Page 307 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(2) The head of Urban Services has noted that the budget for maintenance of parks and open spaces has been under strain for a number of years. Over the last five years the overall budget for park and open space maintenance has generally kept pace with inflation. However, there has been some significant growth in assets over this period, which has had to be absorbed. One off funding injections have been made to assist with unanticipated costs such as those associated with the January 2003 fires, the drought and increases in water charges.
(3) The funding for park and facilities maintenance will be reviewed as part of the normal budget process.
(4) See response to (2).
(5) a & b) There is always more that could be done if there were more funds available.
c) No.
(6) Nothing is being neglected. However, whilst trees damaged by the storm are being cleared up for safety reasons, more routine tree maintenance work has been put on hold.
Capital works
(Question No 821)
Mr Pratt asked the Minister for Urban Services, upon notice, on 14 December 2005:
(1) Regarding the September 2005-06 Capital Works Program Progress Report, why is the revised project value for ‘Tharwa Drive Upgrade Stage 1” listed as $0;
(2) Is the project listed in the 2005-06 budget under the roads to recovery section of the Capital Works Program as having a $5 million project value; if so, why does the September quarterly report not share this same value;
(3) Has the Tharwa Drive Upgrade Stage 1 project been cancelled; if so, why; if not, is the project still scheduled to receive its initial funding in 06-07 that will be continued through 2008-09 as outlined in the 2005-06 budget papers;
(4) When is it expected that construction work will begin on the Tharwa Drive Upgrade and when is it scheduled to be completed;
(5) Is the project still expected to cost $5 million; if not, how much is it forecast to cost and why is it expected to differ from the original valuation.
Mr Hargreaves: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) The project has been deferred and the funds have been transferred to the Gungahlin Drive Extension project, which is a higher priority and which requires an increase in funds above that originally budgeted;
(2) Yes and refer to answer 1;
(3) The project has been deferred and the funds have been transferred to the Gungahlin Drive Extension project, including the funds scheduled for 2006-07 through to 2008-09;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .