerns embedded in the questions above will surely be welcomed by ratepayers and residents.

Question collected and collated by Ray Norman SEE https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/p/communication-to-lau.html

TIME TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COUNCILS IN TASMANIA

MARCH 9 2020 - 
 Mick Tucker: it's time for councils to consider voluntary amalgamations 
Mick Tucker, Break O'Day mayor

Break O'Day mayor Mick Tucker says council amalgamations are needed to ensure the future viability of small communities - but this change must be driven by the community itself. It may seem unusual to hear this coming from a member of local government, but I honestly believe that our state has far too many local government areas. 

With many regional councils like ours facing an ageing and flat-lining or declining population, we have to consider the long-term sustainability of the current 29 municipal area model. 

In 1993 amalgamations occurred and the sun came up the next day. This involved 46 LGAs becoming 29 LGAs and included combining the Portland and Fingal LGAs to become Break O'Day. 

I have a different perspective that, I believe, can enhance council operations and potentially make the community feel more comfortable with the idea of amalgamations, that is boundary adjustment. 

For example three council areas could use boundary adjustment and become two councils; this is still amalgamation. 

Simply put, we need to examine whether the lines on a map are as relevant today as they were when amalgamations last happened. 

We need a holistic approach that looks at the natural movement of the population in different areas, where they are accessing services, where there are synergies between areas like industry and community sentiment as well as what other growth has occurred since 1993. 

Times have certainly changed since LGAs were formed in Tasmania, and even since amalgamations in 1993, for example we have increased access to information via online platforms, and there are more ways to resource share. 

With this in mind, I would like to see voluntary amalgamations and voluntary boundary adjustment looked at more seriously within local government and I urge councillors to start these conversations with their communities. 

Change in this space, I believe, needs to be pushed by the community. 

As an example, Break O'Day Council in 2017 contracted KPMG to provide a report examining boundary adjustment with Glamorgan-Spring Bay which would see Break O'Day acquire the area from Denison River to the top of Cherry Tree Hill including Freycinet Peninsula and Bicheno; Sorell would then take the bottom half creating two from three LGAs. 

This area was selected because of the natural synergies between the areas, like coastal location and a strong dependence on tourism. 

This study didn't happen in isolation. At the time a study also examined options involving Sorell, Tasman, Clarence City and Glamorgan-Spring Bay councils amalgamating. .

The KPMG report found that there would actually be savings for councils if this was to occur. But this is dependent on basic infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. There were other benefits too. Modelling showed there were: no staff losses, greater efficiencies with council operation, increased opportunities for resource sharing and an increase in council presence. 

This increased presence came from examining having a council shop front in Bicheno with managers and staff available certain days of the week as well as being able to utilise video teleconferencing like Skype services. 

Based on our own research and community consultation from GSB, boundary adjustment is largely supported in the GSB area. In talking to residents and business owners in the area, they have told me they already travel north to our area for many services including many students travelling to our area for school and sport, as well as residents traveling for shopping and other services. 

The most common reason I hear people talking against amalgamations is due to their fear of not being represented locally. I can understand this however, there is a simple solution, and no I am not talking about a ward system as I am not a believer that system works. I believe representatives of an area need to work for the whole area to ensure a genuine understanding of the issues and strong have connection with their community. .

Based on the election process we have in place now which, is based on quotas, if we did end up with the proposed boundary adjustment with GSB we could end up with at least two councillors from the area. This comes from the modelling of the KPMG report which found we would gain an additional 1300 plus rate payers. 

Based on the last election return rate of 72.14 per cent and quota of around 400, if we use the votes at the ballot box, this would deliver two councillors for the area. 

I am a big believer in community which is why I became involved in local government, and I also believe that any good local government representative worth their salt will listen to their community as we are elected to serve our community and there is no room for self-serving politics. 

Whilst you will never be able to please everyone no matter what you do, we must look to the future and make sure we can deliver long term sustainable councils and as it stands, I am not convinced that small councils will remain viable and relevant in the future if we do not start examining ways to counter challenges like population decline and an increase in the age of our population

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Vision 2020: Break O'Day mayor Mick Tucker 

shares strategies

MARCH 4 2020 

 MOMENTUM: The main economic priority for the Break O'Day council this year is to maximise employment outcomes and build the economic strength of the region. 

Break O'Day mayor Mick Tucker is excited about what 2020 will bring the municipality with business confidence and tourism growing rapidly

"During the last 24 months we have seen more than $15 million of tourism development in our area as well as three well established and iconic accommodation businesses change hands," Councillor Tucker said.

"We look forward to supporting these businesses and seeing them develop in the coming 12 months."

The main economic priority for the council this year is to maximise employment outcomes and build the economic strength of the Break O'Day area.

"This comes not only through infrastructure project initiatives but also through addressing the barriers we experience that hinders growth in our area, like remoteness.

"Recent work undertaken through the Jobs Action Package involving the Tasmanian Government, TasCOSS and TCCI provide a place-based solution, which we can implement that tackles these challenges. This work dovetails nicely with the previously completed Break O'Day Skills Audit."

Councillor Tucker said Break O'Day's main priority for 2020 was to develop St Helens as a mountain bike destination that offers access to world-class mountain trails in an iconic location.

"With the first stage of the trails opening in November 2019 and further trails coming on line in the first half of 2020, our focus is very much on developing visitation and the experience of visitors to the Break O'Day area," he said.

"Through close engagement with the local businesses community, including infrastructure partnerships, we are very focused on ensuring that we maximise the employment outcomes and economic growth from this game-changing project.

"We have developed and introduced a number of initiatives for the St Helens Mountain Bike Trails, which have gained fantastic support from the business community in particular and the broader community in general, including business information sessions that all in the community are welcome to attend. These are always very well attended. We have also used these information sessions to bring service providers to our area to network with businesses."

With the first stage of the trails opening in November 2019 and further trails coming on line in the first half of 2020, our focus is very much on developing visitation and the experience of visitors to the Break O'Day area.

Break O'Day mayor Mick Tucker

Councillor Tucker said tourism was Break O'Day's largest industry and 2020 would be an interesting year but not without challenges. "Normally we would expect it to be a very strong year with the mountain bike project diversifying our offering and extending the visitation season, after all the middle of winter at St Helens is a great time to mountain bike," he said.

However, he said the emergence of coronavirus was going to have an impact given the Asian market travels through the area.

"The coronavirus is already having an impact on our aquaculture industry as seen with the rock lobster industry and we anticipate this could also impact our oyster farms.

Councillor Tucker said agriculture would also have a tough year given the drought conditions throughout the council area.

However, the council is very excited about the level of confidence and excitement in the local business community, both existing and potential new businesses, due to the mountain bike community.

"Upgrading of accommodation infrastructure and new businesses starting is a sign of the confidence in the local community," he said.

"Meeting new people who have just moved to the area because they see the opportunity is very satisfying."

Councillor Tucker reflected on the decade that had just gone.

"We have developed the council into a solid well-performing organisation which is kicking goals for our local community, such as a brand new hospital at St Helens," he said.

"The extent of external funding support we have secured for community and Council projects has been a pleasant and welcome surprise." By the end of the decade Break O'Day wants to have a vibrant and caring community where everyone has a roof over their head and can afford to live in our area.

"Our young families have a great future and our youth have job opportunities and careers they can pursue in our area."

• 2020 Vision is a partnership between Northern Tasmania Development Corporation and its member councils to highlight their economic development plans for the year ahead.