City of Launceston's unhealthy and
unsustainable relationship with UTAS
Date: Saturday, 21 March 2020 at 11:14 am
To: Mayor & Councillors
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
Members of the Concerned Citizen’s Network, and others, have raised a range of concerns relative to UTAS’s “sweet heart deals” that have apparently reached a point that yet again needs to be called-out. Even before the current crisis there were calls of alarm from ratepayers in regard to the flow-on expenses that will be reflected in the city’s general rate demand much of which comes out of Council’s confidential dealings with UTAS and what is being called-out as ‘inept planning decisions’.
Indeed, it is also being argued that at a time when proposed budgetary measures have been consigned to ‘further review’, this bears the evidence of such flow-on consequences. It is time for the city to seriously review its relationships with UTAS in order to find a more balanced way forward.
The concerns being presented relative to the arrangements between Council and UTAS in respect to the proposed Inveresk Car Park now are as follows:
- Typically, commercial tenants are required to pay all maintenance costs and other expenses relevant to the property and their tenancy. Here it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities and without paying any kind of fees or charges relative to the ‘proposed Inveresk Car Park’ and its infrastructure. Given that this is indeed the case it is not an appropriate arrangement and especially so now.
- Typically, tenants pay for their use of electricity for lighting and infrastructure maintenance. Here it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities and it should be obvious that this lacks credibility and indeed it fails any ‘pub test’. That this situation is being entertained it beggars belief. In addition, there appears to be no plan to generate solar power on the site either on UTAS’s part or council. In a time when a ‘climate emergency has been declared’ this is sloppy planning on both party’s part. It is also an opportunity where yet again it appears that the ball is being deliberately dropped. Or, is this a case of incompetence?
- Typically, tenants as responsible tenants are required to maintain the property they occupy and in particular the landscaping, Again, here it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities and that only compounds the problems being passed on to ratepayers and residents who will pay one way or another via their rate demands and other fees and charges – all of which are being flagged to increase and unsustainably.
- Typically, tenants are required to keep their property as a clean, tidy and healthy place and to ensure that rubbish is managed by themselves or via Council via a fee/charge. Here again it appears that UTAS is being excused such an obligation and again well beyond credible explanation. Indeed, this sets a very poor example for the city’s ratepayers and residents. In fact, if Council can see its way clear to ‘look away’ in this way, it is beyond belief.
- Typically, the revenue from parking metres is either collected by Council and directed towards covering the costs identified above OR they are collected by the tenant and directed to that purpose. Moreover, if a tenant is collecting parking revenue they carry the cost in maintaining the metres and ensuring that they remain in good working order. Here again it appears that UTAS is being excused such liabilities which only serves to compound the incredulity being expressed by concerned citizens. Others it seems are inclined to keep a low profile in fear of some unexpected consequence of their speaking up.
- Typically, a tenant is required to meet all water charges. Here again it appears that UTAS, as a non-ratepayer, is being excused such liabilities and it is an untenable arrangement that must be called into question and especially so when Council has declared a ‘Climate Emergency’. Moreover, UTAS is not being required to appropriately manage stormwater ‘on site’ and this too is a circumstance that needs to be called-out in the context of 21st C civic planning and ‘placemaking’.
- Typically, a tenant is required to carry all the appropriate insurances and given that there is a deafening silence in regard to this issue concerns are being raised. It seems safe to assume that Council will be required to meet that obligation on the tenant’s behalf unless it is assured that this obligation is being met by UTAS. This apparent assumption of some lopsided version of the status quo – and here it is untenable!
- Typically, a tenant, one way or another, would be required to pay for the upkeep of curbing and guttering and roadway surfacing on the property they occupy in some way. Likewise, ‘boom gate’ repair and maintenance would fall to the tenant. Here again it appears that UTAS is being excused all such liabilities and again this is an untenable arrangement that places an unfair burden upon ratepayers and residents – not to mention the poor example it sets within the community.
- Typically, the cost of any outcome due to vandalism would fall to the tenant and not to Council albeit that Council has role to play in mitigating against such anti-social behaviour. That this and the matters above are unclear, undiscussed and apparently unacknowledged, raise serious alarm among residents and ratepayers.
The Auto Museum
Reports coming to the community from multiple sources suggest that the property title to the building is currently resting with UTAS while it is supposed to have been transferred to the City of Launceston long before now. Presumably maintenance of the site falls to the city and not UTAS. It is obvious that the title to the property must rest with the city.
That the transfer has been on, and apparently remains on, the ‘gunnado list’ is both astounding and alarming.
Moreover, it is yet another example of the city’s unhealthy and unproductive, indeed expensive, relationship with this corporate citizen cum developer.
Continually looking away in the hope of a productive outcome has proven to be both pointless and way too expensive from ratepayers’ and residents’ perspective. Up to now criticism has been serially and somewhat surreally rejected. The time for change is now, not next month or sometime out, but right now.
Equitable fiscal arrangement with corporate citizens and developers
Launceston’s ratepayers’ and residents have a right to expect that the city’s corporate citizenry meet their obligations as are all ratepayers and residents. To be seen as giving UTAS serial ‘free kicks’ in the end is not only untenable, it is unsustainable – not to mention unethical.
In the instance of the arrangements being countenanced by Council in regard to the Inveresk UTAS Car Park this is more than astounding. The burden it places on ratepayers and residents is unacceptable and that Council is entertaining and condoning all this, well it beggars belief.
As it is being put to me, relative to the UTAS Inveresk Car Park, Council is forgoing a potential income of $600 per day in this instance alone. This comes on top of the city’s planned loss of amenity, and income, in respect to the Willis Street Car Park.
This is not a trifling concern but more to the point it is symptomatic of a relationship that has turned toxic, and something that is showing no signs of this being acknowledged and addressed. And all this at the cost of ratepayers and residents, who unknowingly for the most part are being left to ‘carry the can’. – as hapless ‘suckers’ it seems.
Moreover, UTAS seems to be claiming that it operates with ‘high moral authority’ but that myth is being debunked state-wide day by day. Once ‘universities’ defined themselves, and understood themselves, as “communities of teachers and scholars”. It is more than evident that UTAS has not understood itself in that way for quite some time. Clearly, the city’s relationship with UTAS needs to be reviewed and rejigged.
In conclusion
On behalf of the concerned citizens, ratepayers and residents, facing unknown financial threats I ask that Council review its unhealthy, lopsided and unsustainable relationship with UTAS across the board. I look forward to Council openly addressing this issue in the press in the very near future as a component of its current ’budgetary realignment’ process.
Yours sincerely
Ray Norman
For and on behalf of a network of concerned citizens
Ray Norman
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody
ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison
WHAT IS SAID IN THE EXAMINER
The University of Tasmania is a step closer to building an approximately $4.5 million car park in Inveresk for students, staff and the public, after the Launceston City Council handed it the lease to the land.
The car park is expected to be completed by 2021, subject to permit approval, and will create more than 850 spaces for students, staff and the public.
The Launceston Show Society will cease its lease on the Forster Street car park and UTAS will take it over to meet the demands of its $360-million campus relocation.
Coronavirus: All the latest updates on COVID-19 for Tasmania
Council's chief executive officer Michael Stretton said the lease would be for a period of 20 years with an option to extend.
"[UTAS] will be responsible for funding and constructing the private and public car parks on the land," he said.
"The council will receive all revenue from the public car park at all times and from the private car park during events, with the exception of UTAS staff/students that have a valid parking permit."
The show society approached UTAS in August 2019 to discuss a car park expansion. It owed the council $151,736.55 and it will be paid back as part of the lease surrender.
Launceston Chamber of Commerce chief executive Neil Grose said surrendering the lease allowed the show society to develop a new vision for their future.
"It's a strong signal to the north that the university transformation is continuing as normal," he said.
"It's a strong signal we are looking forward, that [the relocation] will go ahead, that those local jobs will stay and that local money will stay in our economy."
The car park development will still need to attain a planning permit from the council, with construction planned to begin after this year's Launceston Show.
Councillor Paul Spencer voted against the decision as he said he wanted more information about the council being responsible for "reasonable maintenance" of the car parks.
"It's a great outcome for the show society, but I don't think it's fair on the ratepayers to be paying for all the maintenance," he said.
Mr Stretton said the maintenance expectations would be finalised with UTAS at a later date.
