Goal 16 Asset Management Plans (including public amenities, sporting facilities, playground equipment)
by margw 5:34pm, 23 March 2008
You will need to login
or sign up to do that
This section proposes the development of asset management plans including the consolidation of infrastructure that is in close proximity to other like assets. For example, if one public amenity (eg toilet) is considered under Council criteria to be too close to another, the facility will be "consolidated" (....closed is another term!) Does the community think this is such a good idea in an area catering for huge fluctuations due to tourism and where the permanent population is also increasing for both young and old.
This discussion topic is closed. You can still review the discussion but it will no longer accept comments or votes.
Relates to
document: Draft Council Plan 2008-2012
(966 KB)
margw
Mar 23, 2008 05:54pm
1
2 
16.2.1 - The Asset Management Plan development has now been put back to be implemented "by 2009". When? There may have been staff changes but this plan is guiding maintenance and proposals for new facilities and is being used as an excuse for inaction. Council needs to give this higher priority and provide adequate resourcing so that major cutbacks to what are considered basic facilities are not required, particularly on the Tomaree Peninsula where the impact of higher usage at particular times of the year is felt because of tourism.
Where is the Playground Asset Management Plan imbedded? Is the community to be kept in the dark about the substantial planned reduction by 40% in playground equipment at playgrounds?
16.3.1 Who are the asset owners referred to in this clause. One would have thought this was Council?
16.3.2 Why are we just developing a program to maintain the state of highly visible assets? What is to happen to the assets not so visible but just as important to the community. More resources are needed so all can be maintained to a proper standard.
16.3.3 Why is an office of Council on the Tomaree Peninsula feasibility study part of "Asset Management" This should be in Customer Service section. It is long overdue but then again (pardon the cynicism) - it is just a "feasibility study" - how many have been done in the past?
16.4.1 This is of major concern as it really means closing down facilities. Current facilities should be maintained and funded properly.
16.4.2 - Refer to separate comment section. Developer agreements should be of major concern to residents. One way to keep us all in the dark until it's all too late to stop, eg, shops on the foreshore - sounds good but if Council has agreed to a dodgey agreement to subsidise losses of an operator (as happened at another level of Government) then ratepayers could ultimately pay for the inept behaviour of bureaucrats (just like in NSW)
16.4.3 - Council funds for asset maintenance should be increased now - not by 2012. It will cost more to repair problems in the future than to fix them now - given adequate resourcing.
Key Performance Indicators
See previous comments about surveys. Is this how Council will measure "community satisfaction with Council facilities and services" I doubt their validity due to low participation rates. Council needs to document genuine concerns and complaints - not just an annual survey.
If we are measuring our costs per capita against a State average, I hope we are comparing our area with a coastal tourism area as the costs would be quite different. It even varies across our Council area due to the tourim impact on Tomaree Peninsula compared to the rest of the Council area.