HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
23
also consider implementing an 'Ambassador of Service Scheme' at various major UC facilities, such as the Hong Kong Cultural Centre, City Hall, Hong Kong Museum of Art and various civic centres and libraries. The 'Ambassadors of Service' can be chosen from among the front-line staff. Special training courses should be arranged for them to enhance their skills of communicating with the public so that they can introduce and promote UC facilities and activities at their working places.
In early 1996, the Council will conduct the Third Benchmark Survey. I hope that, through the findings of the survey, the Council can understand more clearly the requirements and opinions of the public, and continue to build up an image of 'Caring for the Community' in the minds of the public.
Regarding finance, certain fees currently charged by the Council can only cover the administrative costs and sometimes the Council even has to provide a certain amount of subsidy. I have always been wondering what is the Council's charging principle. Is it just to recover part of the costs? Or is it to peg the fees with the services provided? So far, the Council's charging policy has not been fully discussed. I hope that the relevant Select Committees will follow up and study the issue in future.
Another question that keeps puzzling me is the mechanism for increasing fees and charges. I think this is also an important topic in financial management worth studying. Should the increase be based on the annual inflation rate or the degree of public acceptance? Or should it be pegged with the standard of service provided and customers' satisfaction level? As we are faced with a slackening economy and continual rise in unemployment rate, all these questions deserve our careful consideration.
Cutting down expenditure is just as important as increasing income. Most of the Council's income comes from a share of the rates collected in the urban area, which is the tax-payers' money, and therefore should not be spent too freely. However, the Council has wasted a lot of public funds. Here I would like to cite several examples from which we may take warning.
The first example is the collections of the Museum of Art which have recently come under public attack. Relevant information shows that only about 10% of these collections are on display while the rest are kept in storage and cannot be seen by the public.
Secondly, some UC capital works projects cannot be completed as scheduled.
Thirdly, the vacancy rate of UC facilities is quite high. For example, the vacancy rates of markets, arenas in indoor games halls (IGH) and other venues in IGH are 15.2%, 25% and 65% respectively.
Other examples include the $1-billion Hong Kong Stadium, which is a 'big white elephant', and the Cheung Sha Wan Abattoir. Such examples are numerous. I can go on and on but I do not want to waste everyone's time.
Page 310 of 485
Page 310 of 485
Page 310 of 485
Page 310
Page 311
Page 310 of 485
Page 310 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
23
also consider implementing an 'Ambassador of Service Scheme' at various major UC facilities, such as the Hong Kong Cultural Centre, City Hall, Hong Kong Museum of Art and various civic centres and libraries. The 'Ambassadors of Service' can be chosen from among the front-line staff. Special training courses should be arranged for them to enhance their skills of communicating with the public so that they can introduce and promote UC facilities and activities at their working places.
In early 1996, the Council will conduct the Third Benchmark Survey. I hope that, through the findings of the survey, the Council can understand more clearly the requirements and opinions of the public, and continue to build up an image of 'Caring for the Community' in the minds of the public
Regarding finance, certain fees currently charged by the Council can only cover the administrative costs and sometimes the Council even has to provide a certain amount of subsidy. I have always been wondering what is the Council's charging principle. Is it just to recover part of the costs? Or is it to peg the fees with the services provided? So far, the Council's charging policy has not been fully discussed. I hope that the relevant Select Committees will follow up and study the issue in future.
Another question that keeps puzzling me is the mechanism for increasing fees and charges. I think this is also an important topic in financial management worth studying. Should the increase be based on the annual inflation rate or the degree of public acceptance? Or should it be pegged with the standard of service provided and customers' satisfaction level? As we are faced with a slackening economy and continual rise in unemployment rate, all these questions deserve our careful consideration.
Cutting down expenditure is just as important as increasing income. Most of the Council's income comes from a share of the rates collected in the urban area, which is the tax-payers' money, and therefore should not be spent too freely. However, the Council has wasted a lot of public funds. Here I would like to cite several examples from which we may take warning.
The first example is the collections of the Museum of Art which have recently come under public attack. Relevant information shows that only about 10% of these collections are on display while the rest are kept in storage and cannot be seen by the public.
Secondly, some UC capital works projects cannot be completed as scheduled.
Thirdly, the vacancy rate of UC facilitics is quite high. For example, the vacancy rates of markets, arenas in indoor games halls (IGH) and other venues in IGH arc 15.2%, 25% and 65% respectively.
Other examples include the I-billion-dollar Hong Kong Stadium, which is a ‘big white elephant', and the Cheung Sha Wan Abattoir. Such examples are numerous. I can go on and on but I do not want to waste everyone's time.
Page 310 of 485
Page 310 of 485
Page 310Page 311
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.