CYNICISM WRIT LARGE AT TOWN HALL

You would have to be some kind fool to buy this tosh in The Examiner today. What this story doesn't tell you is that for all intention's purposes, that is the functionaries at Town Hall's intentions, there is absolutely no scope whatsoever for meaningful budget change.

The Council's 'budget people' deliberately present the figures in a format designed and devised to "keep the public out of our hair". A simplified and all inclusive 'line item format' would be friendlier and it would contribute to better understandings.

However, hell is likely to freeze over before 'Town Hall Functionaries' will ever facilitate anything like what is required. So, it is up to the elected representatives.

"Too much work" I hear the cry. In the real world the retort to that is "if it's too bloody hot in the kitchen you can .... ". After all, Council employs 580 people doing all kinds of things and if budget presentation and articulation is not your thing then there is other work to be done in Town Hall and indeed elsewhere.

The first comment to be made about 'Council budget processes' is that they are COST CENTRE oriented and functionaries are wedded to the concept. Consequently, when costs go up, or are escalated from within, income must be found within the budget to cover them. Councils have the easiest of all solutions here ... CONSCRIPT IT.

STEP 1. Increase rates and charges to cover projected increases in expenditure/costs.

STEP 2. Spend every last cent in accord with budget allocation

STEP 3. Assess expenditure patterns and outcomes and argue for increased allocations going forward.

Bureaucratic survival is the imperative, nothing more, nothing less.

Moreover, Councils have the capacity to recover unpaid rates and if rates remain unpaid they'll 'sell you up' as was the case recently in Tasmania with 'The Honey Farm' near Mole Creek. So, the baseline assumption being, budgets are secure and offer security, so why change?

Well, in a 21st C context it is feasible to consider, and implement, a 'Community Enterprise Model' and possibly underpin elements of 'service provision' on a 'shared ownership cooperative' model. Local Govt. does not need to structured on 'cost centre modelling' and various element in current Council operations could be, arguably should be, removed from the bureaucratic operation of the council.

There is a quite long list of operations within the jurisdiction of the City of Launceston with the potential to be reimagined OUTSIDE council's cost centre modelling and say 'corporatised'. 

A prime candidate for 'reimagination' would be the WASTE MANAGEMENT CENTRE – the place in Launceston where vast quantities of resource is being sent to be 'wasted'. 

That 'facility' could/should be reimagined as a RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRE; corporatised; become income reoriented; and thus become a 'contracted Community Enterprise Service Provider'. Such an 'enterprise' would be doing whatever it takes to generate income required to cover costs and to meet community demands/expectations. 

This could well become the model for other 'divisions'.

We do not have to listen too hard to hear the squeals emanating from 'the operational wing' telling us out loud that "we are the experts and the city needs us". Well maybe, but then again where was all that 'expertise' with the CITY HEART PROJECT and all its over budget expenditures, shonky contracting, sloppy planning, etc. etc.?

The city is at the point where there is a need to cut a significant percentage from the 'operational budget'. Many of the services citizens required can be better delivered by 'operations' other than council's. Indeed, the assumption that 'the council is the only logical provider' by default is no longer the way things work.

Cutting to the chase, rather than trying to justify a 'rate rise' this Council needs to be aiming to redirect spending towards increasing the value of delivered services. In 2014 Melbourne initiated a 'People’s Panel' otherwise known as Citizen's Juries/Assemblies elsewhere – ACT, South Australia, NSW, UK.  

In Melbourne 43 randomly selected Melburnians made up a People's Panel. It was formed to make recommendations to Council on its spending and revenue strategy over the next decade. Ae diverse group of residents and ratepayers were given open access to information, expert opinion and financial data to inform the panel's recommendations. 

The sky has not fallen in anywhere a Council has gone to and engaged with 'the people'. By all accounts, value has been added to community life and 'governance is stronger'. 

So who are the detractors? For whatever reason 'council staff' see themselves as  losing out – most often for inexplicable reasons.

Now is the time for Launceston to task such an panel/jury/assembly with reimaging the city's budget and where required the city's Strategic Plan. These things are not the preserve of some self appointed cabal at Town Hall deeming themselves as 'the experts'. 

On the evidence before the community, Council is planning more, and more, and more of the same old, same old..... IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE

________________________________________

From The Examiner  ... https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5958144/city-of-launceston-council-to-get-public-feedback-on-budget/
Public comment is expected to be sought on the City of Launceston council's draft 2019/20 budget. At its meeting on Thursday, the council will vote on whether it will release the budget for comment............ The budget includes more than $20 million of capital projects, and $1.5 million of major operational projects. Council's fees will also be discussed, with most planned to be increased by 2.8 per cent. However, dog fees are set for a 12 per cent increase and burial pricing increased by 15 per cent to bring them into line with other councils............ About $370,000 is planned to be spent on the Launceston Aquatic Centre............ A central business district bin roll out is expected to cost $200,000............ More than $403,000 will be spent on the Princess Theatre and $202,500 for the museums. Town Hall is in for a million-dollar upgrade............ A whopping $3.55 million will be spent on upgrades to UTAS Stadium............ For the Northern suburbs, a $240,000 public toilet upgrade is proposed for Ravenswood and $80,000 on CCTV for Mowbray. The cemetery would get a $195,000 upgrade............A $30,000 pound rebuild design project is also proposed............ On-street parking meters are set for $500,000 upgrades and off-street parking venues, such as the Paterson Street West car park, are getting $415,000 in the draft plan............ More than $3.3 million would be spent on roads............ Female changerooms at Youngtown, Rocherlea would be upgraded and Invermay Park, but is being partly funded by grants. Reimagining the Cataract Gorge also has $250,000 budgeted. ........... The council meeting will be held at 1pm on Thursday at the Town Hall............ OTHER PROJECTS: ........... Roads • Lindsay Street/Invermay Traffic signals: $1m........... • North Bank/Lindsay St project: $250,000 Launceston Aquatic ........... • External sign: $25,000 ........... • Learn to Swim office relocation: $80,000 ........... • Barbecue and shade upgrade: $60,000 ........... • Internal finishes, fitting: $60,000 ........... • Plant equipment: $60,000 ........... • PA system: $85,000............ Princess Theatre and the Earl Arts Centre ........... • Princess Theatre and Earl Arts safety compliance project: $179,000 ........... • Fly tower roof replacement: $44,000 ........... • Wireless comms project: $65,000 ........... • Bio box upgrade: $38,500 ........... • Foyer lift access renewal: $44,000 ........... • Earl Arts Centre air conditioner switchboard: $33,000............ Parking • On-street parking machine upgrade: $500,000........... • Bathurst Street car park resurface: $165,000........... • Patterson Street West lift and CCTV: $250,000............ UTAS Stadium........... • Turf resurfacing: $2.8m........... • PA speaker upgrade: $250,000........... • Car park works: $500,000 grant............ City of Launceston councillors will vote on whether to release the budget for public comment for a four-week period on Thursday. If passed, public submissions would close at 5pm on April 18, for consideration in May and adoption in June.

BE AWARE AND ALERT: IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR FOR COUNCILS

The National Automobile Museum Of Tasmania's chairman Harry Williscroft and manager Phil Costello look at the Lindsay Street site that the museum will move into to make way for the UTAS expansion. Picture

APRIL 5 2018 - 3:00PM Approval for operating budget, council fees on agenda for City of Launceston meeting Lucy Stone .......................... City of Launceston council will continue efforts to amend its planning scheme to allow for the relocation of the National Automobile Museum to the Riveredge industrial precinct. .......................... The council is seeking to modify a clause in the Launceston Interim Planning Scheme 2015 that restricts development within the precinct, which is also covered by the 2008 Invermay-Inveresk Flood Deed of Agreement with the state government. .......................... The clause, if amended, would specifically allow only for a museum within the precinct, but no other large community meeting or entertainment areas. .......................... Local Government Minister Peter Gutwein wrote to the council in December last year saying he was satisfied the Deed did not prohibit a museum and it did not need to be amended. .......................... A letter from the Tasmanian Planning Commission to the council, dated February 2, noted the commission was “not satisfied” the proposed amendment would “clarify, simplify or remove an anomaly” from the planning scheme. .......................... The Commission recommended a period of public exhibition, which was completed. .......................... At Monday’s council meeting, the council will consider the next steps in presenting the four public representations and a report to the commission, seeking approval to amend the clause. .......................... The council will also consider releasing its proposed 2018-2019 operating budget and annual plan for public comment. .......................... Council fees for the 2018-2019 financial year will be considered, requiring an absolute majority of aldermen for approval. .......................... The proposed new playground at the Cataract Gorge will also be up for approval at Monday’s City of Launceston council meeting. .......................... The $650,000 proposal was first announced in December last year, and sparked some backlash amid concerns further development would negatively impact the relatively natural landscape around First Basin. .......................... The new playground would raise the ground level of the existing plat area by 3.3 metres to be in line with the pathway below the Basin Cafe to reduce the risk of flood damage, with a ‘gentle slope’ down to the swimming pool. .......................... Aspects of heritage and culture are also considered within the application, with several submissions received by council from stakeholders expressing concern about the need for increased parking and easy access to the Basin.

______________________________

APRIL 8 2018  City of Launceston Council to release 2018-2019 operating budget for public comment Lucy Stone.......................... Residents can expect a 2.8 per cent rise in general rates under the City of Launceston’s 2018-2019 budget, now released for public comment. .......................... The median residential rate for the municipality is now $1469.24, including a $172.58 Fire Service Levy and $105 for waste charges – an average rise of $42.68 since last year. .......................... The residential rates charge includes a $4 charge for one entry token to the waste centre. .......................... Rates for primary production are expected to increase by 1.17 per cent. .......................... City of Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said he believed the rates had been kept as low as possible in a complicated budget under pressure from “extraneous” costs. .......................... A reduced TasWater distribution, increase in depreciation and ongoing maintenance costs, an increase in labour costs after EBA negotiations, and the cost of upcoming local government elections in October, all placed pressure on the budget, he said. .......................... The council has also resolved to pass on the Fire Service Levy to all retirement homes, which the council collects on behalf of the state government. .......................... Alderman van Zetten said retirement homes had been receiving a rates remission for the levy, with the council shouldering the bill. .......................... “That has meant that the council's ratepayers have effectively been subsidising that remission,” he said. .......................... "We no longer believe that is sustainable nor equitable for council and its ratepayers.” .......................... Alderman van Zetten said the council had faced “a number of challenges” in establishing the operating budget but had determined to maintain a $188,000 underlying surplus. .......................... The 2017-2018 underlying surplus was $1.3 million. .......................... A capital expenditure of $20.8 million is also proposed, including $5.43 million for road upgrades, and $2.1 million for UTAS Stadium and Invermay Park. .......................... Public submissions will end on April 30, with council making final determinations on the annual budget and rates on June 18.

..............................................................................

EDITOR'S NOTE: Resident's and ratepayers need to be mindful the this year is an ELECTION YEAR for councils. In recent times this council has borrowed extraordinary amounts of money for questionable infrastructure and what could turn out to be sweet heart deals made behind closed doors. Given the confidentiality of just about every expenditure ( the Mayor's “extraneous” costs) ratepayers need to be extra vigilant in regard to this budget given that each time a rock is turned over another 'expense' turns up. 

This Saturday it appears as if Council is launching ahead with the appointment of a Cultural Officer seemingly to head up a new 'council unit' before a community consultation process is completed and new consultants have handed their advice to Council. WHY IS THIS? WHAT ARE THE COST IMPLICATIONS?

A close examination of the budget will almost surely expose more than a few financial follies and there is not a lot of time available. It will be easier to look the other way AGAIN but it really is time for a RETHINK ... given that it is an election year!!

THE ALARM BELLS SOULD BE RINGING IN EVERY LAUNCESTON HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS

It's that time of the year again and here we go again with the same old, same old, as if the "post COVID snap back'" is real. The reality is that world has changed and fundamentally. The reality is that the Local Government Act 1995 in Tasmania is way past its use-by-date. And, it's election time too in Tasmania and it is shaping up for a federal election, so the air reeks of political bull dust.

The situation at Launceston's Town Hall is not quite as Acting Mayor Danny Gibson presents it. Because interests rates are at an all time low, presumably this is seen as an opportunity to boost spending and increase economic activity. Who benefits? The developers and The Councils' operational management of course. Who pays? Everybody else of course and for the most part ratepayers.

Yes, yes, infrastructure needs to be maintained and upgraded. However, by way of example, if there was ever a time that the cessation of Landfill Waste Disposal – dumping unutilised resources in the environment –  needed to be implemented, it is right now. This council has been ducking that issue for way too long and here we committing $6Million to burying resources in one financial year. Who benefits? Not a community looking for 21st C sustainability. Imagine for a moment how else that money could be invested and the dividends it might deliver.

Curiously, if you quiz a councillor or an operative they'll tell you that this or that is going on BUT,  they'll say, we must keep on consigning 'waste', otherwise imaginable as a resource, to landfill. Why? When does it stop?

With a tokenistic Climate Emergency Policy it must seem plausible to keep on trotting out this inconceivably stupid nonsense, otherwise why do it? One day the first step needs to be made and NOW seems as good a time to do it as was the times passed over. However, this is just a tiny bit of the fiscal ineptitude on display. Stop landfill now!

Year upon year this council fails to deliver projects on time and on budget and apart for a faint apology here and there, the prospect for fiscal accountability and transparency is way, way over the horizon.

Acting Mayor Cr Gibson – or should we say aspirant mayor – projects returning to fiscal sanity by 2025-26. That does not look like a prospect UNLESS this council can get away with hitting up the ratepayers to cover the operational excess and budget overruns. That is what typically happens but it is time for a serious rethink. None of this fiscal failure can be put down to COVID-19, not a skerrick.

It is concerning that council is in already debt, and: 

• Apparently that is in the order of $12 Million; and 
• Apparently that is expected to grow to $32 Million; and 
• The city's current budget is $7.5 Million in deficit; and 
• Apparently that is to grow exponentially in 2021-22 – funded by borrowings fee and rate increases no doubt.

And, against this background Cr. Gibson has the temerity to talk about "careful and prudent planning aligned to our long-term finance plan".

On face value both the elected representatives and council operatives are not only exhibiting all the signs of having lost the plot, it is increasingly clear that, collectively, they were never in possession of a real world  strategy that was fiscally sound and plausible.

It needs to be said that, in its entirety, and in a 21st C context, the City of Launceston's Council is failing its citizenry big time. One Councillor  is calling out the city's unsustainable rate demands compared to elsewhere, but not a squeak out of the other Councillors or management, not a squeak in defence.

In the business world this lot would be summarily dismissed and deservedly so. In Tasmanian Local Government council's have increasingly become less and less accountable and dismissal that is, in Launceston, is never on the agenda. You have to wonder what dastardly deed would bring about such an outcome. What actually separates this council from say Glenorchy and Huon Councils?

In the short term residents, ratepayers and businesses need to be making their aspirations and concerns well known and loudly. In the longer term, Tasmanians need to be demanding fundamental and meaningful change. No longer can Tasmanians waste time talking about accountability and transparency as too much is at risk for future generations. Those who will paying today's debt tomorrow no matter how large.

Those who generated the debt will have superannuated and insulated themselves far, far away from any consequences. They will have moved on and some may well be in their final repose.

The current system allows elected representatives to be sidelined and senior management to use their positions to asset strip budgets for their own purposes – sometimes perverse purposes.

Rather than play the compliance game set down by the powers that be at Town Hall ratepayers and citizens should:

• Send their comments and expectations of the budget to each and every Councillor or specific Councillors;

• Phone each and every Councillor or specific Councillors and tell them what they expect;

• Go to https://www.facebook.com/CityOfLauncestonOfficial/ and share your concerns there and on other othe social media

• Send your concerns to the press via email; and

• Copy them to the GM/CEO and Mayor, his Deputy and then the Minister for Local Govt – whoever that turns out to be.

IN SHORT give'm heaps!

Tandra Vale

              

APRIL 17 2021

City of Launceston council to 

release 2021-22 budget 

Dana Anderson

QVMAG programs to be supported in proposed 2021-22 budget. 

• Recreational facilities, 
• roads and traffic maintenance, and 
• waste 

all rated high on the list for the City of Launceston council's proposed 2021-22 budget. 

City of Launceston acting mayor Danny Gibson said the proposed expenditure of $130 million for the 2021-22 financial year included 

• $24.19 million on recreational facilities, 
• $12 million on roads and traffic, and 
• $5.9 million for extension capping at the Launceston Waste Centre. 
•  The council also proposes to invest in the ongoing implementation of the My Place My Future plan, 
• Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery program and 
• Smart City initiatives. 

 Other projects in the proposed budget include 

• $3.2 million for major road reconstruction, 
• $1 million for urban road resealing, 
• $750,000 for Reimaging the Gorge, 
• $450,000 for footpath work, and 
• $460,000 for the redevelopment of parking at Churchill Park. 

Last year the council's proposed rate increase of 3.9 per cent was abandoned in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. ............................. Councillor Gibson said the proposed general rate increase of 3.75 per cent for the upcoming budget was offset by the rate freeze in the previous financial year. ............................. Though the council budgeted for a $7.1 million underlying deficit in 2021-22, Cr Gibson said the council remained in a strong financial position. ............................. "Through careful and prudent planning aligned to our long-term finance plan, we are confident the council will return to a full surplus by 2025-26," he said. ............................. However the flow on effects of the pandemic, particularly with the Community Care and Recovery Package designed to help businesses recover, did hurt the council's bottom line. ............................. "I firmly believe that the $8.7 million package ... went a long way to help protect our community and our businesses from the impacts of the pandemic," Cr Gibson said. ............................. "On the flip side, it did result in the council taking a significant hit to its bottom line and it will continue to do so over the next three or four years." The council will also see challenging waste and recycling charges, with the City of Launceston budgeting for a 10.4 per cent increase. ............................. Increasing depreciation costs, and increasing operating costs of the two museum sites and University of Tasmania Stadium will also be issues the council will continue to address. ............................. Cr Gibson encouraged all residents and ratepayers to read the proposed budget when it's released and make a submission. 

Submissions to the budget can be made by email to

•  Proposedbudget2022@launceston.tas.gov.au 

in writing addressed to the 

• Chief Executive Officer, City of Launceston, 
• PO Box 396, Launceston 7250, 
• until 5pm on May 7.

#3 QUESTION: Marketing, Development, Public Order & Safety issues in City of Launceston Budget

#3  Mayor van Zette tells us that "[he] encourages all ratepayers to read over the budget proposal and make a submission to our engagement process. It's important that, as a Council, we understand what matters to the community," We are doing so and posting questions as people in the network raise an issue.

 CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

To support a citizens review process the following questions arise relative "Cultural Funding"

QUESTIONS – Given the budget allocation of $7.9Million or approx $151K per week that is largely funded from rate demands:

1. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time in this area of activity overall and within the aegis of the 'Cultural Unit'?
2. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time at the QVMAG?
3. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time Princess Theatre?
4. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time in Cultural Unit?
5.  Given that the  QVMAG BUDGET represents something in the order of 5.5% [ $6.2Mil] of the city's recurrent budget, how does this component of 'the cultural spend' compare with comparable cities elsewhere? 
6. Similarly, how does Launceston's total 'cultural spend' [$7,9 Mil ... 7%]  – plus $644K events spend – compare with comparable jurisdictions elsewhere in Australia.
7. Given that the Cultural Unit has been envisioned as a 'purposeful operation', going forward what are current outcomes that would be its measures of success in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years 5 years?
8. Given the additional $400K plus in the QVMAG'S recurrent budget allocation and the proposed $5.3K Capital expenditure, what are the anticipatable and measurable outcome flowing from this expenditure?
9. What specific  'productivity dividends' can be expected for cultural outputs in the Municipality as a consequence of the implementation of the 'Cultural  Unit' and other efficiencies being implemented? How and when are the 'dividends' going to be accessed and by whom?
10.  What grant funds and/or sponsorships going forward are being sought in this area for cultural production, publications and/or research, and from whom?
11. What research projects are currently in place and when is it anticipated that there will be an outcome or interim report?
12. What strategies are in place, and anticipated, towards developing incoming generative initiatives via, or by, the city's cultural producers et al via the 'Cultural Unit'.
13. Given the relative magnitude of the proposed operational budget/s what is the proposed reporting schedule to Council?

Please Respond to  :Treva Alen <treva.alen@bigpond.com>

CLICK HERE

City of Launceston Transparency And Accoutability

Finally, after multiple attempts to receive answers to a series of questions relevant to 'cultural funding' within the City of Launceston these responses are now on the record and on a Council Agenda – albeit that any discussion relative to the responses seems unlikely. 

There are other questions outstanding that the Launceston Concerned Citizens Network have put to Council and they are on record on this site – [Link] • [Link] and here  [Link]. 

There has been considerable resistance in regard to providing this relatively straight forward information – information that should be on the public record and relatively available. 

The responses below are arguably inadequate and consequently seem to demonstrate that Launceston's Council operation maintains a default position of automatic confidentiality – a position reinforced by SECTION 62 and used in ways that mitigate against 'accountability and transparency'.

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

COUNCIL MINUTES Thursday 30 May 2019 P/49 19

https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Agendas-Minutes/30-May-2019

CORPORATE SERVICES DIRECTORATE

ITEMS 19.1 Proposed Budget 2019/2020 Consultation Reponses

FILE NO: SF6641

AUTHOR: Paul Gimpl (Chief Financial Officer) 

DIRECTOR: Louise Foster (Director Corporate Services)

DECISION STATEMENT: To consider the 2019/2020 Budget public consultation process and the responses submitted. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. receives and agrees on responses to the submissions received, as follows: (a) Mr Ian Routley (b) Mr Ted Sands (c) Treva Alen (x3) 2. notes that the Council Meeting of 13 June 2019 is the intended date on which the budget will be adopted and the rate will be set. Ms L Foster (Director Corporate Services) and Mr P Gimpl (Chief Financial Officer) were in attendance to answer questions of Council in respect of this

Agenda Item. Mr Ted Sands spoke to the Recommendation

DECISION: 30 May 2019 MOTION Moved Councillor D H McKenzie, seconded Councillor J Finlay.

That the Motion, as per the Recommendation to Council, be adopted.

CARRIED 11:0 FOR VOTE:

1. Mayor Councillor A M van Zetten,
2. Deputy Mayor Councillor D C Gibson,
3. Councillor J Finlay,
4. Councillor A E Dawkins,
5. Councillor N D Daking,
6. Councillor D H McKenzie,
7. Councillor K P Stojansek,
8. Councillor P S Spencer,
9. Councillor J G Cox,
10. Councillor A G Harris and
11. Councillor T G Walker

NB: T Alen is the 'email network communications coordinator' for LCC NEWS [https://lcc63.blogspot.com/ ...networktcc63@gmail.com!  ....treva.alen@bigpond.com] 

QUESTIONS and RESPONSES:

The following questions (typed as received), submitted to Council in writing on 6 June 2019 by Mr Ray Norman, have been answered by Mr Michael Stretton (General Manager). It should be noted that these same questions were submitted under another name (Treva Alen) as part of the Council's 2019/2020 Annual Plan and Budget Consultation process and were answered at the Council Meeting dated 30 May 2019. Given that the questions have been re-submitted, further responses are provided below:

Given the proposed budget allocation of $7.9Million or approx. $151K per week that is largely funded from rate demands:

Questions: 

1. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time in this area of activity overall and within the aegis of the Cultural Unit'?

Response: The Cultural Unit includes one employee who reports directly to the Director Creative Arts and Cultural Services. The main purpose of the unit has been the development of the Council's inaugural Cultural Strategy.

2. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time at the QVMAG?

Response: The QVMAG has an employment status of 27 full-time and 36 part-time employees (46.8 full-time equivalents).

3. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time Princess Theatre?

Response: The Princess Theatre has an employment status one fulltime employee.

4. How many staff are employed full-time and part-time in Cultural Unit?

Response: The Cultural Unit has an employment status of one employee.

5. Given that the QVMAG BUDGET represents something in the order of 5.5% [ $6.2Mil] of the city's recurrent budget, how does this component of 'the cultural spend' compare with comparable cities elsewhere?

Response: The Council's services and structure in the Creative Arts and Cultural Services Directorate are unique and it is not possible to directly compare and contrast against other Councils in this respect. That said, the Council benchmarks itself against Tasmanian and mainland Councils across its overall function. The Council reports its performance in annual reports, both specifically for the QVMAG and for the overall Council itself.

6. Similarly, how does Launceston's total 'cultural spend' [$7,9 Mil ... 7%] – plus $644K events spend – compare with comparable jurisdictions elsewhere in Australia.

Response: The Council's services and structure in the Creative Arts and Cultural Services Directorate are unique and it is not possible to directly compare and contrast against other Councils in this respect. That said, the Council benchmarks itself against Tasmanian and mainland Councils across its overall function. The Council reports its performance in annual reports, both specifically for the QVMAG and for the overall Council itself.

7. Given that the Cultural Unit has been envisioned as a 'purposeful operation', going forward what are current outcomes that would be its measures of success in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years 5 years?

Response: The outcomes of the Cultural Unit will be refined following the completion of the Cultural Strategy later this year. Once the Cultural Strategy has been completed a more specific and detailed work plan will be developed for the Cultural Unit.

8. Given the additional $400K plus in the QVMAG'S recurrent budget allocation and the proposed $5.3K Capital expenditure, what are the anticipatable and measurable outcome flowing from this expenditure?

Response: The additional expenditure is largely related to the audit and digitisation of the collection, which will commence in 2019/2020. This will be the first audit of the collection, which has occurred in the history of the institution.

9. What specific 'productivity dividends' can be expected for cultural outputs in the Municipality as a consequence of the implementation of the 'Cultural Unit' and other efficiencies being implemented?  How and when are the 'dividends' going to be accessed and by whom?

Response: Local Government Councils do not pay dividends and it is not proposed that the Cultural Unit will alter this. The Unit will create the Cultural Strategy which will provide an overarching framework to guide the future direction of the City's cultural entities and assets.

10. What grant funds and/or sponsorships going forward are being sought in this area for cultural production, publications and/or research, and from whom?

Response: The priorities for grant funding and/or sponsorship applications will be determined following the completion of the Cultural

Strategy.

11. What research projects are currently in place and when is it anticipated that there will be an outcome or interim report?

Response: The Unit is currently in the process of completing the Cultural Strategy, which has involved a significant amount of public engagement and research.

12. What strategies are in place, and anticipated, towards developing incoming generative initiatives via, or by, the City's cultural producers, et al via the 'Cultural Unit'.?

Response: It is highly likely that there will be a range of positive economic outcomes as a consequence of actions arising from the Cultural Strategy. However, income generation in not a primary motivation of the strategy or the Cultural Unit.

13. Given the relative magnitude of the proposed operational budget/s what is the proposed reporting schedule to Council?

Response: Progress against the Annual Plan and budget is reported to the Council on a quarterly basis.

Questions on Notice - Mr Ray Norman - Cultural Unit and Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery - 6 June 2019 City of Launceston COUNCIL AGENDA Thursday 27 June 2019

\