Monumental Suff Up At Town Hall

Just how do you stuff things up as much as it appears they have been with Launceston's 'planning'? Despite not knowing how its done, or even why for the most part, there are inexplicable events going down at Town Hall – seemingly well away from the sunlight.

The Gorge Hotel project is at the very least a monumental stuff up, a bureaucratic stuff up, of proportions unlikely to be equalled elsewhere.

The news yesterday that the 'planners' at Town Hall had stuffed up in just about every way imaginable, actually it was not news. This stuff has been going on for so long it defies belief that it has taken this long to reveal itself in the apparently spectacular way it did yesterday at Albert's Hall.

Just what have these 'planners' been telling developers like 'The Gorge Hotel Developers' on the quiet? What are they telling them about the real risks? Where do they imagine they'll be living when something goes all so wrong? Do they imagine that nobody will come after them?

Indeed, what messages are going out to the world about what's what in Launceston?

Are Councillors being truly warned about the actual risks of 'climate change'? Do these 'planners' actually get down to informing themselves about demography, economics, geology, heritage issues, climatology, environmental issues, etc.? More to the point, are they actually across Tasmania's 'planning laws' or indeed anything remotely like 'best practice' in public administration?

The representors at Albert Hall finally kicked back and told 'the planners' that enough was enough. Oh, and yes they told them that their performance has been found wanting. However, its the people who pay their salaries – ratepayers and residents – who are most likely to hurt and in this case, and hurt a lot. 

And then there are the developers, and not putting too fine a point on it, they are more than likely to be 'pissed-off-big-time' given the circumstances. 

Yet it seems that the community's representatives at Town Hall are happy enough to stand haplessly by watching all this unfold. Why might they be doing that? Whose 'expert advice' are they relying upon at times like this? 

We now know that that they do not have the time to oversight the tender processes. What are they doing instead? What will they do in this case and will they say anything out loud around the table?

What follies are Launceston's 'planners' and Councillors entertaining?  Is there more to this stuff up than meets the eye? Indeed, is there more of this stuff yet to be revealed? Who is looking? Who is caring? Way, way too many questions looking for answers.

T Alen

SEE MEDIA RELEASE ... Click Here

HERITAGE SOC. REPRESENTATION ... Click Here

EXAMINER STORY ... Click Here

PROJECT ANNOUNCED ... Click Here

MEDIA RELEASE GORGE HOTEL LAUNCESTON

6 June 2019

More than 20 members of the public attended a meeting convened by City of Launceston Council for representors at Launceston’s Albert Hall meeting room today.

These people had submitted formal representations to the City of Launceston Council in connection with a Development Application for a controversial 39.5M high hotel building fronting Paterson, Margaret and Brisbane Streets in Launceston.

After more than two hours of presenting their concerns to Council’s planning staff, a unanimous motion was carried. The motion states:  

1. Criticised Council’s actions in advertising and exhibiting the Development Application; and
2. Expressed no confidence in the ability of City of Launceston Council staff to competently assess the Development Application. 

The meeting noted with concern that representations made in relation to the application had already been advertised and re-advertised on three occasions

Furthermore, the meeting contested the Development Application given that it failed to comply with Council’s legislated processes.

Moreover, the meeting noted that the planning staff’s acknowledged failure to correctly notify adjoining property owners.

The meeting also called upon Council to have the Application assessed by an independent party.

Council staff present were asked to convey the feelings of the meeting to the General Manager and Councillors.

The Development Application is due to be considered by Council at its next meeting June 13.

For more information please contact Ian Routley 03 6331 9406

A QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

This is possibly the most troubling item I’ve read in the Examiner for some time. Here we have a Councillor who stood for his spot on the Council “to work for the ratepayers” and when he sees that something needs fixing his fellow Councillors virtually slap him down. 

A witness in the gallery when the motion was being discussed reports that almost to a person the Councillors were saying they couldn’t support the motion mainly because they couldn’t give Council any more time and that they supported things the way they are. Patronising!

If Cr Spencer was seeing the world another way, and had taken the initiative to move for change, you do have to wonder what he is seeing and how serious it might be. 

This is the process that oversees the ways ratepayer’s money is spent after all. It is a process that should be above reproach and now there must be questions. 

Cr Spencer believed the councillors around the table had enough knowledge to complete the tenders process and the review of expenditure is their job. It's one of the things for which they receive a stipend.

It is not like they are volunteers and Cr. Gibson’s “audit” must be at arm’s-length and independent, otherwise uncomfortable questions are likely to float to the surface.

As for Cr Dawkins asserting disbanding the committee was "dangerous" and for the reasons she is reported as proffering, well it beggars belief. 

And Cr. Finlay’s confidence is as likely as not as misplaced as it might be well placed. No room for change here!

Launceston’s ratepayers have not been well served by its Councillors in open debate 'around the table’ on what seems to have been a contentious issue. If wasn't, it is bound to be.

This may well be why they do it so rarely in the clear light of day. Apparently Council meeting can be as short as 17 mins with all the debate and decision making going on in ‘workshops’ a week earlier. 

Let us see what Cr Gibson’s “audit” exposes, to whom, by whom and when. 

Ray Norman

A move to disband the City of Launceston council's tender review committee by one of its councillors has been lost.

The motion, put forward by Councillor Paul Spencer, was lost after he was the only person to vote for it at Thursday's council meeting.

However, deputy mayor Danny Gibson moved an alternate motion for an audit of the committee that passed unanimously. It is understood there was a review of the committee scheduled for the end of last year.

Councillor Tim Walker seconded the original motion for the purposes of having the discussion.

The original motion asked for all tenders more than $10,000 to be brought to the council for a decision, rather than the panel.

Councillor Jim Cox, who chairs the tender committee, said the committee was the third step in the tender process after the council calls for project tenders and tenders submitted, then it goes before a panel of council officers.

Cr Spencer believed the councillors around the table had enough knowledge to complete the tenders.

Councillor Andrea Dawkins said disbanding the committee based on the experience around the table was "dangerous" because not all the councillors would be the council in the future.

Councillors Hugh McKenzie and Cr Gibson, who have both sat on the committee previously, said they had seen continued improvement in how the process works. Councillor Janie Finlay said she also had confidence in the current tender process.

Councillor Nick Daking and Cr Spencer also sit on the committee.

All councillors spoke about the item, except Councillor Karina Stojansek. Councillor Rob Soward was not at the meeting

CRYING POOR TO GET RATEPAYERS OFF THEIR BACK

Northern  Mercury Front Page May 28

 OH MY GOODNESS JUST WHAT IS GOING ON NOW?
The City of Launceston is in the last throws of preparing its budget and it is starting to look like it is getting a little too hot around the number cruncher. But as they say if its too hot in the workshop, get out.

Here we have this council trying the friendly inclusive community engagement approach for a change and its probably not working. Firstly, the punters have learnt that there is not a lot of point engaging to dissuade this Council from putting up the fees up, or whatever, aa they will do so anyway or something worse.

Since before his election Cr Spencer has been 'frightening the horses' at Town Hall with his up front, rough and ready proposals to "sell off assets" to save the ratepayers. He has also put up a proposal to get elected representatives some kind of control over  the tendering process and again, with an eye to saving the ratepayers. 

Now that the motion is actually on the agenda, it seems, it might well be frightening the bejesus out of the chancers who see 'an opportunity or two' the way thing are – or those who just dislike change.  

That game plays out on Thursday and it will be interesting to see how the cards fall.  However,  those wanting a quiet life the way things are are throwing up the threat of loosing 'the footy ground' or 'the swimming pools' or something else to draw attention away from what might be going on. 

Launcestonians have usually rallied to keep things like 'the museum and York Park' in "our hands". It seems the bigger the Council is the better things are for the functionaries at Town Hall. 

So, a cynic might say, all is not what it seems when and maybe, just maybe, we really should be reading between the lines here.

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

A Tasmanian council is considering the option of selling one of the state’s premier sports grounds to reduce the burden on ratepayers.
CHRISTOPHER TESTA,Mercury May 27, 2019 9:01pm

THE City of Launceston is considering its future as the long-term owner of University of Tasmania Stadium as it looks at ways to reduce the rate burden.

The council will spend more than $3 million upgrading the stadium later this year, with the bulk of that money going toward an overdue replacement of the playing surface.

City of Launceston general manager Michael Stretton said the council’s long-term finance plan had identified a need for it to “examine the ownership of a range of assets”, including the stadium — one of just five council-owned venues around the country being used for regular season AFL games this year.

“However, at this stage, it would be highly presumptuous to speculate as this matter as it has only just been identified as a matter for review,” Mr Stretton said.

Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten said UTAS Stadium’s future was among “a lot of options” being considered but declined to indicate what stage the discussions were at.

Hawthorn and Port Adelaide form a huddle after the game at UTAS Stadium on Saturday.

The council did not seek State Government funding for the upcoming UTAS Stadium upgrades, meaning Launceston ratepayers will wear the entire $2.8 million cost. The PA and speaker system are also in line for a $250,000 upgrade.

Mr Stretton said the ground had not been resurfaced in almost 20 years. “Generally, the lifespan of a stadium surface in Australia is approximately seven years,” he said. .

Most AFL grounds are state government-owned. In 2016, the Victorian Government took over management of Geelong’s GMHBA Stadium from the local council, with the ground now run by the Kardinia Park Trust.

The only other AFL regular season venues owned by councils are Bellerive Oval in Hobart, Mars Stadium in Ballarat, Traeger Park in Alice Springs and Riverway Stadium in Townsville, which hosts its first clash next month. .

A 2017 Pricewaterhouse Coopers economic report said Hawthorn matches in Launceston directly injected more than $28 million into the city’s economy.

But Launceston councillor Paul Spencer, who was elected last year after running a campaign calling for a cut to spending, suggested the council should “just give (the stadium) to the AFL” as an incentive for a Tasmanian side.

Cr Spencer said if the council could not find a new owner for the stadium, it should “sell swimming pools off to private enterprise” instead.

The same failures over and over

Thank you for including me in your networking. Clearly it's futile trying to get people with no understanding of something to recognise how that lack affects their lives, efficiency and actions. 

In the tedious case of governance v management there are many opportunities lost when the two are muddled. That is in evidence in all that is being presented in the discourse on Launceston's council.

Opportunity costs appear (cost increases) because Councillors are constantly asked by management to read/study/involve themselves in management issues while simultaneously being expected to not involve themselves in operations! At the same time Councillors are being distracted from governance, areas of governance are being left unattended. 

In the recent case of considering changing tendering processes we see handouts to Councillors that describe in considerable detail the how's and potential 'how's" of possible changes in long, tedious briefings that will tax any Councillors patience and eyelid muscles. 

Neither answered nor considered are the big governance questions, such as 

• "Should Council be attempting to stimulate local businesses when ever possible?"
• "Is purchasing efficiency (such as avoiding transport and support costs) by buying local, a goal that purchasing groups should actively consider?" 
• "How can Councillors connect with community effectively if they spend most of their time considering management questions?"

It needs to be made totally clear to Council why the elected members should focus on governance while the GM focusses on management. 

Perhaps the GM's lack of understanding of the difference between the 2 roles is a problem?

R M Barton

ManAgement Consultant

TROUBLE BREWING AT TOWN HALL

Launceston's budgeting and tender processing has been a bone of contention for quite some time. The city's business people have been uneasy for quite a while and Cr. Spencer's contribution to a sensible discussion about tendering processes will be welcomed by many business people.

Launceston people will no doubt remember how Council's processes sidelined a local business in favour of a Western Australian supplier. They might also recall that the Western Australian product cost almost a king;'s ransom to be delivered to Launceston. 

Every time people walk through the Brisbane St Mall and look down at the tiles they can think of the money that escaped the city to somewhere a long way away.

Dig a little here, turn over a rock somewhere else, talk a contractor doing work at your place you are bound to hear a sad money story "going on at the Council".

This story has all the makings of a good TV series. Does anyone remember the TV show 'GRASS ROOTS' [LINK] • [LINK]? So if this story has as much potential as it seems it might, then finally it will be the city's business people who will get a chance to tell Council a thing or two.

Tanda Vale

Councillor Paul Spencer puts forward motion to remove Tender Review Committee 

 Tarlia Jordan .......CLICK HERTE TO GO TO SOURCE

A motion to remove the Tender Review Committee at the City of Launceston council is expected to be put forward by one of its councillors at Thursday's meeting....................... The committee functions as a way for the council to provide accountability........................ Councillor Paul Spencer recommends the council abolish its tender and expressions of interest process and all sub-committees, a process that has been used for a number of years........................ The committee is allowed to accept tenders for projects that are in the current year's budget, providing the projects are within budget allocations and conform to periodic supply tender and preferred supplier lists. ....................... It is made up of a minimum of three councillors and a member of the executive management committee, who does not have voting rights. Instead, Cr Spencer wants a relevant council office to accept tenders, on the condition that person has the expertise, knowledge and/or the professional experience required, and for the full council to discuss and determine the outcome of all tender contracts and EIOs. Cr Spencer will speak to the item at this week's council meeting........................ City of Launceston general manager Michael Stretton recommends the motion not be supported and said the committee had operated effectively for a number of years with tenders sometimes referred directly to the council for consideration........................ He said councillors needed to consider the time it would take the full council to handle the number of tenders it received each year if the motion was to be accepted........................ "In 2017/2018 there were approximately 96 procurements that would have required consideration by council," he said........................ "These determinations would need to be made in Closed Council to maintain the confidentiality of material submitted by tenderers." Councillors would also need to ensure transparency in managing any conflicts of interest, Mr Stretton said........................ "The operation of the Tender Review Committee as it is currently constituted allows councillors, when sitting as council, to focus on those collective strategic functions."....................... Mr Stretton suggested the council progresses with an audit of the processes to investigate the opportunity for improvement........................ "The operation of the Tender Review Committee as it is currently constituted allows councillors, when sitting as council, to focus on those collective strategic functions, whilst the committee provides decision making on operational procurements."....................... Councillors Nick Daking, Hugh McKenzie and Jim Cox also sit on the committee........................ The motion will be discussed at the council's meeting on Thursday held at 1pm.

LETTER: Remembering how wrong they got it

Add caption

So how out of touch with its community and economic reality is the Launceston Chamber of Commerce?

This haunting view from the past comes from the LCC website 2014.

Now we are told by City of Launceston Mayor van Zetten, that the “Chamber” support of the UTas relocation to the Inveresk Flood Plain is evidence of community support.....hmm, seems to be still out of touch to me !

LCC were very out of touch in spruiking the Pulp Mill and are now destined to repeat history in their support for UTas.

If City of Launceston Council want to know the real level of support in the community for this ill-conceived and completely unnecessary move Mr Mayor, then why not just ask them directly?

Place a simple question in a letter to all ratepayers with their next rates notice “Do you support the UTas relocation of its Newnham Campus to Inveresk/Willis St Carpark sites? - yes or no ?”

Signed

Doreen Bowen