Madam,
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Reference is made to the agenda for the council meeting on February 8, 2017 and in particular item nine Stronger Communities Fund (Major Projects).
In summary the report recommends that the $14M be allocated as follows over the next three years:
Projects
Road reconstruction at Giro-Thunderbolts Way $1.5M
Road Renewals $6.5M
Road Resealing Program. $3.0M
Bridges. $3.0M
Total $14.0M
Distribution by area
Former Gloucester Council area. $4.0M
Former Greater Taree Council area. $9.0M
Former Great Lakes Council area. $1.0M
The $14M has been provided by the NSW government as part of the financial assistance to merged councils. Funding was to be used for larger scale priority infrastructure and services projects that deliver long term economic and social benefits.
The government also set out specific criteria which selected projects were required to meet (community consultation, social and economic benefits, sustainability and equity, project feasibility, value for money, not already funded by the former councils and capital expenditure guidelines) plus assessment by a panel dictated by the NSW Government.
This panel was comprised of the MidCoast Council administrator, State members, regional co-ordinator of the Department of Premier and Cabinet plus an independent probity auditor.
As a concerned ratepayer I have read the report and take this opportunity to make the following comments and questions related to the recommended distribution of the $14M.
a) Due to lack of detail it is difficult to determine what the projects proposed are therefore how can the ratepayers and community know the costs and benefits of each proposal.
b) The allocation across the three former council areas due not appear to be equitable.
c) Council has placed a high reliance on the recently commissioned asset management report by Morrison Low. This report to my knowledge has not been made available to the general public for discussion and analysis and I believe that the community deserves to have better information on the critical issue of road and bridge asset management and how council proposes to manage and fund these substantial cost.
d) The lack of transparency in the deliberations of the Assessment Panel is an issue as there are no details of how projects were selected, considered, evaluated and prioritised. It would appear that time constraints have limited the ability of the panel to evaluate the projects proposed for inclusion in the Stronger Communities Fund Allocation.
e) Scant information and details are provided of the community consultation processes undertaken let alone the detailed results and analysis.
f) It is a concern that community feedback on other non road or bridge projects have not been mentioned or surveyed eg community buildings, economic development or tourism enhancement services
g) Apart from the Giro-Thunderbolts Way road project no specific projects are identified. The estimated project cost of $4.5M (with council required to fund 33 per cent of the cost) is uncertain given that no designs have been completed. There is no evidence that this project has been subject to the stated major project assessment criteria as part of the project evaluation.
h) The scope, time and cost breakdowns of the individual projects within the Road Resealing and Road Renewals Programs are not specified let alone analysed against the assessment criteria.
i) The scope, time and cost breakdowns of the individual projects within the bridges program are not specified or analysed. Without specific designs it must be difficult to estimate the costs of new bridge construction. Why does bridge construction not have a higher priority than roads as they provide safety and on going access for the required traffic loads?
j) Why is it necessary to make a decision now when most projects do not have defined scope, time cost, quality,risk, procurement, communication and human resource parameter?
Given my comments, council should defer this Item in order to develop a specific Community Engagement Strategy that will provide adequate time and resources to enable the community to have a greater say in the development and analysis of this proposal as well as alternative projects.
Ed Harvey,
Forster.