Budget Submission for 2016 - 2017, Launceston City Council

To: The General Manager,
Mr. R. Dobrzynski, 
Launceston City Council P.O. Box 396 
LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 

Dear Mr. Dobrzynski,

Re : Budget Submission for 2016 - 2017, Launceston City Council

Obedient to the Mayor's statement that "This is public money and it's important that the public takes the opportunity to provide input into how it should be spent" the Tasmanian Ratepayers Association (TRA) makes this submission on behalf of Launceston residents and ratepayers to contribute to the debate on the development of the 2016-17 Annual Budget and striking of the rate.

In 2012, the statement was made that:
‘The Council does not believe that this level of operating deficit is sustainable and so will be implementing a plan to reduce operating costs in the short to medium term’. We cannot discern where Council has delivered on this promise to rein in expenditure and become sustainable, as promised and that instead of an anticipated reduction in the rates you charge to Launceston ratepayers, the rate continues to increase.

The cost of living crises in Tasmania, pointed out by the TRA to LCC and to the State Government now for several years, continues unabated and again we repeat our plea for effective action by reducing your taxation levels in Launceston.

We are perplexed at how Council is consulting with ratepayers via the YOUR VOICE YOUR LAUNCESTON website. This soliciting of anonymous input from unknown people and from unknown locations has no value whatsoever. 

What is the point in inviting people to proffer ideas to the value of $25,000 on how the city may maintain or improve one of our City's assets or add significant benefit to the community ? These contributors have no means of establishing whether $25,00 is the quantum value of their suggestion, and the entire concept of this $25,000 'bite sized' project is to say the very least, bizarre. Nowhere do you actively invite people to nominate savings of $25,000 which would be a much better principle instead of raising people's expectations otherwise.

We comment on the ideas registered on your website so far, which we regard as being wholly expenditure projects, not cutbacks:

1. Launceston BMX _ There may be merit in such an idea, but such a wish cannot be afforded in times of financial stringency.
2. Traffic and Pedestrian lights _There are safety factors forming the basis of synchronisation and where is the community benefit to Launceston residents?
3. Update of playgrounds, parenting facilities and enclosure etc Tailrace is not within the Municipal boundary. Sensible upgrades are with merit, but again financial stringency is a concern.
4. Parents Room _ Again meritorious, and additional strategically located toilet facilities are desirable. This contributor overlooks the facilities already provided in the central area.
5. Improve/renew indoor slides at LAC Absolutely no more capital expenditure can be justified at LAC until the ever- increasing deficit of LAC and LAFit is corrected. This is a regional facility and a charging system for non residents or a direct contribution from neighbouring councils in the region is the only way that this facility can be further improved.
6. Community/tourist radio service _ These types of services can only be justified by commercial input or user/pay funding. This is not core Local Government responsibility.
7. Nature strip transformation _ A worthy idea that would require basic licensing provisions so as to control this use of public land and prevent safety and vision concerns. Community garden plots could be established within some of the more-generous road reserves. Liability would need to be determined.
8. Launceston- the garden city _ Launceston already struggles to maintain the parks and gardens it already has. It is not Council's role to beautify universities. Incentives to encourage ratepayers to plant trees and shrubs on private property is desirable and could be considered.
9. Launceston Way _ A worthy idea from the past that has not previously been implemented. A funding source/sponsor would need to identified.
10. Public Toilets St George's Square _ A capital expenditure & maintenance issue. A user pay system should be investigated.
11. Traffic calming and parking bays at Prospect _ This indicate a road design/subdivision design failure that ought to have been dealt with at approval stage and funded by the subdivider. Unless funds are available from the parks and reserves fund, this ought to be low priority.
12. Skate park and recreational area /equipment at Lilydale _ Albeit desirable, perhaps a project for the local service club. Lilydale Falls Reserve is nearby.
13. Revegetate river banks _ A project for NRM with volunteer and 'work for the dole' assistance.
14. Small Grandstand at NTCA _ A matter of priority and the capital works budget versus community fundraising.
15. ReMida Center at the Tip Shop _ Requires a Business Plan to be sustainable without ongoing ratepayer drain on funds.
16. Mosaic sculptures & seats in CBD _ At Deloraine this was funded by Rotary from Tas Craft Fair proceeds. A project suitable for service clubs with Council oversight.
17. River bike trail extension _ A suitable project for 'Work for the Dole".
18. Edible Forest _ Heritage Forest is on toxic ground. Suitable for nature strip plantings, but maintenance and pruning are issues beyond Council's means, so could be part of controlled community garden developments.
19. Maintenance of exiting bike/walking paths _ Agreed, and could be organised by the Tamar Bicycle Users Group who are one of the beneficiaries, utilising "Work for the dole".
20. Electronic community event sign _ Sponsors/advertisers are required to justify the cost and on-going maintenance. A self-supporting project only.
21. Shade and fruit trees on naturestrips _ Already part of an LCC program, but has fallen behind schedule.
22. Walking track in off-leash area Coronation Park _ User-pay, Service Club, "Work for the dole" project.
23. Parent Parking _ Present Parking Stations suffice.
24. St George's Square Food Vans _ This area is a rapidly-emerging traffic and pedestrian hazard area. Parking ought to be removed from the western side of High Street and vans repositioned away from overhanging mature oak tree. Consideration should be given to locating vans on the eastern side adjacent to playground away from through traffic. Nuisance concerns arise for nearby residents and amplified music and religious spruiking and preaching ought to be discouraged.
25. Plant more shade trees _ Part of a n existing programme referred to earlier.
26. Boardwalk to Mowbray _ The present cycleway/ path to UTas is adequate.
27. Street Lighting _ An existing concept? but beyond scope of Council. Prohibiting the illumination of floodlighting at Aurora Stadium and other sportsgrounds during the day is warranted.
28. Finish LGH surrounds _ Routine issue based on priority.
29. Footpath to Vermont Road _ Another project for Community Group/Service Club/ "Work for the dole".
30. City Park Disability Parking _ Agreed.
31. Greenhouse for community interaction etc. _ Suited to Community Gardens for security and supervision. John Hart Conservatory in City Park could be partly adapted for such activities.
32. Fix sewerage and stormwater systems _ This responsibility lies partly with TasWater, but all combined and stormwater services should be suitably transferred to them too. The Tasmanian Government has already placed Tasmanian sewerage infrastructure upgrades for Launceston before Infrastructure Australia for Commonwealth funding support.
33. Graffiti Removal Team _ Agreed, but again suggest this could be a "Work for the dole" project.
34. Relocation of UTas to the floodplain areas of Inveresk and Willis Street _ Agreed that other higher priorities for funding exist in Launceston, and that the land should not be gifted to UTas.
35. Launceston Youth Suicide Initiative _ This is not a core Local Government responsibility, but with outside funding support could be managed by Council.
36. Family Friendly Sport _ Meritorious, but could be more the responsibility of centre/facility management instead of Council. State and Commonwealth Sports Administration have a role as well.

We said in previous years, and again we repeat that this consultation must be genuine, be real and persuasive. Much of what has been requested by the anonymous parties via your Your Voice Your Launceston website cannot pass this 'pub test' evaluation.

Launceston Issues of ongoing concern
A great number of issues and matter remain of great concern to residents and particularly where costs directly impact on ratepayers.

Council owns shares in other corporations, such as Launceston Airport and Taswater. Where is the financial return to Council given then each of these entities have consumed ratepayer funds, public money?

Council is a member and contributes public funds to more obscure entities such as Regional Capitals Australia ($8,000/annum Subscription to an unincorporated lobby group). Council does not report on such activities or benefits to its ratepayers. Our correspondence concerning RCA has been ignored.

Nowhere does Council encourage submission on improving the efficiency of Council, potential economies throughout its operation/ potential management reductions and the potential economies of a smaller Council.

Launceston Aquatic and LAFit along with Princess Theatre, Albert Hall, QVMAG, Aurora Stadium, Carr Villa Cemetery, City Prom, Tiger Bus, Launceston Waste Centre, are all treated as cost centres in the LCC budget and nowhere is there ever the inclination to reconfigure, dispose of or abandon these cost centres, or is there the quantification of even the social return for such expenditure and loss ventures.

Council sees itself offering grants and handouts to festival organisers, not just seed money for establishment, but cash that can be traced to boosting their profitability. This is NOT the core role of Local Government.

There remains a lack of planning for important infrastructure projects such as an Eastern Bypass Road and East-west Road Connections. A transport study is long overdue for Launceston, and it is these projects and needs that ought to be the focus of Council in good time ahead of State and Federal elections.

Fiddling unnecessarily with one-way road systems and failing to deal with the dire impacts of the St John Street Bus Interchange on small businesses in the central area are widening chasms of municipal neglect. 

Unless Local Government leads in this planning, no other level of government will come along to assist with input and funding.

Launceston's heritage buildings have been demonstrated yet again to be essential to tourism in this area. We refer you to the Legislative Council's recent report on this topic and how there is a need to rewrite the Interim Planning Scheme to protect Launceston's important cultural heritage values.

Empty shops and criticism of car parking inequities between CBD and suburban areas must be addressed and traders and residents of the city properly consulted. The emerging concerns with works in Quadrant Mall will shortly shock the stakeholders who remain at a distance.

The water quality and flows in our rivers remain a high concern and the need to increase waterflow through Cataract Gorge is obvious.

Smoke levels, water supply purity and the still looming Tamar Valley Pulp Mill Project is worriesome and a great disincentive to positive developments and lifestyle maintenance.
Rating systems and promised changes.

We continue to repeat that promises by Aldermen to present rates modelling based on a land valuation method, have failed to materialise in the public arena, and even though we have been told this exercise has been done, LCC continues to keep it from the community it is meant to serve. 

It is important that ratepayers be given a comprehensive analysis of where the rate income comes from. It is only when the public is provided with all of the information, that useful and informed input can be expected.

We continue to argue against the use of AAV to assess municipal rates as inequitable and broadly unpopular, and we continue to call for it to be abandoned.

The Aldermen who pledged the removal of AAV from Council's rating system when facing election and re-election, seem un-moved by criticisms showing they misled the voters.

Whilst a couple of years ago we were pleased to see LCC finally admitting that activities of Local Government must be restricted to more appropriate local government activities and not become to the benefit of a greater region, unless citizens from the region, but outside the rateable area, also contribute, we can find nowhere has any measure of these sentiments achieved.

Obviously, if this cannot be by agreement with the neighbouring rating authority, then it must be on a user-pays system. We repeat, that Local Government must not continue along a course of becoming 'mini-government' and needs in these difficult economic times, to focus on core Local Government responsibilities and activities.

Council concessions and usage charges.

1. The cost of the Waste Centre should also include its substantial need for capital.
2. The waste charge should be increased to accurately reflect the cost of maintaining the Waste Centre and its substantial requirements into the future.
3. Waste charges should be raised to ensure enough surplus is generated to go into a sinking fund from which improvements to the centre should be funded.
4. There should be no contribution from the general rate.
5. There is no valid reason for not charging for the true cost of receiving waste. Failure to do this encourages the production of waste and benefits those who generate large amounts of waste and those outside the municipality that do not contribute to the general rate. This is unsustainable and contrary to modern practice where the generator of the waste pays for its disposal. 

Likewise

1. The operation of Carr Villa should not require a subsidy from ratepayers.
2. Ratepayers should only need to pay for their own funeral, not that of others.
3. Where there is a subsidy from ratepayers for users of facilities that provide what is essentially a private good; for example Launceston Aquatic, St Leonards Athletics Centre, Carr Villa, Princess Theatre, Tiger Bus, this subsidy should be equally divided among all ratepayers, thus minimising each individual’s contribution.
4. The subsidy should be explicitly identified in the rates notice.
5. The allocation of this subsidy on an equal basis across all ratepayers is consistent with the charge levied for all these services, which is not done on the basis of AAV. For example, the Carr Villa charge for a funeral is not on the basis of the AAV of the deceased person's home.

We again repeat, that such an approach towards hidden subsidies to private goods would be consistent with LCC’s organisational value of integrity and telling the truth. This would also enable Council to better inform the community of the cost of services and would likely encourage more efficient use of these services.

The low numbers of people using the Aquatic Centre bears witness to the fact that a majority of ratepayers never use it and if they had a rate notice that clearly identified their contribution towards it, this would possibly encourage them to use it.

Council Concessions – Retirement villages and UTas

1. The association continues to hold the very strong view that retirement villages should not receive a rates remission. This is consistent with LCC management advice several years ago, and the recent deliberations of LGAT are noted. We look forward to LCC making the necessary changes.

2. The budget habitually neglects to mention the largest concession of all, that of the rates foregone on the University of Tasmania. The University of Tasmania is a business like any other business and it should pay rates like any other business. If it is not to pay rates, the concession should be acknowledged in the accounts. The recent MoU entered into by LCC will make the situation even worse if UTas takes over land at Inveresk and Willis St where presently these sites earn a direct income for the City's coffers.

3. The fire levy that is collected by LCC on behalf of the Tasmanian Government should be discounted by the amount that should be collected from the University and the difference made up by the Tasmanian Government.

4. Tourism expenditure is one area where Council must find immediate savings. The Travel and Visitor Information Centre (LTIC) should be made to be self- funded or closed forthwith.

There has to come a time when tourism becomes like any other industry, where it has reached maturity and is able to look after itself.

LCC management and aldermen need to understand that there is a limit to the ratepayers funds that can reasonably be spent on Tourism. Tourism is an over serviced sector of the economy that needs to stand on its own.

We said in previous years that the only expenditure on tourism supported by the TRA is the funding for the Regional Tourism Organisation. This initiative deserves to be given an opportunity to deliver what other tourism initiatives have clearly failed to deliver. To gauge the commitment of the industry to this initiative, the industry should contribute half the funds via a special rate on accommodation and other tourism related properties. We look forward to a response for such a policy being implemented.

We repeat that LCC could even gauge once and for all the tourism industry’s commitment by making such a rate voluntary. If the industry truly values the work carried out by LCC on its behalf, LCC should have no trouble in securing 100% commitment from the industry participants.

In previous years we identified a discrepancy between the Annual Plan and the Statutory Estimates in respect of the LTIC, where on the one hand the Strategy stated:

• Develop and implement a new model for the LTIC based on contemporary practice focussing on online bookings and promotion.
• And on the other hand the Budget made allowance for a loss on nearly $450,000 for LTIC operations.

We expected a response to this issue, but received ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

We repeat the question and again seek your response.

We suggested there be a revised model for an LTIC based on online bookings and promotion would bring the industry’s promotion activities into the 21st century and enable the closure of the LTIC. It's much lower operating costs could be borne by the industry without any recourse to residential ratepayer funds or Launceston City Council itself. This would be a good outcome for the industry and the community.

Conclusion
In conclusion, TRA observes that Tasmania and specifically Launceston, continues to find itself in a phase of negative growth, and there is nothing on the horizon that suggests any change for improvement in the near future and certainly not in the forthcoming year.

The continued increase in property valuations reflect a non-existent positive growth.

Launceston City Council rates must be curtailed and restrained so as to reflect the negative growth of local wealth. It is ridiculous to put a cost impost on property owners that no-one can pay.

Independent investigators in other Local Government jurisdictions have found that real estate valuations and admittedly conservative Bank valuations on mortgage properties are half of Council valuations.

Restraint is the only opportunity for Launceston. 

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