This must be left to the incoming council. It will be an election issue. Note that much of the justification for a CBD option is for staff convenience. Note too that administration buildings in city centers are dead lifeless spaces outside office hours. Even during "working hours" there is insufficent parking for ratepayers to gain access to a CBD location. To top it off, there is no explanation of possible complexities arising from any backroom deals that may have to be done to acquire land in the CBD. We have other more pressing priorities to improve our council. Press 'pause' to allow the new council to review this before we head into yet another expensive mistake.
Need we go any further than "Cost-Benefit Ratio (BCR)"? For goodness' sake. The document purpose is said to be "to provide background and technical information ... regarding the assessment framework", so why does it include actual implementation of that framework to present outcomes? The so-called "Balanced" scenario is beyond any ordinary joke, pitting Legibility (er, surely that's Visibility?) against Development Cost with equal weightings. Utter drivel! Kindergarten level decision-making. The other two are mere subjective constructs of the authors so why expand upon them? No explanation for any of the CBR figures is provided, so why publish them? I suppose that's because "These inform a judgement decision making exercises(sic) implicit(huh?) with weighting of each criteria”. What did we pay for this garbage?
To ignore the Ladies mile building site just shows how dumb they think we are. Very arrogant they have become, meaning CEO and sewerage mayor insisting on their grandiose over the top scheme that nobody wants and nor can afford.
$60 million must go into the upgrade of we all know what!
I have said it before: they must be made to go!
"""Mister CEO: I give you notice! Mayor: you too, not fit to stay in office. You should be working for us, not against us.""""
They are causing more damage each day. All the good reasons have been said and written already but we are still stuck with them?
Depressing bs ongoing. Thanks Crux for digging, sorry, could not stomach that so called consultants report in all the details but it's another questionable action paid by ratepayers?
You dont employ consultants unless you know the outcome (I was one of those for some years)
The report doesn’t take into account correctly the access- for the employees, and the PUBLIC. It appears to say to Council the public access is not relevant. Tourists will not need or want to access the Council. Then the report doesn’t appear to recognise where the Users of the building will come from- ie the employees who sit at their desk daily helping us poor ratepayers- where will they live - now and in the future.. I doubt very much they will mainly reside in Glenorchy or downtown !
How come accessibility for CBD = same as for Frankton - huh where can I park my car if I want to see the engineers?
This must be left to the incoming council. It will be an election issue. Note that much of the justification for a CBD option is for staff convenience. Note too that administration buildings in city centers are dead lifeless spaces outside office hours. Even during "working hours" there is insufficent parking for ratepayers to gain access to a CBD location. To top it off, there is no explanation of possible complexities arising from any backroom deals that may have to be done to acquire land in the CBD. We have other more pressing priorities to improve our council. Press 'pause' to allow the new council to review this before we head into yet another expensive mistake.
Need we go any further than "Cost-Benefit Ratio (BCR)"? For goodness' sake. The document purpose is said to be "to provide background and technical information ... regarding the assessment framework", so why does it include actual implementation of that framework to present outcomes? The so-called "Balanced" scenario is beyond any ordinary joke, pitting Legibility (er, surely that's Visibility?) against Development Cost with equal weightings. Utter drivel! Kindergarten level decision-making. The other two are mere subjective constructs of the authors so why expand upon them? No explanation for any of the CBR figures is provided, so why publish them? I suppose that's because "These inform a judgement decision making exercises(sic) implicit(huh?) with weighting of each criteria”. What did we pay for this garbage?
To ignore the Ladies mile building site just shows how dumb they think we are. Very arrogant they have become, meaning CEO and sewerage mayor insisting on their grandiose over the top scheme that nobody wants and nor can afford.
$60 million must go into the upgrade of we all know what!
I have said it before: they must be made to go!
"""Mister CEO: I give you notice! Mayor: you too, not fit to stay in office. You should be working for us, not against us.""""
They are causing more damage each day. All the good reasons have been said and written already but we are still stuck with them?
Depressing bs ongoing. Thanks Crux for digging, sorry, could not stomach that so called consultants report in all the details but it's another questionable action paid by ratepayers?
You dont employ consultants unless you know the outcome (I was one of those for some years)
The report doesn’t take into account correctly the access- for the employees, and the PUBLIC. It appears to say to Council the public access is not relevant. Tourists will not need or want to access the Council. Then the report doesn’t appear to recognise where the Users of the building will come from- ie the employees who sit at their desk daily helping us poor ratepayers- where will they live - now and in the future.. I doubt very much they will mainly reside in Glenorchy or downtown !
How come accessibility for CBD = same as for Frankton - huh where can I park my car if I want to see the engineers?