In four months we’ve moved from an innocuous agenda item entitled “Organizational Direction-setting” to the removal of positions and staff, and some Council activities placed on the endangered list.
The public has been surprised by the speed of the review and how quickly actions have been taken as a result. Some aldermen may also be surprised at the consequences of the review.
It seems that the agenda item arose from the development of the 22/23 budget. Aldermen seem to have experienced an epiphany after learning about “Council’s structural deficit position”, apparently for the first time. We learnt later that “Council’s structural deficit position” was an obscure way to describe a “trend of being in deficit in ten of the last twelve financial years”.
The first mystery is why the tenth deficit triggered alarm that was absent for the previous nine, and why that alarm generated a need for action on this occasion.
The agreed action was to investigate an increased focus on “core” services and to better understand the cost of “non-core” service delivery ‒ in other words, the services to investigate further. This has been simplistically described as the “back to basics” approach.
When the agenda item came up at Council, aldermen seemed to spend endless time on what “core” means, which somewhat bemused those watching. It was clear that legislation labels some council activities as “discretionary” and some not. But it is the needs and views of the public that determine whether a service is “core”, not legislation.
We learnt that the review was still on when Council in June approved its Annual Plan 2022/23‑2025/26 that contained the one-liner “Complete a targeted review of Council services”.
The second mystery is the use of the word “targeted”. That implies there are targets but we don’t know how they will be chosen.
Having been given the green light to go ahead, the review commenced. Council released a media release on July 8 .
The first decision I learnt of was the elimination of the Executive Officer position. Soon after, virtually the entire economic development team was gone.
The next visible target was childcare centres. Happily for their clients, they have been given a lifeline of half a million dollars. It wasn’t clear from the media release why. Aldermen were probably very relieved to learn of the “profits the service has made in recent years” mentioned in the media release – yes really! That made it easier to avoid a politically unpalatable decision to further reduce services or increase charges or shut them down so close to an election.
The most recent target was “Events and Awards Programs”. The survival of some events will depend on Council finding partners which can reduce the funding required from Council.
In summary, we have seen an opaque process.
We do not know how Council activities are being chosen as targets.
We do not know why it is necessary for the process to take place at a breakneck pace.
We do not know how much influence aldermen have had over the decisions that are being made.
We do not know how Council will know when costs have been sufficiently reduced. How will Council know, how will the public know, when to stop, because stop we must? Slashing costs is a very blunt instrument; long-term we have to rethink Council strategies.
Glenorchy City Observer 
If only the GCC went through a full process to get their finances in order years ago for it only to be rail roaded and hijacked in nothing more than a political campaign by the then mayor to reach higher office
We have a number of long strategy documents approved by the current council this term. Hence the recent review reinforces the view the problem lies ultimately with the General Manager and Executive Leadership Team as the managers
of the purse strings.
It’s very clear every budget forecast over a number of year’s have had to be revised or down grades and then the slightest economic bump throws the budget into chaos more often than not.
It’s damming how many strategy plans lay dormant and inactive despite hundreds of thousands spent on consultant fees and ultimate approved by the ELT of Council with recommendations to Councillora to approve.
On point its unfathomable to many why did Council approve the purchase of vacant commercial land at 7 Peltro Street for over $525K in 2021-2022 from the Special trust Reserve account designed to fund upgrades of parks and community infrastructure generated by the Proceeds of Disposal of Public Lands. The reason given in council minutes was essentially the then Mayor thought it provided strategic value for a future light rail corridor but the financial cost benefit were never released as conducted in closed meeting! Another example of essential ratepayer funds being poorly allocated on a pie in the sky mentality without proper oversight and adherence to openness. If such expenditure was so overwhelmingly beneficial to ratepayer’s long term value why wasn’t the recommendation report released?
It’s time the General Manager rolled the dice and discharged his fiduciary duty in my opinion under the Local Government Act to advise Councillors that the enterprise of Glenorchy City Council is better placed into receivership as its not a going concern despite every effort since the Council was put into administration in 2017 and the intiak 12.5% rate rise hasn’t restored cash stability as predicted that amalgamation is the best option to achieve any sort of value in our current assets and ratepayer funds.
As one example Council recently approved the Tolosa Park Master Plan. The stage 1 GCC contribution of some $3.7M is totally funded by DEC sale proceeds a once in lifetime financial golden egg not out of existing rates and levy revenue or any cash reserves . Stage 2 of the same master plan estimated at $12 million in the master plan it makes the inference that 100% of that $12M is totally dependent on council being
successful in external funding grants or in other words Council has not put aside budgetted funds so its not guaranteed as to when whether or if the Tolosa Master plan will ever be achieved by a self funding by council or indeed external parties namely State or Federal government would prioritise any funding. This at same time Council developed a CBD revitalised strategy for tens of millions in a new Council and civic buiding that again is premised almost entirely on federal or state government funding for which no rationale was stated why any such funding would be attractive to these levels of government.
In summary how can a business with $60 plus millions in revenues annually be it seems totally dependent on grants or third parties to deliver most or any and all of its strategic objectives.
So the current services review simply covers up the core issue Glenorchy Council whether or if its financially viable or socially relevant when service delivery isn’t directed to needs but rather individual hobby horses of a few.
The Local government minister had the opportunity in 2017/18 but made the safe political choice to the detriment of ratepayers who have had rate increases a new Council but no real change to the modus operandi .
As they say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result its unlikely.