THE QUESTION OF VALUES

On Monday Launceston’s General Manager, Robert Dobrzynski, at the last Council Meeting, as reported in the Examiner yesterday, engaged in an unseemly stoush with an Alderman, Ald. Rosemary Armitage.

As reported “Alderman Rosemary Armitage had proposed that aldermen be notified of upcoming neighbourhood or street meetings between council officers and ratepayers.”

Mr. Dobrzynski, claimed that his authority was being threatened and claimed that what Ald. Armitage was seeking represented "an unreasonable interference" in his ability to perform his functions as a General Manager. Did it really?

Ratepayers are bemused. Just what is that is the problem here? See these earlier entries ... [1] ... [2]

• Is it that the GM does not welcome ratepayers winning the support of Aldermen on an issue?
  
• Is it the case that Council Officer’s advice to Aldermen is always consistent with ratepayer’s experience of a consultation process between Council Officers and themselves?
  
• Is it extraordinary that ratepayers should wish to have Aldermen present at a meeting between themselves and Council Officers to have first hand insights into what happened?
  
• Is it unacceptable for ratepayers to wish to have Aldermanic representation or presence at a meeting between themselves and Council Officers on an issue?

One cynical ratepayer has suggested that this whole situation, and others leading up to it, is starting to resonate with undertones of Capt. Queeg in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel and the 1954 movie staring Humphrey Bogart, “The Caine Mutiny” ... Click here for more information on Capt. Queeg

Perhaps it is time to take another look, in fact a good look, at Launceston City Council’s so called core values to do with Integrity, Stewardship, Inclusion, initiative, Teamwork and last but not least Accountability.

Council Officer should revisit the Council website and do a reality check for themselves and the Aldermen need to do the same as well as asking themselves how they rate as upholders of these values. Ratepayers depend upon both Officers and Aldermen to uphold these values but most of all the Aldermen as it is they who endorse them.

Just in case anyone has missed this entry on the Launceston City Council’s website here they are for your information and reference.
Copied from LCC Website 30.03.2011

Organisational Values

Integrity

• We behave ethically;
• We tell the truth;
• We keep our commitments; and
• We meet both the spirit and intent of the law.
  

Stewardship

• We care about people and the community in which we live;
• We operate safely;
• We are environmentally responsible; and
• We strengthen the community.
  

Inclusion

• We value diversity and respect the dignity of each person;
• We value differences in people and perspectives;
• We build relationships based on mutual trust; and
• We recognise the contributions of every individual.
  

Initiative

• We lead the way;
• We have the courage and creativity to shape the future;
• We have the discipline to manage risk; and
• We act decisively in a timely manner.
  

Teamwork

• We work together to achieve superior results;
• We share ideas and talents to develop solutions;
• We support and rely on each other; and
• We value clear and open communication.
  

Accountability

• We take responsibility for our actions;
• We live our values;
• We set clear goals, measure results and seek to improve; and
• We build and protect the Launceston brand and reputation.
  

LINK: http://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/lcc/index.php?c=276#Accountability

SOMETHING TO PONDER: That thought expressed so well by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882) "I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them their jobs."

RATEPAYERS ARE BEING DONE OVER AND WHO IS WATCHING?

•

It’s all getting a bit much. Ratepayers are at the mercy of Local Government bureaucrats and it seems that for a lot of the time they are quite unaware of the extent of it. It is these Local Govt. types who set the rates to meet their operational needs, even if the Aldermen sign off on them.

Local Govt. management has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo at least, or better still, increasing the operational spend, as typically there are positive spin-offs for senior staff. These may come in the form of salary increases related to increases in responsibility measured against the size of the spend officers have responsibility for. And that's just the start.

In this kind of environment ratepayers typically become hapless bystanders as the imposts on their available incomes grow. Oftentimes, these imposts grow exponentially, unreasonably and unsustainably. Rates are payments for service NOT a 'Wealth Tax'! Aside from ratepayers’ capacity to pay is the issue of service outputs commensurate with ratepayers' inputs/investment.

On top of this some Councils, Launceston being one, where there are imposts on ratepayers that are attributable to ‘non-core’ service provision. There is scope for considerable debate as to the extent to which some of these things are indeed ‘non-core’. That's another story.

Nevertheless, it is probably time that ratepayers started to demonstrate their dissatisfaction rather than complacently going along with these imposts that grow exponentially and as often as not in a hidden way and increased by subterfuge.

It is also time to hold those accountable to account – Aldermen & Councillors – and make representations to them to hold their – Council's & ratepayers' – officers to account. The elected representatives can always be held to account at the next election but staff can only be accountable at the insistence of elected representatives. It's time that they did so.

What are ratepayers looking for?

Well the delivery of some kind of appropriate dividend, social, cultural, whatever, commensurate with their investment in non-core services would be something worth looking at.

What might be done?

One option might well be for ratepayers to withhold that part of their rates attributable to non-core services until their elected representatives are proactively, and demonstrably, providing accountability to ratepayers and holding officers accountable.

How might this be done?

It has been suggested that one way might be for a Trust Account be established to enable ratepayers to deposit their contribution to ‘non-core’ service provision as an alternative to handing it directly to Council. These funds could be released to the Mayor conditional upon there being an undertaking to proactively address accountability issues.

Imagine a newspaper story with a photograph of ratepayers in a queue at a bank depositing their ‘non-core’ rate contribution into a Trust Account.

It is an interesting thought!

TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK AT LAUNCESTON CITY COUNCIL

Click on the image to enlarge

At Launceston City Council’s 2010 Annual General Meeting on 6 December the city’s GM Robert Dobrzynski did offered up Powerpoint presentation where, essentially, he outlined his vision for the city’s and the administration of it.

Noteably, he made a commitment that was somewhat surprising in that he undertook to consult with the community regarding the preparation and approval of the city’s budgets and specifically for 2011/12. To those in attendance this was something new!

His buzz words were all to do with “community consultation, empowerment of the community, engaging with the community through steering committees/advisory groups/targeted resident groups/face to face meetings with existing groups”.

Yes this all sounded rather impressive and there was an air of optimism in the room. So much so that some of the questions some people in the room had at the ready were not asked. Given that what seemed to be Launceston City Council’s new found, and conciliatory, attitude towards ‘the ratepayers’ it seemed that asking ‘difficult questions’ would look a tad cherlish.

That was December 6 2010! However, looking back from now to then, there is little evidence of any this ‘promise’ being delivered upon. Sadly, what seems to have continued is the same kind and level of confrontation between the city’s administrators and ratepayers as has typically been the case in Launceston.

It is just possible that ratepayers’ anxieties that their concerns and consideration are as much outside the management loop as ever they were.

From the Tasmanian Ratepayers Association viewpoint, there certainly haven’t been any approaches made from LCC. What's more, the association’s submissions continue to be met with same level of contempt as ever. Recently this was evidenced in regard to the Lindsay Street Road corridor concept, where LCC officers and the LCC Flood Authority personnel were plain downright rude and offensive. Yes, this is the kind of consultation process that ratepayers' are all too familiar with.

Note the GM’s slide dealing with PLANNING REVIEW OF TRANSPORT OPTIONS, for instance. If we were now to think about that as hollow rhetoric we might well be excused. Interestingly, the Jan Geale report was due in January, but that month has already been and gone. If there were ever any benckmarks for performance indication, this might be one and one that raises the prospect that these things are as they say "discretionary".

The Examiner’s story, 11 February, regarding losses from city ‘’Attractions” is interesting, in that they are clearly not attractive enough!! Launceston’s hapless ratepayers keep on hearing about the bad news in dribs and drabs.

For instance, the further reductions in parking arrangements for Launceston Aquatic is further evidence that:

• Parking is not being required;
• There aren’t enough customers visiting the Centre; and
• All of the matters raised by the representors at the Aquatic Centre's Appeal Hearing concerning the sustainability issues relative to this project ... well it turns that they were on the button.

The fact that the the ratepayers' association was not allowed to present the expert opinion in documented evidence that the LCC figures for attendances couldn’t be achieved is worth remembering. It turns out that 'the experts' were correct and the figures just get worse and worse.

If there was an open journalistic review of Launceston City Council’s promises, its budgeting and its ability to achieve positive outcomes for its ratepayers, goodness knows what might come to light.

The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association has long argued that LCC doesn’t manage and conduct its business properly, and we have produced copious amounts of evidence and data to support this view.

The Commonwealth Government is presently seeking comment on a paper that Northern Tasmania’s councils could be consolidated under a national urban policy it is developing. A discussion paper released in December, says the policy aims to make Australia’s largest 18 cities “more productive, sustainable and livable”.

With a population of 105,445 in 2009, Launceston is ranked the 17th largest city in terms of population.

The paper says multiple councils in smaller regional cities like Wollongong and Newcastle and Launceston “present a major challenge to the effective management of cities”.

Minister Anthony Albanese said the final version of the policy would be a blueprint to reduce people’s dependency on cars, develop high quality public transport, reduce cities’ carbon footprint and improve urban planning.

What is LCC doing about responding to this opportunity ?

Launcestonians have heard nothing from LCC promoting public interest and awareness in contributing to this process. Perhaps there are people at Town Hall who have an interest in maintaining the status quo. What might they be worried about? Yet all the while Launceston is dealing with strategies, plans, bikeways, urban improvements, infrastructure upgrades, planning schemes, and so on and so on.

• Is the community being engaged in “community consultation Processes”?
• Is the community being “empowered”?
• Is LCC “engaging with the community through steering committees/advisory groups/targeted resident groups/face to face meetings with existing groups”?

We do not see the evidence.

So, we must say that we do not think so!

Petar Hill & Simber Albertson

OMINOUS SIGNS OF YET MORE RATE INCREASES IN THE AIR IN LAUNCESTON

In today’s Examiner Alison Andrews paints a pretty bleak picture in respect to Launceston ratepayers' lot. The picture seems to get bleaker and as each day passes … click here to make a link to Alison’s article

The city's GM is curiously absent in this story. Possibly he is trying to work out what spin he can put on the news that costs seem to be running away.

Two of the city’s sporting and recreation facilities, the Aquatic Centre and Aurora Stadium, that Alison Andrews curiously calls “attractions”, are, it seems, failing to be just that given their non-performance and the losses they are generating.

$415K in three months is big bickies in anyone’s book! Lumped on top of the $410K budget overrun for the QVMAG, well Lonnie’s ratepayers had better start bracing themselves for a rates increase that will most likely be predicated on the needs to “balance the books” and/or “maintain service levels” or some other weasel words equal to the bureaucratic tosh ratepayers keep on being fed at times like this.

If the good aldermen give this kind of non-performance a tick they will be ignoring all the signals that they need to get proactive, and now. They must take back the reins and ensure that ratepayers do not continue to be relentlessly slugged. If they don’t, no doubt we will remember them in October.

Launceston City Council seems to be plagued with these ubiquitous “cost over runs”. Also, it is rumoured that LCC is awash with fly-in consultants. If this rumour has any veracity, who is doing whose work for whom and at what/whose cost?

The only people being penalised in all this are the hapless ratepayers, not the perpetrators of ‘lost plots’ who are, it seems, mindlessly allowing bad management practice to slip under the wire, and without penalty to anyone except ratepayers by all accounts.

Looking at the size of some these losses they begin to look like the size of some of the city’s high fliers’ salaries in excess of a factor of two. For the GM that’s probably only a factor of one point something but there you go. However, always remember that these figures are only quarterly and the salaries are annual.

Launceston’s ratepayers were slugged with a rate increase this year even if the level of services LCC are delivering was reduced with water reticulation moving away from Council.

And as for the QVMAG high farce being administered by the GM, well it continues to astound. $777K for an outsourced exhibition is way out of line albeit that it was the previous GM, and apparently the aldermen as well, who gave that one a big tick. The sad thing about this show is that it was planned in the wake of large staff cuts and delivered employment opportunities to people elsewhere not to mention the losses now being exposed at home. How was this allowed to happen?

Yes it seems that it was GAME ON and Launcestonians copped it every which way. Employment opportunities in the city were lost, so apart from being slugged with a loss that will amount to a rate rise, or a loss of services, Council’s management seems to be operating within an outsourcing environment that sends income opportunities to almost anywhere except Launceston. This is economic rationalism in action big time.

Who is actually minding the shop?

LAUNCESTON'S GENERAL MANAGER AND THE PRESS IN 2011

2011 is turning out to be a somewhat torrid time for Launceston's General Manager and Launceston City Council's ratepayers. Today's story – 9-2-2011 - in The Examiner there is yet another story carrying subliminal messages.

Mr Dobrzynski used the article to "hit back at material on the former city museum director's website." ... click here to directly access the story

The story reports that on the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery's (QVMAG) ex-director's, Patrick Filmer-Sankey, website Mr Dobrzynski is documented as sending an email from his iPhone that read: "Poor sad Patrick."

Mr Filmer-Sankey has been using his website to criticise the council and the reasons for his dismissal last year for some time now.

Interestingly, Mr Dobrzynski is reported as saying that "he was concerned at their effect on his museum staff" – that is Mr Filmer-Sankey's assertions and commentaries on his website – and furthermore he went on to say "at times, as leader of that organisation [the QVMAG], I feel I need to comment."

Curiously, Launceston's ratepayers seems to have been operating under a delusion that the QVMAG has a new Director, Mr Richard Mulvaney, and that the Mayor is the leader of the QVMAG given that the museum is ultimately accountable to Council and not the General Manager. However, Mr Dobrzynski seems to think that the cap is his even if it doesn't fit.

Apparently all this has been going on somewhat under Mayor Albert van Zetten's radar. Even if it is late in the day the Mayor has "since spoken to Mr Dobrzynski about the matter" – the GM's comments to Mr Filmer-Sankey that is – and apparently offering the advice to "not to get involved in these things."

Despite this, Mr Dobrzynski said in the article that Council was taking legal advice which will doubtlessly cost Launceston's hapless ratepayers a motza. Goodness only knows how well the legal fraternity is already doing out of Mr Dobrzynski's 'museum management issues' to date. There is no way that it is insubstantial. What is more to the point, these legal expenses for the most part are quite likely designed to protect Mr Dobrzynski's reputation as much as, if not more than, Council's. It is very very hard to see a benefit to the ratepayers in this kind of legal expense.

When will the Aldermen get a handle on all this and start to take care of the ratepayers to whom they are accountable and who will be holding them so again at this years Council elections?

2011 in Launceston started out with Mr Dobrzynski pouring cold water over any notion of there being any street celebration for New Year in the city. January finished with Mr Dobrzynski telling Aldermen "to butt out of a review of the council's road line marking program." ... click here to directly access that story.

And then there was the QVMAG air conditioning ducts debacle when Mr. Dobrzynski, paraphrased, asserted the project had been appropriately approved. However, it seems that it has turned out otherwise. Here it seems that Launceston's hapless ratepayers may well be the losers yet again in that they are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of an avoidable cost over run.

If ratepayers are getting tired of the press publishing these stories involving Mr. Dobrzynski it is understandable given that there is typically a cost to them flagged in these stories. It is appreciated that the press that reports on the stories but it is just the case that ratepayers wish that Mr. Dobrzynski didn't keep giving cause for these stories to be published and sounding the alarm bells that they do. It's time that the city's Aldermen got on top of this situation and put a stop to the burgeoning extraordinary out of budget expenditure precipitated by their General Manager.

Launceston demonstrates its commitment to waste

Recently you may have been paying some attention to what is regarded as rubbish that is being disposed of in an emergency situation like the Brisbane floods. If you did, you will have seen a great deal of recoverable material being consigned to landfill. Given that it was an emergency it is understandable but there is always the hope that once the crisis is over the opportunity to recover damaged and discarded resources will be taken. You see Brisbane City Council has a pretty good attitude towards resource recovery outside crisis time ... look here

Launceston's General Manager boasts that he has impressive credentials in regard to sustainability. If you check that out online you get some interesting results ... look here He does seem to have served on the odd committee but those committees seem to have delivered their outcomes in jurisdictions other than his and that looks likely to be repeated in Launceston given the Examiner's reporting of Council's first meeting for 2011 ... look here

Possibly it is a Melbourne Council like the City of Port Phillip that really benefited from the talkfests and clearly this Council can be used as a model Council that takes sustainability seriously ... look here Interestingly, the City of Port Phillip has taken its constituents need to dispose of their redundant Christmas trees to heart and found ways to help out.

Reading the Examiner's report of Launceston City Council first meeting for the year it is clear that Launceston Waste Management Centre is indeed somewhere where Council manages to be extraordinarily wasteful.

Ald Ball initiated a very well well-attended public meeting last year to workshop resource recovery options but in the end it was just another talkfest of the kind that Council operatives seem disinclined to actually do anything about. Yet again Launceston's constituency is being ignored.

It also appears that Launceston is actually committed to a long-term landfill policy despite its total inappropriateness and Launcestonians looking for for better outcomes.

What's more, when our elected representatives make an effort to bring about change their efforts are thwarted by bureaucratic humbug and recalcitrance.

The more Launceston invests in Waste Management the poorer the outcome but it is after all mostly about waste down at Town Hall. While the waste is managed is it is being there is every prospect of an increase in people's rates looming just over the horizon.

A FLOOD OF SALUTARY LESSONS

Us humans tend to create our own disasters and call them "Acts of God." When it is her/his work we tend to exacerbate its impact upon us by:
• Failing to look out for the warning signals – being distracted, failing to pay attention and focusing on other, typically less significant priorities;
• Ignoring whatever warning signals we do see – ill advised self-serving denial;
• Inadequate preparation and minimal attention to detail – falsely pragmatic bean counter driven failures of leadership;
• Failing to empower individuals – bureaucratic methodologies and central controls typically designed to further empower the powerful and better serve their aspirations;

Yet again these weaknesses and failures are becoming clear via the devastating Queensland floods. They are are having a horrendous impact upon thousands and thousands of Queenslander's lives right now. And, what is more, are set to have very significant impacts upon all Australians lives one way or another for some time to come.

From The Australian, here is one person's take on the consequences of all this but will we actually learn anything from it.

"At the intersections of Victoria, Margaret and Russell streets (in Toowoomba) - where the boiling muddy tsunami was its fiercest and most graphically filmed - the city council had embarked on an ambitious beautification plan to turn the creek into a pleasing urban feature, complete with boardwalks, gardens, illumination and seating. Everyone thought it was wonderful, except for cynics such as my husband and me. In fact, every time we drove past the feature we would say to no one in particular: This little creek is going to make them sorry one day. Tragically, we were right.

Early yesterday morning I went back to the bruised and battered Margaret Street to support any local business that still had the heart to open. My coffee shop was handing out free coffees to the battered owners of the local businesses who had lost so much. When I went to buy my newspaper, the newsagent told me he was devastated, not because of what had happened but because the engineer who had worked on the beautification project told him he couldn't make them listen when he pleaded for bigger pipes - "18-footers" he called them - to let the water through, because it simply didn't suit the aesthetics of the architects and landscapers.

So that's what happened to my city, folks, the same as happened to so much of flooded Queensland. We did stupid and really, really dumb things because we thought we could get away with them. We built the wrong sort of houses and the wrong sort of bridges. We built towns and suburbs on flood plains. And we ignored at our peril the forces of nature and the history of the great floods that have shaped this continent for thousands of years.

In our arrogance, we created towns and cities better suited to the whims of bean-counters and city-bound architects than the natural lie of the land. And for 20 years we cheerfully welcomed new settlers to Queensland with a "beautiful one day, perfect the next".

We didn't tell them what this place was really like when it rained. And we were wrong." ... click here to read the story.

Everywhere there are lessons of this kind to be learned – some smaller, some much bigger. Will our governments, and the bureaucrats that drive them, ever admit to their failures and deficiencies? It will be revealing and edifying to watch what happens in Queensland in the wake of this catastrophe but one thing is almost certain, there will be a lot of ducking, diving and blame-shifting 'officials' of all kinds seeking to absolve themselves – and keep their salaries despite their non-performance. There will also be some who should have been listened to that we'll find sidelined. There might also be some repentant ones but they will not be allowed to speak up for fear of the damage that might do.

There are salutary lessons to be learned here to do with flooding and other things. However, will anyone be paying attention?

A thought from Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882) "I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them their jobs."

LETTER TO THE EDITOR – QVMAG REFURBISHMENT

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE ARTICLE IN THE EXAMINER THAT THE LETTER BELOW RESPONDS TO
Click here for the latest on the Dr. Girshwin sacking - 11.01.2011
Click here for the General Manager's rejection of criticism 11.01.2011

I am beginning to wonder just what it is that Launceston City Council’s Aldermen will actually take responsibility for.

Today we have an architect telling us that one of the city’s iconic buildings is being defaced by an inappropriate air conditioning installation and then along comes the Mayor duck shoving the responsibility for it to the General Manager.

It seems that this sort of thing falls under the control of the General Manger, you know the very same person who denied Launceston its New Year’s celebration.

The General Manger did not have, or was it would not have, anything to say about the museum’s defacement, and the Mayor, it seems that he dare not say anything.

Who represents Launceston’s ratepayers? It seems that the Mayor thought that a street celebration for New Year was not such a bad idea but the General Manger said no despite everything.

Now the General Manager is saying nothing about this piece of multi million dollar museum refurbishment because it seems that he doesn’t have to. That is because he is not elected and is therefore unaccountable to ratepayers, nor would it seem that he is accountable to the city’s Alderman either.

When will this abomination be dealt with? In fact, who will deal with it?

It is just not good enough Mr Mayor.

Alison Ford

H. G. Wells (1866 - 1946)
The sad truth is that excellence makes people nervous.

LETTER TO: Valuation and Local Government Rating Review Steering Committee

22 December 2010
Valuation and Local Government Rating Review Steering Committee
Local Government Division
GPO Box 123
HOBART TAS 7001

Dear Committee Members,
Re : Review of Government Valuation and Local Government Rating

We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the report titled Valuation and local government rating in Tasmania: a robust framework for the future dated October 2010 by Access Economics.

We note the press report published earlier this week in The Examiner Newspaper, advising that the closing date for submissions have been extended by a week. We are appreciative of this additional time to make comment on behalf of ratepayers in Tasmania.

At our meeting in Launceston with you and your advisor Mr Peter Pearce on 12th November, members of our Executive were pleased to congratulate your government on authorising this comprehensive report, which carries our Association's broad support. Whilst supporting the general thrust of the report, we argue for 50% of municipal charges to be made up of fixed charges for services.

There is no doubt that ratepayers and the community generally who contribute to rates through leases and rentals, expect local government to be a basic service provider, and that those services ought to be charged where possible on a system that reflects the user-pays principle. Particularly, residential households should not be penalised with a charging system that
reflects a 'wealth tax' for the cost of basic services.

The Terms of Reference provided to Access Economics, calls upon the consultant to assess... the effectiveness of (local government) rating processes.... and .... evaluate alternative models for ....... rating. It is therefore disappointing that there wasn't a broader investigation by Access Economics, of existing rating systems operating in Tasmania (such as the systems used by Georgetown, Devonport and Brighton) and for modelling on the impacts of any changes on a more representative range of local government areas (those modelled didn't include Launceston for instance, the largest municipality, or any of the municipalities currently using a fixed or
capped rating system).

Valuation and Local Government Rating Review Submission 2 Residential properties on 4% minimum rule after 2008-09 revaluation, were very badly affected by rate increases, and will continue to suffer these high cost penalties until the present systems are changed and returned to a rating cost akin to pre-2008 levels. These rate levels are not sustainable for such ratepayers, and whilst local government argue for their own income sustainability level, it is our very strongly-held view, that there is inadequate consideration given to ratepayer sustainability.

Councils must demonstrate more restraint with their budgets, so as to reduce rating requirements and to properly manage activities and budgets in a responsible manner to remain within budget provisions and to fully complete all works for which the budget was approved in the first place. There is a need for consultation with ratepayers BEFORE rates and budgets are proposed for council approval, and that this consultation be real and persuasive.

Budget savings must be returned to reserves and offset interest expenses and to minimise subsequent rate charges. Activities of Local Government must be restricted to more appropriate local government activities and not become to the benefit of a greater region. Local Government must not continue along a course of becoming 'minigovernment'.

Clearly the present use of AAV to assess municipal rates is inequitable and broadly unpopular, and must be abandoned. Whilst the impact of a land only based valuation system has not been fully modelled against AAV in a Local Government rating system context, it would appear from the investigation undertaken and presented, that this would be a fairer system for the second
50% of municipal charges to be directed to ratepayers.

We look forward to learning more about submissions you receive in relation to this process, and hope that we can continue to participate in a two-way dialogue to arrive at a new system for valuation and Local Government rating, at the earliest possible date.

Yours faithfully,
Lionel J. Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

Copy Hon Bryan Green
Minister for Local Government.

Council first quarter budget shows favourable results

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."

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."

Someone From Launceston City Council Should Attend This Seminar!

If there was ever an imperative for someone from Launceston City Council to send someone along to a seminar like this, well now would seem to be the time.

This notice is being circulated by fax at the moment and it seems safe to assume that Council will have received one. Let us see if we hear of anyone attending. Launceston's ratepayers would endorse that initiative.

New Director appointed for the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery

Following an extensive recruitment process, the Launceston City Council has appointed Richard Mulvaney as Director of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG).

Mr Mulvaney has 25 years experience in cultural heritage and museum management roles and is currently the Chief Executive Officer of the New South Wales Rail Transport

Museum.

Notably, he was the inaugural Director of the Bradman Museum in Bowral, NSW which honours Sir Donald Bradman.

Launceston City Council General Manager Robert Dobrzynski said "I'm delighted to welcome Richard to the team. His extensive skills and experience will help lead the

QVMAG during this exciting time. There are a number of initiatives such as the realignment of the Inveresk site as a dedicated museum and the refurbishment of the Royal Park site that are in progress which he will take the lead role in.

"In particular, Richard's strong governance and relationship building skills will be essential assets as the QVMAG enters this next phase."

Mr Mulvaney's first day at the QVMAG will be on Monday 6 December 2010. He has been involved with museums for all his working life. After completing his Graduate Diploma in Museum Studies in Melbourne in 1983 he worked at the Australian War Memorial and Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies in Canberra and then Sovereign Hill in Ballarat.

In 1989 he became the founding director of the Bradman Museum in Bowral, NSW. Over the next 17 years he managed the development of a new cricket museum complex and related activities. In 2007 he worked at Museums & Galleries NSW as General Manager, Business & Finance.

Mr Mulvaney took up his position as CEO Rail Heritage Centre at Thirlmere to be closer to his home in the NSW Southern Highlands. Part of his role at Thirlmere is to supervise on behalf of the organisation the major upgrade of the site in association with RailCorp. The new Rail Heritage Centre opened recently and will include a new workshop, exhibition area and restoration of the historic railway precinct.

Mr Mulvan has been a member of Museums Australia for many years and has a deep appreciation of the contribution the state based service organisations such as Museums & Galleries NSW provides to museums and those who work in the industry. He served on the Council during the early 1990’s as President of MA NSW. He has also been an office bearer of the Illawarra Chapter of MA NSW and Chairman of the MA SIG sports heritage.

INFORMATION LINKS:

• Museums & Galleries NSW
• Macarthur Chronicle
• Vintage Trains at Thirlmere
• Thirlmere Railway Museum
• Bradman Foundation – Museum of Cricket
• Announcement of Director's Appointment – Examiner

Should there be a giant Christmas tree in Launceston and who should pay for it ?

Our Association is amused by calls by residents of Riverside, Exeter and Longford for a giant Christmas tree in Launceston and for Launceston City Council to pay for it.

Christmas has become very much a commercial promotion and the appropriate party to fund a giant tree is Cityprom, the very organisation for whom a special levy is collected for promoting the Launceston City Centre.

Cityprom Limited was formed in 1988 to promote and encourage development of the central business district of Launceston, including Christmas promotions and Christmas decorations. Ratepayers may well ask what they get from Cityprom for the money collected on their behalf ?

One wonders whether those people interviewed by The Examiner on Page 14, pay rates to Launceston City Council anyway ?

Max Plummer

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

RATE REVIEW PROCESS

All of Tasmania's ratepayers should be interested in the joint State Government and local government Valuation and Local Government Rating Review. The review, which was initiated by the State Government in response to community and council concerns, is being informed by expert advice from an independent consultant, Access Economics.

Access Economics has now provided its final report, Valuation and local government rating in Tasmania: A robust framework for the future, to the steering committee leading the review. The report sets out Access Economics’ findings and makes some recommendations for change.

The report reflects the views of the independent consultants and does not necessarily reflect the views of the committee – nor of the State Government. Rather the report is an important component of the overall review and as such the report, together with council and public consultation, will inform the final recommendations of the steering committee. Ratepayers need yo be engaged with this process.

The report, together with a consultation paper, has now been released for public consultation. Consultation on the report closes on 17 December 2010. The report and consultation paper can be viewed – here

Responses to frequently asked questions about the Valuation and Local Government Rating Review can also be found in the report.

The steering committee leading the review will consider all feedback received on the report before making its own recommendations to the State Government in early 2011. Any changes proposed by the State Government as a result of the review will be further consulted on in 2011.

Submissions can be provided to the joint steering committee overseeing the review by email to:

lgd@dpac.tas.gov.au

or by mail to:

Valuation and Local Government Rating Review Steering Committee

Local Government Division

GPO Box 123

HOBART TAS 7001

Aldermanic Social Experimentation Must Stop

It is worthy of note that the youth center is an initiative of Northern Tasmania Development, itself a creature of Launceston City Council. So what we have is Launceston City Council, thorough its proxies, initiating and supporting non core activities which would never have got up had they gone to the floor of Council in the first place.

Northern Tasmania Development was initially established to encourage and assist economic development in the northern region, but given its poor performance in doing that, it has taken on community development and a grabbag of other 'busy work' activities as well. Council should ensure no more Launceston ratepayers funds go to the youth center, and while it is at it, also discontinue funding of Northern Tasmania Development.

If Launceston City Council ratepayers are to ever constrain the extraordinary, and largely unaccountable, expenditures on their behalf there needs to a paradigm shift embraced by Council Officers and the Aldermen alike. Do not hold your breath waiting.

Witney Small

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION: Cataract Gorge Environmental Flow

To: Harry Galea (précis )

It is understood that Council had asked Hydro to defer finalising their process until Council had managed to arrange the public meeting, so it is hoped that the delay doesn’t now hamper the process.

Other than the interest shown by its Cataract Gorge Advisory Committee, Council is way behind the ball on this issue having not taken much interest in it when originally invited by Hydro to its public forums last year.

Other parties who did, have put a lot of effort into dealing with the issue, and they must now be included in your process as a priority, not just as a matter of courtesy.

Accordingly, the following groups should be included by you without needing to respond to any public notice as you may intend.

Cataract Gorge Protection Association Inc.
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
Heritage Protection Association (Tasmania) Inc.
LCC Cataract Gorge Advisory Committee

We look forward to hearing more about Council’s expectations and intentions, prior to any notice being published.

Regards,

Lionel

Cc: Robert Dobrzynski, Mayor van Zettan, Armitage & Norton plus Andrew Smith

LETTER TO COUNCIL: Remission of Rates for Residents of Retirement Villages

Dear Mayor and Alderman

City of Launceston

We refer to Agenda item 12.1 for the Meeting to be held on 18/10/10. The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association believes in equity for all residents and occupiers of land within the City of Launceston.

The residents of retirement villages and the like receive the benefits afforded to all other residents of the city.

Matters such as internal roads , lighting thereof, refuse collection and the like, are only part of the services that residents of this City require, and are taken into account with the State valuation system. There are many similar examples outside retirement villages where these services and others of a similar kind are paid for by occupants and not provided by the City.

Occupiers of retirement villages are no less wealthy than many other occupiers of rental properties who inter alia contribute to rating costs as part of rental/lease arrangements. There are many residents in this City who are struggling to meet their daily living expenses includingpayment of municipal rates, and are far worse off than many residents of retirement villages.There are residents of this city, even those who are property owners, who are unable to afford a move to a retirement village.

Retirement village residents are commonly subsidised either by capital works or operational expenses by government and charitable bodies. Whilst there is a small pensioner remission available to ordinary pensioner/ratepayers, that level of support does not equate to what is provided to residents of retirement villages. The ordinary resident/ratepayer of the city have also worked hard and paid taxes and rates for all of their lives. They are certainly no different to the nature and character of the apparent “special” residents of retirement villages. As Aldermen you are elected to represent the interests of all ratepayers, please fulfil your duties in that regard.

There is an apparent view from many people in the community, that many people living in some of the more recently constructed retirement villages are more akin to a social elite, and it is difficult to not support this view when one learns what these residents pay to become a resident of these well-appointed retirement villages.

Of course Councillors have been somewhat intimidated by the aggressive opposition by this visibly mobile and organised groups of residents, however, that spectre of opponents ought not persuade Councillors to abandon or neglect the needs and sorry plight of other, less organised and less able ratepayer and individuals resident within the city.

Please do not support the remission of rates for residents of retirement villages.

Yours sincerely,

Lionel Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc
Tel 0428 137 050

LETTER TO COUNCIL: LCC Alderman Ball's Urgent Motion

Dear Mayor and Alderman,

City of Launceston.

The Examiner (P13 16/10/10) reports that Ald Jeremy Ball has rushed through a motion for Monday’s meeting promoting financial support to keep Youth on Paterson financially viable for 12 months whilst it sources other funding options.

There is NOTHING on Council’s website providing any information in relation to this motion. The Tasmanian Ratepayers Association DOES NOT SUPPORT Local Government funding for this purpose. Responsibility for this area of community activity is within the realm of State and Federal Governments.

Whilst we agree that Youth on Paterson provides a valuable and worthy service to the community, we do not understand from the press article – being the only information made available – why the previous funding arrangements have not been continued, and why, since this has apparently been known since June 2010, that it is being presented without notice.
Launceston Ratepayers are already funding activities and services to residents that live beyond the municipal boundaries of the City, and many ratepayers are struggling to pay the present rates and costs of other essential living services.

There is no provision in Council’s budget for this activity.

Should Alderman wish to support charitable activities of this kind, then they are free to do so and can choose to apply their aldermanic and mayoral allowances to that purpose.

Please do not provide financial support to this activity.

Yours sincerely,
Lionel Morrell
President
Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.
Tel 0428 137 050

EXAMINER ARTICLE: Fears for youth centre future 16 Oct 10 | THE Launceston City Council will be asked to help finance the Youth on Paterson centre to prevent its imminent closure. Alderman Jeremy Ball rushed through a last-minute motion for the agenda for Monday's council meeting, seeking council ... read more here