INTEGRATED
FACILITY PLANNING
Project prioritisation
working group |
|
Minutes of Meeting |
|
Date: Wednesday 29 October 2014 |
|
Time: 1.30 – 4.00pm |
|
Venue: City of
Yarra, Meeting Room 3, Richmond Town Hall, 333 Bridge Road, Richmond 3121 |
|
Attending organisations:
Cities
of Brimbank, Casey, Greater Geelong, Knox, Maroondah,
Melbourne, Melton, Monash, Moonee Valley, Moreland, Mornington Peninsula, Port
Phillip, Whitehorse, Whittlesea, Yarra. Metropolitan Planning
Authority.
Apologies:
Cities of Hume and Stonnington. Shire
of Mitchell.
Item |
|
1 |
Presentation by
Jimmy Yung, Building Asset Management Coordinator, City of Casey “City of Casey -
Integrated Facility Planning Prioritisation Approach” Jimmy presented Casey’s approach to prioritising
infrastructure projects, structured around two parts: 1. New facilities - Priority
List and Implementation Strategy 2.
Existing facilities – multi-component assessment
including weighted scoring of building criticality, utilisation, fitness for
purpose, structural and physical condition and compliance. (Presentation available online at http://www.lgam.info/infrastructure-prioritisation-working-group) Casey’s assessment exemplifies a
comprehensive and data-rich systems approach to prioritising capital works.
It is based on a thorough understanding of existing infrastructure, community
need for new and/or improved facilities, cash flow from contributions, and triggers
and thresholds for provision. It embodies principles such as minimising
council debt and timely delivery of infrastructure in step with population
growth. Subsequent discussion focused on the need
for a different approach to planning for new vs
existing facilities, the use of benchmarks (provision ratios) and triggers,
and how the various data required by such an assessment could be acquired and
used across council. |
2 |
Presentation by
Wayne Eddy, Strategic Asset Planning Coordinator, City of Whittlesea “Capital Works
Evaluation Framework” Wayne
summarised the common components of two capital works prioritisation approaches
from Indigo Shire and Townsville City Council. (Presentation
available online at http://www.lgam.info/capital-works-evaluation-framework) The
majority of evaluation questions asked by both examples were similar to each
other and indeed were typical of examples from many other councils.
Scoring and weighting of questions were also typical. These were accompanied
by guidelines about how to assign scores, and evaluation teams were assigned to
assess each project. Group
discussion highlighted that such assessments do not distinguish between the
different stages of identifying and justifying projects. These stages were
common to many councils but were clouded by the use
of different terminology. Four
distinct stages were proposed, by which projects could be identified, evaluated
and ultimately prioritised:
·
Legislation and major policy drivers ·
Strategic alignment with Council vision, priorities
and aspirations ·
Major spatial drivers
·
Service-based / facility-based / planning-based ·
Community needs assessment ·
Asset condition, fitness for purpose, criticality ·
Supply & demand (current and future), gap
analysis
·
Strategic overview of needs and opportunities ·
Common or conflicting priorities across council ·
Projects that meet multiple needs ·
Key decisions not made in isolation
·
Prioritising needs as well as prioritising projects ·
Ranking systems as well as qualitative professional
judgement The
stages apply to many types of project, not just community infrastructure. |
3 |
Next steps It
was agreed that the four stages provide a useful structure for further
examination of the common challenges faced by councils in developing and
prioritising the ‘right’ projects. The same structure may also be appropriate
for developing solutions to these challenges. ACTION: Raeph
Cumming will arrange a second meeting of the working group to develop this
further. |
End.