HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
218
In August this year, the Principal Government Architect, Public Works Department, wrote to an overseas supplier to obtain samples of artificial turf. At the same time, the department wrote to the Hong Kong Football Association, as one of the principal users, to ask for its views on the installation of artificial turf at major sports installations. The answer received from the Association, after taking advice from the FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS in Switzerland, was that all matches are permissible on artificial turf with the exception up to now of matches in the Final Competition of the World Cup, and the Olympic Football Tournament. International matches have been played in Houston, U.S.A., on artificial turf. However, my esteemed colleague Mr. F. K. Hu, Chairman of the Hong Kong Football Association, subsequently has been in consultation with leading football officials and the Coaching Director of the English Football Association during his recent visit to Copenhagen, and it appears that the artificial turf obtainable at this point in time can be quite abrasive, and players might not like to play on such a surface. This, and the cost implications, therefore still remain to be further investigated, and will be referred to the Recreation and Amenities Select Committee for further consideration in due course.
(4) MR. JOHN MacKENZIE asked the following question (in English):— In view of recent public complaints regarding multi-storey car parks, may I enquire what steps are being taken to improve amenities and services generally in this area? What are the current costs and revenue to the Council?
MR. PETER P. K. NG, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENTERTAINMENT AND ADVERTISING SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):-
I am grateful to Mr. MACKENZIE for raising this question, as I have many times expressed my concern to the Department about improving car park management, arrangement as well as facilities.
At the moment, thought is being given to revising the system of collecting fees for added public convenience as well as prevention of loss of revenue, and consideration has already been given to installing a semi-automatic control system. The public must appreciate the fact that as far as car parks are concerned Urban Council is just acting as a servant of the Government. These car parks are Government car parks and the introduction of modern control equipment, improvement of the arrangements, or indeed any physical improvement cannot be done without implicit Government approval, and the question of who pays for such improvement must also be taken up with the Secretariat.
Complaints from the public are numerous and in many cases justified, and complaints are, more often than not, directed towards poor staff attitudes as well as poor service from the staff. The problem is serious, and the Committee is very much concerned about it, to the extent that we have taken it up with the Department. By and large the problem is largely one of getting more supervisory staff and better supervision, and it is hoped that with the recent re-organization of the Urban Services Department the situation will improve, and will become even more satisfactory as additional supervisory staff are recruited. Naturally, one hopes that this will not take very long to achieve.
With regard to the second part of the question, annual direct expenditure is running at just under $2.3 million, made up of
Personal Emoluments (including oncost of 26% on salaries) $1.918 million Other Charges $0.36 million Making a total of $2.278 millionThe management fee which Government grants to the Council covers only the $1.91 million for personal emoluments just mentioned, plus $5,000 to cover incidental expenses. The $0.36 million "other charges" is not recoverable, nor is the estimated "hidden" annual cost of $100,000 for accounting and other staff; while there is also a potential extra expenditure, estimated to be not less than $0.24 million per annum, to be paid out of the Urban Council's own finances if current proposals for a car park cleaning
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 154 of 212
219
T
218
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
In August this year, the Principal Government Architect, Public Works Department, wrote to an overseas supplier to obtain samples of artificial turf. At the same time, the department wrote to the Hong Kong Football As- sociation, as one of the principal users, to ask for its views on the installation of artificial turf at major sports installations. The answer received from the Association, after taking advice from the FEDERATION INTER- NATIONALE DE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS in Switzerland, was that all matches are permissible on artificial turf with the exception up to now of matches in the Final Competition of the World Cup, and the Olympic Football Tournament. International matches have been played in Houston, U.S.A., on artificial turf. However, my esteemed colleague Mr. F. K. Hu, Chair- man of the Hong Kong Football Association, sub- sequently has been in consultation with leading football officials and the Coaching Director of the English Foot- ball Association during his recent visit to Copenhagen, and it appears that the artificial turf obtainable at this point in time can be quite abrasive, and players might not like to play on such a surface. This, and the cost implications, therefore still remain to be further inves- tigated, and will be referred to the Recreation and Amenities Select Committee for further consideration in due course.
(4) MR. JOHN MacKenzie asked the following question (in English):— In view of recent public complaints regarding multi-storey car parks, may I enquire what steps are being taken to improve amenities and services generally in this area? What are the current costs and revenue to the Council?
MR. PETER P. K. NG, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENTERTAINMENT AND ADVERTISING SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):-
I am grateful to Mr. MACKENZIE for raising this question, as I have many times expressed my concern to the Depart- ment about improving car park management, arrange- ment as well as facilities.
At the monent, thought is being given to revising the system of collecting fees for added public convenience as well
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 154 of 212
219
as prevention of loss of revenue, and consideration has already been given to installing a semi-automatic control system. The public must appreciate the fact that as far as car parks are concerned Urban Council is just acting as a servant of the Government. These car parks are Government car parks and the introduction of modern control equipment, improvement of the arrangements, or indeed any physical improvement cannot be done without implicit Government approval, and the question of who pays for such improvement must also be taken up with the Secretariat.
Complaints from the public are numerous and in many cases justified, and complaints are, more often that not, directed towards poor staff attitudes as well as poor service from the staff. The problem is serious, and the Committee is very much concerned about it, to the extent that we have taken it up with the Department. By and large the problem is largely one of getting more super- visory staff and better supervision, and it is hoped that with the recent re-organization of the Urban Services Department the situation will improve, and will become even more satisfactory as additional supervisory staff are recruited. Naturally, one hopes that this will not take very long to achieve.
With regard to the second part of the question, annual direct expenditure is running at just under $2.3 million, made up of
Personal Emoluments (including oncost of 26% an salaries) Other Charges
Making a total of
$1.918 million
$ .36 million
$2.278 million
The management fee which Government grants to the Council covers only the $1.91 million for personal emoluments just mentioned, plus $5,000 to cover incidental expenses. The $0.36 million "other charges" is not recoverable, nor is the estimated "hidden" annual cost of $100,000 for accounting and other staff; while there is also a potential extra expenditure, estimated to be not less than $0.24 million per annum, to be paid out of the Urban Council's own finances if current proposals for a car park cleaning
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.