I should have been surprised by the Herald's report "Newcastle council wipes $101m off maintenance bill with wording change" (NH 24/10).
But as one who has since 2005 watched the machinations of Newcastle's council with its poor management of assets and its total misunderstanding of maintenance, nothing surprises me anymore.
The arrogance with which, according to the report, the administration can put aside the requirements of the Office of Local Government, is matched only by their unmitigated gall in doing so at the end of the seven-year additional rate period that has netted them an almost 50 per cent increase in rate revenue.
This was justified, as the report rightly points out, on the need for the city's "infrastructure backlog" to be reined in.
If it's that easy to redefine the infrastructure requirements, are they now going to refund the extra rates collected under false pretences?
The city is being run - and councillors are being advised - by number-crunchers who lack an understanding of the technical whole-of-life requirements for good asset management.
The Herald article refers to the debate in council about whether insufficient effort and funding are going into routine maintenance of existing assets and too much on "sexy" new projects.
I suspect that this new move is nothing more than a strategy to do even more of the same.
The quote from its media release that it will allow ratepayers' money to be spent where it is needed most, in my opinion translates to "we don't want to spend money on dull unflashy maintenance, we want even more 'sexy' pet projects".
More driverless buses?
More new offices?
More who knows what?
Apart from the lack of wisdom in this perspective right now, has anyone thought about where the money will come from to properly look after and maintain all these new assets in the future?
The numbers speak for themselves.
Reducing the estimated cost to bring footpaths in the city up to scratch from $4.8 million to $105,000 is plainly ridiculous, as anyone who walks extensively around the city and suburbs would know.
It's even worse for roads - reduced from $45.6 million to $1.8 million.
One reason why Newcastle's council roads are falling apart so extensively is that there is not enough periodic resurfacing and ongoing routine maintenance being done on them.
This will rapidly get worse as we enter the predicted wet weather phase after the long drought.
The quote from the council's chief financial officer, Scott Moore, is revealing: "infrastructure rated as satisfactory is fit for purpose and does not need replacing".
This confirms two things: first, that the administration thinks infrastructure maintenance and its replacement are the same thing.
They are not - maintenance is activity that preserves the existing asset and lengthens its life, pushing out the necessity and cost for its replacement.
This is particularly relevant for roads.
The second revelation in this quote is confirmation that the city is being run - and councillors are being advised - by number-crunchers who lack an understanding of the technical whole-of-life requirements for good asset management.
Where are the engineers and architects who should be influencing the councillors in arriving at their priorities?
People who have been concerned about the council's flawed approach to managing its budget and its assets will recognise the glib and vacuous reference to "best practice" to justify its decisions. What best practice? Whose assessment is that, and what evidence is there that it's true?
I remember 2007, when yet again the council was wanting to gouge more rate money from ratepayers.
An expensive consultant at the time wrote a report for them saying that Newcastle City Council had a "close to best practice asset management system", and that it exhibited "just outside world class management practice and performance"
Funny how a succession of CEOs since then has seen a need to repeatedly change things.
The annals of the council administration's attempts to dress up its shortcomings in relation to infrastructure management are full of such jokes.
But I've stopped laughing - it's too expensive.
Phil McLeod is a retired civil engineer and former senior manager in local government
IN THE NEWS:
