Council turned down the recommendation to install a lighting plan costing over $300,000 and opted for the one at $33,000.
$9,000 were added for L.E.D. lights.
60% less energy is required and fixtures last considerably longer. .It's said so often no-one doubts it. My problem is how to prove it. The energy bill for street lights is not likely to be separate, street by street.
The Mayor assures me the town inly has one standard for lighting. I think since lighting is for pedestrians, there should be a different standard for a different level of pedestrian traffic.
I am also concerned that engineering staff assume "most" streets in town are the same. They are not. An inventory of assets should identify differences.
If its purpose is efficient maintenance for assets , I don't see how that can be accomplished without understanding level and nature of traffic. .
An estate lot might have one house on an average of three acres.
An urban neighbourhood would have twenty-seven houses on three acres. . There would certainly be a different level of wear and tear on the roads.
If inventory of assets doesn't provide that information, I really don't know it's purpose.
Remember $440,000 software program was spent fifteen months ago. It isn't running and continues to soak up additional resources .
I voted against it. Council approved the spending because it was obviously "the way to go".
.At the rate we're going and software goes, the program may be obsolete before it has even been utilised.
It may have been the wrong way to go ..
I tell you this for a reason.
A new Council, without experience, puts faith in staff advice. It ought to be O.K.
But that's not a Councillor's job.
The job is to ruthlessly scrutinise recommendations.
When the vote is cast, it becomes a Council decision .
Accountability does not rest with staff.
Staff do not account to the electorate. Councillors do
Each and every one.