The Porirua Wellington Web Blog - April 2006
Political debate is a sign of a healthy community. This blog is a place for opinions and debate about Porirua City, its Council, and the Wellington region. For the Porirua City Council officers' advice, motions, and minutes go to http://www.pcc.govt.nz/documentmanagement/Frameset_searchFolders.asp
For current material
please visit The Porirua Wellington Web Blog
- Current Material
Porirua
City Councillor Robert Shaw 
To contribute, email robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz
When the recreation centre was first established there was a plan to add
a fitness centre. Well I remember the submissions from private operators
who could not understand why the ratepayers money should be used to provide
them with spirited competition. Now the same proposal is raised and it is
to go to Committee next Thursday morning.
r
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Evening Robert
Can you tell myself and others how each councillor voted
on the Rec Centre issue? I am of the understanding that councillors are elected
and paid for by the electors. They are beholden to their constituents
and therefore should vote accordingly. Not to a party or as a
leader tells them, but to the people who voted them in. Some may say this
is a privacy issue, but I think not. We, the public are entitled to know
the instigators, and the followers, of this act of treachery towards the
community. Your reply is awaited,
Benjamin.R. Tredrea
ROBERT COMMENTS
This is a good set of questions and deserve some unpacking.
There would have been (as a guess) about 20 votes on the recreation centre, and quite possibly more. The votes on the matter go back at least six years. The upgrade was actually in the Council's Annual Plan in earlier years. It was there with a strange, wording, something along the lines that if things permitted the work would be done. After I returned from my trip to Scotland I was amazed to discover this "half-way-house" approach to budgeting and said things about it. Had the Plan been specific then the problem of the recreation centre would be far behind us. This situation relates to the dual purposes of the LTCCP and the AP. The document is what we might call and "enhanced budget". It sets out more than the financial things. But the document has two purposes: (1) it is the deal the councillors strike with the community ("we will do this on your behalf"; and (2) it is the councillors instruction to the chief executive ("deliver this lot"). The instruction to the chief executive was not specific enough.
Before that Annual Plan (which was 3 years ago), there had been a series of proposals to do the maintenance on the recreation centre. The project consistently stalled because the idea of a major upgrade hung over the discussion. Hence, there were calls for investigations to be undertaken and eventually money was voted for the investigation. After some initial work which I do not remember very well, the major sum voted was $200,000. This enabled the investigation of alternative sites for a "regional" centre, basic design options, user surveys and the like. Then the officers came and asked for a further $40,000 to continue the work. That was relatively recently for I chaired the meeting and supported the $40,000 - you cannot do 90% of a study.
When the money was voted for the investigations I raised an issue: were we to plan for one option, two options, or three options. Remember the purpose of the planning was to develop a comprehensive, costed proposal to put before the public this year. There were really three options initially developed by the officers in their advice. The first (again from memory) was about $1.5 million to do the deferred maintain. The second was an upgrade at about $4.5 million based on the notion the recreation centre would keep its current use. The third was a little over $8 million based on the notion that the use would change and we would have a regional centre. The battle was on: I lost the vote. The decision was taken to develop only one option to put in front of the public. That is the option you see now. It began at about $8 million and grew largely with inflation.
Hence, the current situation is:
Benjamin asks how we all voted. I do not know how others voted. Someone could check through the minutes that are all on the internet. I have consistently voted to do the investigations. I voted against their being one option. However, you might ask me what are my views now, and frankly I do not know. If we had a cheaper and less regional option the public would jump at it. The matter would be simple. But, we do not have such an option and the project is long overdue. Also, the circumstances in the region have changed as we have taken so long to do our planning.
How about we develop a second option? Well, the one we have cost $240,000. Options are not cheap. The development of another option would take over a year and we make the decision within two months. Also, the Plan we are doing now is for the decade not just next year. If we reject the current proposal we have nothing and issue remains un addressed. As I said when the options option was lost, there is an inevitability about all this.
Finally, on this, my account of what happened is just my account. I have found that different people have totally different accounts of such things. The same events they interpret differently. They give weight to different things. It is not that anyone is proceeding in bad faith, but rather they all genuinely see things differently.
In the meantime, there are submissions being written on all sides - for, against, and alternative uses for the space.
The second part of Benjamin's statement relates to a different matter and that is addressed below under the heading "How should councillors use their vote?"
Benjamin also raises the issue of on what basis the councillors should vote. Several things are important in this and it is not an easy to describe them all.
I have never thought it reasonable for a councillor to vote other than by the application of their personal judgment to each situation That is why I have always stood as an independent candidate and not become a part of a political party. In a place like Porirua City the councillors should aim at reflecting what I like to call an "enlightened consensus". That
First, although the councillors come from different parts of the city and represent different wards, the oath they take is to do what is best for the City as a whole. Hence, the notion that I represent the northern ward is not strictly true. There are many things that come from this that I will not mention here, but one comparison might be helpful.
One of the reasons that the regional council has been comparatively successful as a council is that the councillors come from such a wide area. The councillors on the regional council are not in the constant turmoil of politics that characterises the Porirua City Council. In my time there I found the regional council more calm and deliberative. As I write this on Sunday I know that the Labour Party is meeting today to discuss the recreation centre - they are a considerable vote in the Council (assuming they do not kill each other before they get to the meeting). This is of course their right but it adds a complexity to the situation. Likewise, I am told that residents associations are having meetings with the mayor and officers and excluding the councillors. The pattern is enough to make anyone paranoid. Given the cut and thrust of it all, can we expect a rational set of decisions that will satisfy the majority? Frankly, no one knows. Normally when major decisions are made, people tolerate them because they have not any choice, and things do not look quite so bad with the passage of time. So it will be with the recreation centre. But, that does not mean we can run from our immediate responsibility. I am aware, however, that several councillors are feeling very pressured about the current budget debate. Again, that is not unusual.
To return to Benjamin's topic:
Elsewhere in the blog I refer to the pledge that I make at each election.
I cannot improve on it. It is to inform (what this blog is about), listen
(email and phone calls mainly and personal representations at Council meetings),
and reprsent "your interests". The sting is in the tail for it means your
interests as I judge them. It also means "your interests" in the sense of
a whole of city view.
r
Sunday, April 30, 2006
On an occasion set aside to adopt the draft LTCCP 2006-16 it was somewhat remarkable to hear councillors endeavouring to come to grips with what was meant by the “effect on the average rate payer” alongside a series of percentages setting out the yearly increases in rates income over the next 10 years.
If councillors openly admit a difficulty in this respect as they go about signing-off the remaining 339 page A4 document, how do they think the rest of the community will be able to cope with such a simple concept?
Isn’t it about time the council LTCCP document was reduced in size and became a more readable explanation of where our city leaders propose to take us in a socio/economic sense, or is un-readability an intended built-in factor?
Similar to everyday explanations of computer software applications, maybe we should have a booklet “Understanding the LTCCP for Dummies”? It could be a best-seller as the problem of coming to grips with voluminous council inspired jargon is quite widespread.
John Watson
ROBERT COMMENTS
I was the one who could not understand the expression "average ratepayer".
It turned out after some long attempts to find an explantation that in the
particular context we were working the expression "the average ratepayer"
did not actually refer to "the average ratepayer". For me an average is identified
by taking a number and dividing by another number. I like to know what the
two numbers are - both in quantity and quality. For example if you divide
total council income from rates by the number of ratepayers then you get
an average payment for a ratepayer (all be it a hypothetical ratepayer).
This is how I expect averages to work. Evidently, in the Council's plan there
is another idea about averages. I do not say they are wrong, just that I
find it confusing.
r
Sunday, April 30, 2006
The first evaluation of the new committee system is out, and it shows a
high level of support for the new approach, the committee functioning, and
the advice of the officers, and the freeing up of people's time. There has
been no evaluation done of the full council meetings.
r
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Lead article from the Plimmerton Residents' Association:
MAKE YOUR OPINIONS KNOWN NOW!
On 3 April 2006, during the debate on the 10 year Long Term Council Community Plan, the Porirua City Council passed the following amendment:
“That the Village Development project capital expenditure be reduced to $3.0 million by reducing expenditure in years 2010/11, 2012/13 and 2014/15.”
Voting for this axing of funding were the Mayor Jenny Brash, Councillors Euon Murrell (mover), Dow and Gillon (all from the Northern Ward) and Councillors Kelly (seconder – Western ward), Rangi, and Palmer (from Eastern Ward). Voting against were Councillors Green (Northern Ward) and Stanley (Eastern Ward). Cr Shaw (Northern Ward - present - did not vote).
Effectively, the axing of $3.0 million from the programme for suburban development is on account of a proposed replacement of the Recreation Centre to cost at current prices $17.2 million.
During 2004/5, Porirua ratepayers were consulted about the recreation centre replacement ($12.5m just 1 year ago). Ratepayers then expressed real concern at the impact of the decision not just because of the cost as indicated, but because such a development would stymie all other development in the City for a 10 year period.
“News & Views” is appalled that all the voluntary community work up to now undertaken in so many of Porirua’s communities to create Village Strategies (let alone the hundreds of hours on our own for Plimmerton) has been decimated by the Council in favour of a project that has such minimal support. This squandering of the city’s rating base will seriously affect the much needed infrastructure so vital for the whole of Porirua. Spin doctors promoting sponsorship for the Centre to off-set costs have nothing concrete to offer as yet. They suggest net $6.54 million can be used from the sale of the Aotea Block towards the cost of the new centre, but seem to have forgotten to deduct the purchase price and expenses incurred for it in the first place. The politics of the project remain unimpressive and cavalier.
During the last LTCCP discussions three years ago, the Village Strategy programme for Porirua established $1 million for each of the years 2006/7, 2007/8 and 2008/9. Ongoing funding was to be budgeted as interest in the Community Planning grew and incorporated in the 10 year plan. We have had a clear expectation of Council commitment to support the Village Strategy. They have had a clear indication from Communities in Porirua that they want to create their own vision for the future with Council support.
The present Sports Centre needs a million dollar roof, some better toilets and a repaint. We ask, “Do we need a lavish centre which will commit Porirua to on-going financial penury for a minimum 10 year period, with not just a commitment to capital costs but an annual subsidy of operational costs also?” This project will allow scant other development for 10 years.
Perhaps we would all like a super indoor sports area. Maybe this should be in years 2012-15 when the necessary District Plan reviews, stormwater and drainage improvements, toilet renewals, walkway developments and Village developments are all paid for and completed. A side issue, but nonetheless relevant, is the carving up of our central green space, Te Rauparaha Park and the skateboard facility. Once city green space is used it cannot be reclaimed.
This $17.0 million proposal is a clear contradiction of the wishes of people as expressed last year during the formal consultation round. There are major implications for you individually to consider, including the clearly indicated ongoing rates increase for a city already one of the highest rated in the country.
We need honesty. We need Council to listen. We need Council to support the very Villages who are their constituents and take a bottom up approach to their decision making instead of this heavy handed top down one which we will all pay for.
DO YOU CARE? DO YOU AGREE? WHAT DO YOU THINK …… PLEASE MAKE
YOUR VOICE HEARD!
Saturday, April 29, 2006
The latest issue of the Plimmerton Residents' Association Newsletter "News
and Views" contains many exciting and worthwhile contributions. So far as
I can remember there has not been such a strong edition before.
r
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Decisions have to be made on how our City manages its sister cities and other international links. The key decision of principle is, do we have a:
Personally, I think on balance the first approach is best because the links
are City to City, not Council to Council. My preference is a simplifed
version of what they do in Hastings. I will move this way at the Committee
meeting next Thursday, however it is likely there will be strong support
for the second approach. Councllors like to have committees. Keeps the officers
in work etc. Either way, life goes on.
r
Saturday, April 29, 2006
PS
The cities are:
Hastings City Model
A devolved model of a Community Committee managing the Sister City relationship
is
found with the Hastings City - Guilin (China) Strategic Plan. The plan
sets out the
history and objectives of the Hastings Guilin link and how it is to be
managed.
The Hastings Guilin Strategic Plan has four primary objectives:
educational development,
cultural development,
business links and;
Local Government good practice exchanges.
The governance structure involves a Board of Directors of a maximum of 20 persons with the Board conducting its own selection and appointments. The Board is serviced by the Corporate Services Division of the Hastings District Council and must meet up to three times per year. The Board is expected to mirror key community interests. Examples are education, business, media, iwi, Hawkes Bay Chinese Association, Hawkes Bay Branch of New Zealand Friendship Society, Hastings District Council, Cultural and other interests. The Hastings District Council undertakes a series of obligations to support the work of the Board of Directors. The Hastings District Council funds the operations by a combination of a small direct grant of $15,000 made up of operating costs, a discretionary allocation to the Directors and delegations costs and to meet the costs of a Council staff member (who is directly employed by Council but who assists the Board in its work) and a further allocation to cover costs associated with exchanges of staff to and from Guilin. The most recent information available values this at a little over $50,000 per year.
The following table shows the attendance of elected persons at the formal meetings of council, including workshop meetings for the third quarter (ie 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2006)..
The first number is the number of assigned meetings for the quarter. The second number is the number they actually attended.
Cr Ah Hoi 14 2
Mayor J. Brash 15 13
Cr Douglas 15 12
Cr Dow 18 17
Cr Fagaloa 14 10
Cr Gillon 14 13
Cr Green 14 11
Cr Kelly 15 14
Cr Murrell 16 15
Cr Palmer 15 14
Cr Rangi 15 13
Cr Shaw 16 15
Cr Stanley 15 12
Cr Waters 14 7
So long as the mayor makes snide and gratuitous remarks when she chairs
meetings she will not be able to stop others from making snide and gratuitous
remarks. The simple requirement is that people listen to others in an attempt
to understand and not to ridicule. In meetings the tone must be set by the
chairperson.
r
Saturday, April 29, 2006
FOOTNOTE
It is pointed out to me that blogs can have snide and gratuitous remarks
ago. I am indeed the pot calling the kettle black. On reflection, perhaps
I should seek to be more understanding of the mayor who has a real job to
do, and try to help her.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
A question Finance Minister Michael Cullen would not answer if asked is “ Can he still confirm that the Government would have met the full cost of upgrading the coastal highway?” If he said ’no’ , this would be seen as backtracking from former assurances and tantamount to a broken promise. If he said “Yes“, where is the logic in not fully funding Transmission Gully when the cost of the two projects are similar.
This is because there is substantial under estimating of the cost of the coastal route. The Review team identified many points where design variations could increase costs and I shall describe just one.
The plan was to cut into the hill at Pukerua Bay . Much of the rock there is Otaki sandstone of doubtful stability. If this collapsed not only would the road be lost but the rail placed in jeopardy. The probable option would be to build an elevated highway to raise the road from sea level . Other variations could soon raise the total cost equivalent to or even greater than Transmission Gully.
If Government could afford to fund the full cost of the coastal highway why cannot it meet the full cost of Transmission Gully?
Bryan Helm
April 28, 2006
I look forward to the submissions. We really have to sort out a better process. The key issues in the draft are:
Uncontroversial but important:
r
Thursday, April 27, 2006
News release from Greater Wellington Regional Council
27 April, 2006
GWRC accepts Western Corridor Plan
The proposed Western Corridor Plan was today accepted by Greater Wellington Regional Council as part of the Regional Land Transport Strategy.
The Council's decision means that the projects in the Western Corridor Plan, including improvements to rail services, the Western Link Road and construction of the Transmission Gully Motorway will now become part of the draft Regional Strategy, and can be considered for funding and construction. Councillor Terry McDavitt, the Chair of the Regional Land Transport Committee said that this decision was very significant because it marked the end of the process of developing a strategy and the start of the process of getting it done.
"This decision means that any upgrade of the coastal route is now out of the picture. It also means that important public transport and road projects can now go forward and be considered for funding and construction."
During the debate a number of councillors said that their support for the plan was dependent on the rapid upgrading of public transport and rail services on the Western Corridor. Councillor Glen Evans said that increasing the capacity, frequency and resilience of rail services was an essential before any investment in the Transmission Gully Motorway. "I am supporting the proposed plan because it means we can start improving rail services and public transport while at the same time doing the preliminary geo-technical work on Transmission Gully. These improvements need to be in place before the scheduled start of construction of the motorway in 2011." Councillor Evans was supported by Councillors Judith Aitken, Peter Glensor and Chris Laidlaw.
The final vote in support of including the plan in the Regional Land Transport Strategy was unanimous.
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
This
is not the time to press ahead with the Sport and Recreation Centre proposal.
Through numerous public consultations, many convened by the PCC, residents
have consistently stated that there remains in the community a prevailing
conviction that there is not a mandate for the Project on grounds of costs
to the ratepayers and timing. Rather there is a concern
that the City remain committed to the maintenance and refurbishing of basic
infrastructure, and resourcing of the Village strategies as identified in
the Strategic Plan and LTCCP - resourcing which is affordable and supported
by the electorate. If the Council forces through the Project
it will destroy the positive sense of partnership between our Local Government
and Civil Society which has been emerging in recent years. Regards,
Don
Borrie
Hello Robert
When I did this before I got a message saying message could not be sent. Sorry if you get two of the same
Set out below are copies of emails between me and Roger B. The basic
point is that the infrastructure must not fail. When I hear that training
of related trades is well advanced then I will be satisfied. However an
explanation as to how the various providers of infrastructure have measures that
will cope with a pandemic then I would have no worries.I think the thing
that bothers me is that no such information is being released to the public
and therefore may not exist..The suggestions in my original email have a
cost but not as great as would be the case of infrastructure collapse.
Bryan Helm
Hello Roger
On Nat Radio this morning there was a discussion on preparedness for a possible pandemic. The message I got was that any direct help the community might get is from neighbours and local authorities. There also seemed to be the premise that there could be infrastructure failure because of people being too sick to maintain it.
I strongly reject this supposition.
The information issued so far seems to equate to preparation for a natural disaster eg earthquake but there are almost no common factors between the two. In an earthquake the infrastructure will be damaged, the devastation will be within a defined area and the population on a national basis will be in normal health
In a pandemic the whole country could be affected but the infrastructure will be intact. If it fails it will be because of inadequate numbers of staff to operate and maintain it. There should therefore be plans to train staff , if necessary, from related industries. Engineering workers could learn to operate water distribution and disposal systems, electricians could learn to maintain electricity generation and lines equipment, television technicians could be trained to maintain telephone services and planning could ensure key retail people are available to maintain food supplies in supermarkets. The transport industry might be required to give preference to ensuring that food and fuel is transported according to need . There are many drivers in other industries that could be co-opted.
My basic point is that there are skilled people who could maintain essential services but these need to identified and trained.
The needs of people living alone or elderly couples do not seem to be addressed. Hospitals may not be able to provide beds for all those not able to look after themselves in terms of heating food or getting hot drinks or replenishing medicines. I do not think that friends and neighbours can be relied upon to fulfil this service completely. It might be possible to develop a team of volunteers (or the armed services) to undertake such work. They could be issued with protective clothing and provided with Tamiflu without charge.
I accept that much of this may be outside the scope of the Council but combined local authorities might push the Government into appropriate action and hopefully you could initiate this.
Bryan Helm
From: Roger Blakeley - PCC
To: 'Bryan Helm'
Cc: Marshall Hyland - PCC ; Mike Chapman - PCC
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 3:07 PM
Subject: RE: Flu Pandemic
Bryan
It is the normal operating assumption in Emergency Management that communities have to be prepared and resilient enough to cope on their own for a period.
We are doing a lot of work on pandemic planning at national, regional and local levels. The forecasts are that as much as 50% of staff could be away sick if a Pandemic hits, so we have to have contingency plans for provision of core infrastructure services in that event.
I hope this helps.
Regards, Roger
Roger Blakeley
PLIMMERTON RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC
Dear Councillors
- on Thursday evening 27 April you will be considering the adoption of the Draft LTCCP 2006-2016. Could you please give some thought to the following:
1. During April-May 2004 some of the submissions to the 2004-2014 LTCCP included 76 relating to the “New Recreation Centre”. There were 8 in support and 68 in opposition to the then $12.6 million centre.
2. A year later in August-September 2005 Council asked for further submissions and 58 arrived for a similar $12.9 million “Sports & Events Centre”. This resulted in 21 for support and 37 against. Included were 262 Netball and Recreation users with a signed petition coming from Northern = 46, Eastern = 118, Western = 56, outside Porirua = 42.
3. We wonder if any consideration was given to these limited submissions? The figures and comments would surely make you stop and think that the proposed centre is a non-starter at the early stage of this 10-year plan ? Do you believe that the City infrastructure and Village developments are being robbed in favour of the now $17.5 million+ + proposal ? Instead, many submitters have argued cogently for the sensible option of re-roofing and making some needed improvements to the present recreation centre.
4. So far limited investigation has been done to establish potential user numbers for the proposed centre. We are waiting for a detailed business plan to assess this usage.
Financially this huge commitment should warrant extensive background research with independent peer group scrutiny. On a national basis our rates are very high with a large infrastructural commitment.
5. The truly sad thing is that after nearly two years of positive co-operation we find ourselves at odds with Council again. The proposals for the Villages’ improvements – Cannons Creek , Plimmerton , and Titahi Bay are now on the back-burner to provide for the multi-million proposed development. We ask you to note past and present submissions, restore co-operation with communities, and organise the S & E Centre for much later in the 10 year plan.
On behalf of the P R A - Pip Piper - Spokesperson
ROBERT COMMENTS
My sarcastic heading was not appreciated by those on either side of the
debate.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Beverley Wakem , the Ombudsman, has discontinued
her investigation of a complaint by the Plimmerton Quarry Truck Action Group
against the Council , following advice from the Group that they wish to withdraw
their complaint because the trucking activity from Plimmerton quarry through
the Plimmerton township has ceased and not resumed.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
ANZAC day 2006.
Maureen
Just to make sure all is clear, further to the figures below, you
will see on p 58 of the draft LTCCP sent out to you on Friday, the rates
impact of the Sports and Events Centre is $831,000 for 2009/10 and for the
remaining years of the plan it is at a similar level.
Of course , this is
based on a capital cost of $17.533 million, loan funding of $11.496 million
(with the balance of $6.25 million being the funds received from the ale
of the Aotea Block). It does not include any allowance for funding raised
through the Porirua Community Appeal Trust or other avenues, which would
have the effect of reducing debt servicing costs and therefore reducing
rate funding required.
Regards, Roger Blakeley
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Blakeley - PCC Sent: Friday, 21 April 2006 2:32 p.m. To: Maureen Gillon ( mgillon@rnzcgp.org.nz ); Maureen Gillon ( tamnagh@paradise.net.nz ) Cc: Jenny Brash - PCC; Euon Murrell ; Sue Dow ( suedow@paradise.net.nz ); John Green ( john.green@paradise.net.nz ); Robert Shaw ( robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz ); Ken Douglas ( marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz )
Subject: Rates increase and Sports and Events Centre
Maureen
The following
is a response to residents who have raised with you concerns about the rates
increase and the Sports and Events Centre. I am also sending it to other
Northern Ward members, who may find it useful. 1. The funding of the Sports
and Events Centre has had very little impact on rates in the first year of
the draft LTCCP, that is 2006/07. This can be seen on page 58 of the draft
LTCCP (that will be sent to you today).
You will see that in the year 2006/07, the total rate funding required for the Sports and Events Centre is $84,000. This is because the initial phase of the project, following approval by Council in the 2006/2016 LTCCP, would be design and preparation of working drawings and contract documents. You will see that in year 2007/08, the total rate funding required is $257,000 and in 2008/09, the total rate funding required is $681,000. 2. Rates increase for the average ratepayer in 2006/07 is 5.7%. 3% of that is due to inflation. The $84,000 for the Sports and Events Centre accounts for only ¼ of 1%.
The remainder of the increase is due in part to asset management plans identifying additional cost requirements in areas such as building maintenance, additional footpath maintenance, minor safety works, additional repairs to sewer pump stations and pipes, stormwater catchment studies, water supply management to reduce losses, completion of the programme to eliminate low water pressure areas in the City, and automatic shut-off valves on the City's reservoirs to protect water supply in the event of an earthquake.
Also, strategic projects include new cemetery extension, City Centre design in Cobham Court, community (village) development, District Plan Rolling Review, Heritage management, Ngati Toa Domain foreshore upgrade, walkways and cycleways and Economic Development. 3. You asked whether it is possible to provide a table showing a range of rates and put the dollar amount rather than percentage amount (I presume you mean the impact of the Sports and Events Centre on rates).
It is not that simple, because any such table would have to take account of the varying rate-funding requirement for the Sports and Events Centre over the 10-year life of the plan. As noted above, the rates contribution for the Sports and Events Centre in 2006/07 is very small. However, there is a table on page 71 of the draft LTCCP that shows the increase in dollars for residential ratepayers, for the year 2006/07 for property values varying in increments from $150,000 to $750,000. For example, a residential property of value $350,000 will have a $114.60 TOTAL increase in rates in 2006/07, in a year when the rate increase for the average ratepayer was 5.7%.
A residential property of value $500,000 will have a $145.40 TOTAL increase in 2006/07. The tables on page 58 and page 70 of the draft LTCCP show that the total rate funding required for the Sports and Events Centre ranges at the most from 2-3% of total rate income.
Thus, the dollar impact on ratepayers due to the Sports and
Events Centre will be AT MOST ABOUT HALF the figures on page 71 of the
draft LTCCP. Maureen, this is not a precise answer to your question, but
I hope it is helpful.
Regards,
Roger
-----Original Message----- From: Maureen Gillon [ mailto:mgillon@rnzcgp.org.nz ] Sent: Thursday, 20 April 2006 9:42 a.m. To: marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz ; rblakeley@pcc.govt.nz
Subject: URGENT
Goodnmorning
Councillors in the north are under pressure at the moment in the local media, email and personally because of the rate increase and the Sport and Rec Centre. I distinctly remember Plimmerton RAssn giving us an acceptable $ range from their perspective - Tim Sheppard was chairing the meeting. I know that the increase in within that range. Is it possible for Keith and team to put a table together with a range of rates - high - average - low area by area and put the $ amount rather than the percentage amount. Keith has done this before so they should be able to produce the information.
Regards
Maureen Gillon
National Manager Quality The Royal
New Zealand College of General Practitioners
PRESS STATEMENT
Instead of attacking Kerry Prendergast, Adrian Webster's Gully Action Group should come up with some answers to the serious questions being raised about the funding of Transmission Gully
It is now clear that Transmission Gully has to be built in total or not at all. In any case half of TGM would be a road to nowhere which could rightly be dubbed Transmission Folly. It is equally clear that there is a shortfall of half a billion dollars for funding the whole monstrous project. The Government have signalled that they have other priorities and cannot be expected to come up with the money. The net income from a toll to use the mountain road will only pay a fraction of the cost. The only way to close the gap is for everyone in the region to pay a petrol tax as well as a significant increase in rates.
Webster and his mates may be happy to see the rest of us financing their dream highway but the Mayor of Wellington and her Councillors are to be congratulated on questioning the imposition of such a burden on current as well as future generations of motorists and ratepayers.
Wellington City is quite right in saying that the Region needs a more balanced programme of road and rail projects. The major choke point for travellers to Wellington from the north is from Ngauranga to the city. There is just no point in blowing all the funds on TGM and leaving the real problems untouched. There are also serious questions about urban sprawl, environmental effects and various other matters which need to be responded to.
The Gully advocates need to stop their bullying talk and explain how the interests of the Wellington Region would be best served by building TGM.
For the Coastal Highway Group
Dick Jessup
Chris Norman
12 Monarch Place
Paraparaumu
04 2970444.
As one of the thousands of people who drive from the North into Wellington each day I read in the Dominion of March 29 that the Porirua City Council is talking with Transit NZ regarding a bill before Parliament to enforce the single lane nonsense that is the so called Paremata upgrade.
It would seem that the current roading policy in the Wellington region is being directed by a tiny group of Paremata protesters who constantly lobby the Porirua Council. These are people who freely chose to live next to the busiest arterial highway in the country, and having chosen to do that, they then complain endlessly about the traffic. (They remind me of others who chose to live by airports and constantly complain about aircraft).
Conversely the people who drive through Paremata at the T2 times are the very people who earned the money to pay the tax that raised the 34 Million dollars that this nonsense has cost Taxpayer thus far. With this tax bill came the preposterous proposition that for about twenty hours a day the outside lanes were designated car parks. This has the effect of reducing the road back to the original two-lane highway which completely negates the upgrade. (There are about fifty car parks, as they are functional for most of the day one can reasonable say that the primary function of this up grade was to build car parks, at a cost to the taxpayer of around 680,000 dollars each).
What needs to happen in Paremata is that 1. the T2 lanes are removed. 2. The car parks are removed and any car parking on State Highway One should be towed. And 3 the traffic lights removed. This may sound radical but is no more than the original plan before the protestors got at it.
How extraordinary is it, that after all this time, effort, millions spent and inconvenience during the “upgrade” that Paremata remains a quite unnecessary traffic jam.
Chris Norman
2nd April
Dear Robert,
Most interesting reply from AN OFFICER. It is much the same as I got from ANOTHER OFFICER earlier. For your information I attach a paper we (Friends of Maara Roa) prepared last year. On that you will see that the Amenity Lakes Plan published by these officers in March 2004 clearly explains why the Cannons Creek Lakes exist, and how they need to be managed.
This Plan is not a bright idea of Sylvia Jenkin but a publication of Leisure and Recreation dept of PCC. It even uses the evil word "dredging". How can Gary say "we have no plans at all" when this has been published after much consultation? What is the point of this published Plan for the Amenity Lakes, if the boss does not intend to carry it out???? Clearly PCC has been landed with a problem due to the neglect of the upper catchment by Landcorp Farm and Greater Wellington. Unfortunately, if simply ignored, the level of flooding in the future will go higher and higher, more and more rubble will come downstream, silt will arrive in increasing quantities and it will go straight down into Kenepuru Stream and into the harbour. Unfortunately, if measures are not taken now, the City will be faced with far greater cost. It is unwise of the officers simply to decide that because there is not much money, no action needs to be taken at this time. You are quite right to suggest that a "polite letter" to GW would be valuable at this time, considering that GW has just set up a Catchment Division.
It is certainly pointless trying to fix the problem at the Lakes end of it, when the state of the catchment above there is the cause of the trouble. You should just see the erosion upstream - it is really bad. Personally, if I owned property which was being flooded by the next door owner in such a way, I would take him to Court for damages. It is because of this issue which we have been also raising with GWRC, that I am glad to hear about PCC's Catchment Studies and am sure FMR will fully support these being done a.s.a.p. Belmont Park Management Plan review would also be a good time for PCC to raise these catchment-oriented problems.
The lack
of riparian protection in the headwaters of both Duck Creek and Cannons
Creek, is a real worry, and we have raised that already in the past in relation
to the T.Gully roading plans. These issues should be prepared for now,
not wait till there is more trouble. I am afraid I don't have any useful
contacts with businesses, worse luck. But if I did I would try to get some
good business heads to look at setting up a Trust to undertake a riparian
bush corridor up on the Takapu Block, to limit the run-off from those 300
bare hectares, into the C.Ck Gorge. Corrections Porirua would like to take
on the labour for such a project - they are looking for a long-term steady
one as a back-up, I'm told - meaning that labour costs could be minimal.
Interested?
Sylvia Jenkin
1. The stream's banks above the CCLR boundary have been scoured to the height of 3 – 6
metres, right up to Takapu (Farm) Road.
2. There are a number of slips in the gorge, all of which came down in 2003, in the first bad
flood. They are up to 20 metres high and 4 metres wide, only two being visible from the
Takapu Track. (Source: P.Guiniven, Possum Control Team.)
3. Each time there is a downpour now, there is more scouring. As the loess is extremely
fractured and is crumbly when exposed, this erosion is the source of the silt and rubble
now clogging the wetland, creek and upper lake. This can be expected to continue and
to get worse with each storm.
4. Ten years ago, there were no slips in the stream, and the banks were green down to the
normal streambed, despite normal rainfalls and flooding of the Lake Reserve . (Source:
Roy Hughes, 14a Arawhata St .)
5. The 300ha headwaters catchment (Takapu Block) is bare of trees and leased for stock
grazing. The stock have access to the stream, which runs all year and passes under the
Takapu (Farm) Road by means of a culvert. It could be assumed that in the sort of heavy
downpours we have had in 2003-4, the runoff from this large area into the small stream
forces its way through this culvert and emerges at high pressure straight into the narrow
Cannons Creek gorge, as through a funnel. The creek probably rises quickly to 2-3 metres
deep, and the rapid fall through the gorge will ensure it is swift. We have observed the
creek to overflow the new bridge on the Takapu Track during the Feb.'04 flood.
6. The Lakes,being a man-made flood retention and silt trap, are intended to control what
goes downstream. Neither the erosion upstream nor the clogging downstream are “natural”
phenomena which we should allow, but a problem created by past and present human
intervention. The whole catchment is a highly modified environment, and the problems are
ours to remedy.
EXISTING AGREED PRACTICE, from the Amenity Lakes Management Plan (P.C.C., March '04)
1. The Lakes are “flood detention” facilities (4.4.2, p.26) To diminish the area for water retent-
ion would appear to negate the intention of this Plan in relation to flooding downstream.
2. Clause 4.3.4, p.24 covers the matter of silt removal, involving dredging. We agreed to that
and believe it should not be discontinued in either Lake . It can be done with little disturb-
ance to the environment, and access points for a suitable machine put in place. The
existence of a Stream Management Plan will give more guidance to PCC officers in the
timing and implementation of this work, hopefully reduced in frequency by mitigation
upstream. Dredging of the upper lake is needed urgently to restore the water.
3. Wildlife: the upper lake has been deliberately left natural and has become a habitat for increasing numbers and species of native birds. The return of pukeko, and the Rahui placed by Ngatitoa in 2003 has been recognised in the Amenity Lakes Plan (4.2.4. p.21)
Since then, morepork/ruru. kingfisher/kotare, and pigeons/kereru have returned to the area. We believe they are more likely to remain around a running stream and natural-
style lake, than in the boardwalked wetland and lower groomed lake.
S.L.Jenkin, October 17, 2005.
The Porirua City Council is responsible for Pataka. Now local Maori have
raised an issue regarding a sculpture that depicts the head. Who is responsible
for censorship and artistic policy I wonder - governance or management?.
r
Sunday, April 16, 2006
With regard to the blog item below on the goals for Kenepuru, we need much more information than appears in CCDHB press releases. Hence, I have asked them some questions and will share with you the answers.
-------- Original Message --------
| Official Information request |
| Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:12:08 +1200 |
| Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz> |
| info@ccdhb.org.nz |
Dear Margot and co
Some questions about Kenepuru, thanks,
1 Is the Board committed to the long-term retention of medical beds at Kenepuru (ward 5)?
2 To support both the medical beds and the elective surgery at Kenepuru a High Dependency Unit is needed. What plans are there to develop such a unit at Kenepuru? What are the arguments around this concept? 2 How many ambulance trips are there from Kenepuru to Newtown? (I still hold the earlier statistics you provided on this and can make the comparisons myself). How many of these require that a nurse travels with the patient? What is the average time that Kenepuru patients are waiting at Newtown for treatment or diagnosis?
3 How many of the ambulance trips to Newtown are for ultrasound and CT scans? Do you hold data on the cost of this activity, including nurse escort costs, and if so might I have the information please?
4 What are the number and cost of ambulance trips from Kapiti to Kenepuru, and to Newtown. 5 What are the number and costs of ambulance trips from Porirua to Newtown (not involving Kenepuru.
6 Why have you taken off the internet all the earlier media releases? We need that information and it is gone, can it please be reinstated?
7 When is the CT scan to be installed at Kenepuru as per the original plan? Why is it not there now? When is the ultrasound diagnostic facility to be established at Kenepuru as per the original plan, and why is it not there now.
8 Is it correct that the required lead was not installed in the walls of a room at Kenepuru in the redevelopment, and if so why not?
9 There was discussion of having "ambulance trips" as a marker or performance indicator for the Kenepuru strategy. What was the outcome of this discussion? What are the current broad performance indicators for Kenepuru? I want to know what they are, not the statistics.
10 Is it really true that you established a committee to consider the art work on the walls at Kenepuru? If so why? And who was on it?
11 What is the total budget for the whole DHB and the provider arm? (Two numbers for the current year)
12 What is the status and future of
the hydrotherapy pool on the Kenepuru site? How do the usage figures
there compare with your other hydrotherapy facilities? Do you keep any breakdown
on where the people come from that use that facility?
Thanks and regards
Robert Shaw
The Porirua City Council takes a great interest in Kenepuru "Hospital". Why? To what end? What are the goals? At the moment we seem to flap around taking an interest in a random assortment of things, and being nice to everyone. All that is great fun but it is not real work.
The Council is not the Health Board, and the Health Board is elected. So what is the Council's role or interest? I think it has to be distinct from that of the Health Board. The Board has its own ideas about Kenepuru. The Council must either leave them alone or develop its own goals and become an advocate. That choice needs to be considered consciously by all the councillors.
Let us assume the Council wants to become involved in the health issues. What should be the Council's goals? How are we to measure our success?
The Council could become an advocate for:
EITHER - a secondary level hospital at Kenepuru that would require a capital injection from government now.
OR - an incremental approach to the expansion of services at Kenepuru (which eventually results in there being a secondary level hospital).
This strategic choice needs to be made carefully.
I will now record a few things that relate to Kenepuru, without setting out the arguments regarding the critical choice before the Council.
Council lost the Kenepuru hospital debate. The result is the hub and spoke strategy is being implemented. Surprise surprise - all the problems people foresaw are coming to pass. The first was the cost of earthquake proofing the Newtown skyscraper - this blew the capital works budget before the ink was dry.
The reduction in the number of beds for the district is proving disastrous. The much touted idea that primary health care, as the focus of funding, will reduce the need for hospital services has already proved to be absurd. There is worse to come. It is obvious now that the rebuilt Newtown will not provide what is needed.
Keep in mind that the Capital and Coast Health Budget does not work. The place needs massive re-structuring to achieve efficiency and service gains. This is extremely difficult in New Zealand because of attitudes, competence, and history. A massive re-structure would involve the setting up of smaller autonomous units and putting authority back in the hands of those who actually have real knowledge and understanding (those with medical degrees and extensive clinical experience, but many of them are hopeless so it is a challenge). Another way of saying this is to say horrendous sums of money are wasted every year by bureaucracy and confusion over goals.
The promised improved diagnostic services for Kenepuru have not appeared. Where is the CT scanner? Where is the ultrasound? In fact when the Kenepuru building was re-constructed they did not put the lead in the walls as was required by such plans. Incompetence or conspiracy? Probably incompetence. Remember that I said four years ago that the private sector was providing these things for us, but the Health Board seemed unable to provide them? That situation continues.
The extension of elective surgery is a good thing at Kenepuru. However,
the retention of General Medical beds(ward 5) is also necessary and both
these should be supported by a High Dependency
Unit. An HDU. That is evidently somewhat different from an Intensive Care
Unit, which I used to advocate for. The main difference is the HDU does not
have the high tech resuscitation capacity that is expensive and difficult
to staff.
r
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Jenny Brash said the profits from the sale of the Aotea Block could be used for the recreation centre. Now that idea creates more confusion than most. However, it also resulted in someone asking me how the Aotea Block is going.
I can only repeat what I said in 2004 and note we pretty much have the same nine problems:
"Councillor Robert Shaw said the council must rethink its approach to the Aotea block “because the concept lacks vision and is not financially viable” .
Nothing is more important than the rules that govern our decision- making. Without practical and insightful rules we cannot hope to deliver the best decisions of which we are capable.
The current rules mix things up rather a lot. The basic structure of the rules is good, but the details do not do the job. Indeed, the details are all around the officers keeping tight control on both the processes and the decisions. Like begets like. I hasten to add that our officers are not totally to blame for this - the legislation was obviously written by frightened people who did not want local government to do anything much. The "power of general competence" was to be tempered by rules that make councils adopt silly consultation methods, that provides solid incomes for any army of auditors, and that generally makes the our councils as inefficient as possible. We are so tied up in bureaucracy , silly rules, and the egos of many, that our chance of progress does not look good.
In two words "bugger that". My ambition for our Council is that we are efficient and insightful in all our actions. At this moment we must focus on the governance side and get that working properly. Good progress has been made with the reform of the committee structure, the concept of delegations, and the provision of information. Now we must tidy up the rules that go along with those reforms. At this moment many things happen in meetings that are contrary to the rules. How can we expect generations of councillors (not to mention young officers) to understand the place if what we say is one thing and what we do is another? The recent allegations of bullying at meetings indicate that the meeting processes are not well managed or understood.
We do not need to do a major revision of the Standing Orders, but we should fix up a few specific key matters.
HERE IS A VERY ROUGH DRAFT OF A PAPER I AM WORKING ON WITH SOME TO THE COUNCILORS - COMMENTS MOST WELCOME
Mayor and Councillors
15 April 2006
STANDING ORDERS
Our Standing Orders need slight adjustment to take account of the establishment of the new committee structure. The adjustments are:
Processing of Motions
At present the Standing Orders do not say how motions are to be processed. Hence, insert:
Processing Motions
Once moved and seconded, motions shall be processed as follows:
To support this pattern of decision-making there are other minor adjustments need to other Standing Orders.
Standing Order 166 which has gives different rules for the full Council and Committees is not necessary now all councillors are members of all committees. SO 166 contradicts SO 170.
Speaking Only to Relevant Matters
The rule is that members either move motions or speak to motions. We have over the years adopted more and more general chatter. General Business has become general chit chat. Another example is the Mayor's Report where it is given the status of a “morning talk”. Nothing happens unless there is a motion.
SO 192 presents three categories that need to be considered separately. I do not know what the first one, “any matters before the meeting”, means if it does not mean “a motion or amendment” which is the second category. SO192 contradicts 193. SO 192 should be removed.
Mayor's Report
The Mayor's Report is an important part of the meeting and provides an opportunity for the mayor and councillors to comment on major issues of the day. Whether it is written or not is a matter for the mayor. The mayor might ask the chief executive to write a report and the mayor could then speak to it and add any other matter.
What is an issue of the day is determined by the mayor. If the mayor does not in the report raise a matter, councillors cannot raise it. However, if the mayor does raise something then councillors must have a right to debate it in their consideration of the motion.
Add to SO 150
The mayor shall have up to ten minutes to deliver the report before a member moves that it be adopted.
Notices of Motion
Recently the Council tightened the provisions regarding Notices of Motion. The adjustments were based on the view that the chief executive was the most important decision-maker and that Notices of Motion were undesirable. We have over 16 separate rules to govern the process. In fact, Notices of Motion are a positive way that councillors can advance issues that are of important to them.
The chairperson of the committee concerned must decide if a notice of motion is acceptable. The chairperson may seek the advice of the chief executive on this matter (or anyone else if they so wish). There
General Business
General business should be a positive opportunity for councillors to rapidly advance new and different matters. This opportunity must be tempered with the need to ensure absurd or inappropriate motions are not carried.
On our council with a 6 week meeting cycle there tends to be a minimum of 12 weeks before things can be made to happen. To ameliorate this we depend on the good graces of the chief executive. This often results in the chief executive taking initiatives that should be driven by the councillors. This has become so much the practice that we accept it as the norm (witness Mana Esplanade). The councillors are forever running along behind trying to discover what has been done and everyone is frustrated.
In our Council we have adopted the practice that motions cannot be moved in General Business. This is not consistent with SO 152 which is based directly upon the Local Government Act 2002.
The section in the Act that is in dispute is:
c) No resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting for further discussion.
This could mean that you can do nothing but refer new things to a further meeting of the same committee. Or, it could mean that things must be sent to the full council before they are finalized. As the motion says “resolution, decision or recommendation” it is most likely that it applies to a “resolution, decision or motion”. That such things are sent to the full council for final decision is sensible in that it allows time for the officers to given any advice they wish in writing.
For years councils around the world have been moving important motions in General Business and they have survived. We had that facility until recently. One issue here is councillors' requests for information. And this will be dealt with under a separate heading below.
Requests for Information
Both the public and elected persons find it very difficult to find out what is going on. One traditional way of discovering things has been to move a motion that requests a report from the officers. This mechanism has serious weaknesses.
In accordance with official information legislation, it is the chief executive who makes decisions on the release of information (not the Council as such), and all information is available as a matter of principle unless there is a specific reason under the Act to withhold it.
When a councillor asks for information in a meeting, it can be interpreted as an oral request under the Act. This means the chief executive must respond in writing within 28 days.
Because of the special position of councillors other provisions are made for the flow of information to them. Chairpersons have the ability to call for “reports”. In the past these reports have come to the Council or a Committee. The result was that the reports that contain advice on substantive matters were mixed in with reports that are descriptions provided as a response to information requests. Meetings were bogged down with papers that provide information. They were often debated (to no good purpose as there was not a substantive motion), and there were often further calls for more reports on aspects of the first report. This is expensive, costs the council its business focus, and frustrates everyone.
Successfully, the Council has taken steps to address this problem. Now the Standing Orders need to be made explicit about how requests for information will be advanced. This is to make it clear to everyone how things are to work, and to protect the rights of councillors to information in a manner that goes beyond the provisions of the official information legislation.
We need specific Standing Orders regarding the provision of information, following these principles:
Take Separately Provisions
The Porirua City Council some years ago invented a new approach to debates at full council meetings. The innovation related to the dispatch of motions from Committees.
The base problem is how to bring the recommendations of Committees up for decision at the full Council meetings without re-playing the full debate. Various methods have been tried and the most simple is at motion that adopts the “minutes of the Committee meeting and the recommendations therein”.
As all elected members are now members of all committees, everyone has a full and equal opportunity to participate in decisions before they come to full council. Accordingly, we should be able to process things through full council in a more efficient manner.
The options now are:
• Persist with the minutes and report system but remove the “take separately” provisions. OR
• Revert to the earlier system of having the full council adopt the minutes and recommendations of the Committees but allow recommendations to be separated out when a member wants to move an amendment.
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. The first is more simple to implement (it takes us back to where we were some years ago). The second would probably be more efficient, because officers would not have to prepare separate reports on recommendations and we would halve the number of papers that come to councillors from Committees.
For the moment is suggested that the “take separately” provisions be removed. This means that an elected member when the motion is moved to adopt the recommendations from the committee has three minutes to speak to all items unless they intend to move an amendment in which case the time for debate is dramatically extended. This is reasonable given that all councillors have already been involved in the debate on each motion.
The decision at the full council meeting is made separately from the Committee decision to give the public warning and to allow a “cooling off” period before motions are finalized. Some councils today have found this unnecessary. They have a Committee meeting with all members present, followed directly by a full Council meeting which in under five minutes adopts everything that was done by the Committee.
Workshops
"Standing Orders elaborate on the meeting procedures set out in the
Local
Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 and the Resource Management Act 1991. They aim to
ensure that basic elements of local democracy work well. These include
elements such as:
The problem we have inherited is that the Local Government Act contains old provisions that cut right across the newer official information legislation. The first line of the quote above shows the problem. The old Act gives the Council this chance to get away from the public.
There are many reasons why both officers and some councillors like to work in secret. It is however totally unnecessary, causes suspicion, and distracts from our real work.
The problem is exacerbated by our tradition of considering management issues, as opposed to governance issues, in workshops.
The answer is simple: Govern workshops be the same rules as meetings. Hence, a workshop becomes a meeting where some Standing Orders are suspended to allow presentations and open discussion. This means that if you want to exclude the public you must do so using the same rules that we apply to Publicly Excluded Business. These rules work well.
Publics' Right to be Heard on Matters to be Decided
All Committee agendas for Committee meetings should state clearly that the people have a right to speak on matters before the Committee or to raise new matters within the terms of reference for the Committee.
A current Standing Order says that when an item is not on the agenda it is removed from the list of headings in the agenda. The result has been that if no person has asked to speak to the Committee before the finalization of the agenda, the heading for Public Participation is removed. This is contrary to the spirit of the law and the intention of the councillors.
We need to add a new Standing Order: Public Forum will be included in the agenda for all Committee meetings.
(Equally, it is important that the public not speak at full Council meetings. This rule has been broken recently. The importance of this is that the councillors need to be given some “space” in which to reflect on decisions.)
At the full council meeting (but not the committee) alternations to Standing Orders require a three-quarters majority, and thus there will be a division.
RECOMMENDAITONS
That the Standing Orders be amended as follows:
The recommendation of the City Services Committee regarding the stage proceeded
through Council last night. It sets the general location and gives the job
of implementation to the chief executive. The general location is "under
the canopies". The chief executive has quite a challenge in his implementing
of Council's decision.
r
Thursday, April 13, 2006
As an aside, I note that there was no member of the public in the gallery and no reporter at the media bench last night at the full council meeting. These are signs of success. When your council runs properly it is a very boring place. More specifically, things are being worked though at the Committees and hence the full Council meetings are no longer blood sports.
There has also been progress on sorting out the governance / management roles, and getting agendas under control.
The next part of this move to dullness is some adjustment of the Standing Orders. Then there is the need to put in place a mechanism to develop the understanding of councillors about some specific issues, and then there is the re-work of the mechanism by which budgeting is done (Annual Plans and LTCCPs). Expect the officers to oppose many of the reforms from now on (the Standing Orders are very much control documents written in the interests of the officers at the moment; the LTCCP process is totally officer and technology driven.). Officers supported reform when it was about the councillors but they will not be so pleased when it is about them. It might be said that the councillors have been handing over power to the officers (in management matters) and now the officers have to hand over power to the councillors (in governance matters).
The councillors have more coherence and sense of purpose at the moment than at any time I can remember in the past on the Porirua City Council. (The last time there was such a situation was when the Labour Party ran the show before Borrie and Shaw were elected.) This is in part the result of the move to the two-committee structure which has everyone involved in everything. And, in part it is due to the determined effort of councillors to communicate and generate understanding before things hit the council table. The consumption of both coffee and wine is up.
In relation to the running of the committees. Councillor Naureen Palmer
is my deputy for the City Services Committee. She has been most willing to
take on tasks that have helped me considerably. For example, she sorted out
the long list of grant applications that we had to dispatch. She is taking
a role in the PR work with staff, starting at the landfill (we are visiting
workplaces to let them know the Committee values them). Also, she is leading
the talking about an annual councillor retreat to Tatum Park (with the tightening
of the formal meetings we need to find ways to strategise). All of these
things relieve jobs from me as chair.
r
Thursday, April 13, 2006
I am trying to protect you against the public outcry when people learn of the new tip charges. Blame me.
Every year your councillors sit around the council table and decide on the charges for the landfill. What a wonderful political debate it is. The outcome always has the same characteristics. Some users subsidise others. The ratepayers subsidise everyone The charges make no logical sense at all. The charges are held down artificially every year. The charges do not reflect the needs of practical management.
I will have none of it. Political people have no business running a tip. It requires qualified and professional engineers who have some practical experience. Thus, we are moving to delegate the management to the managers.
Work is being done on this delegation, but in the meantime it has been necessary
to put in place a new schedule of charges. Council last night accepted in
its entirety the recommendations of the General Manager Utility Services
which puts the charges up with a thump. I moved the motion in my role as
chairperson of the City Services Committee. I will not bore you with the
reasons, but believe me they are compelling.
r
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Council's submission to the Local Government New Zealand remit round is
very strong thanks to the pen of Roger Blakeley. Two issues: local government
funding (drawing upon the Citizens Commission and some new ideas); my bid
to have the Telecommunication Act fixed to remove the privileged position
of telecommunications companies.
r
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Last night at the full council meeting: A clever little paper by the officers
on hearings committees - somewhat sweeping you might say - left rather a
lot undecided. I mentioned this to Ken after the meeting and evidently both
of us decided in the meeting to let it go and deal with it later. We both
knew that the paper could have gone to the Strategy Committee, and that reason
for rushing it to full council was lame (unless the offices wish to argue
that they were so incompetent that they forgot to constitute a committee
that we have known would be needed for over a year). This issue also relates
to several issues around how we make budget decisions and the provision of
advice.See the blog item on decision-maing structures above. Watch this space.
r
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Wednesday 12 April - Mana Esplanade Update .
Only one more working day until the Easter break and the measures to alleviate some of the safety problems on Mana Esplanade
Transit’s CEO promised would be done before Easter have not yet materialised.
Best wishes for a Happy dodgem car Easter to all.
Judi
http://www.demochoice.org/dcpies.php?poll=nzporiruae04
We are about to re-work the media policy. What a bore you say, but it is still vital for the Council. Let me be blunt: people do not trust or support the Porirua City Council. Our job is to turn that round. My policy is "a pie in every sky". (You do well if you can remember that slogan in New Zealand politics.)
So what is the base of the media policy?
Who is the audience for Council's media work? The options are:
I am very strongly of the view that we must focus 99.9% on our 50,000 residents. In the transmission gully debate we saw the need to focus on the Region and political persons. That is occasionally important. I cannot see much point in sending things beyond the City in an attempt to market the City. Business groups are much better equipped for that and it is the businesses that profit from such efforts.
Strange as it may seem, another audience for media statements might be councillors themselves. I notice some councillors know more about what is in the Kapi Mana News than they do about what is in their council papers. This relates to what I call the "issue magnification problem" - basically someone says something, perhaps in a newspaper, and councillors seeking popularity, or seeking to be helpful, take up the issue and before you know it some tiny matter is a major issue. This can generate work for people, warp the Council's work programme, and skew the policy of the Council.
Notice that the 50,000 actually comprise of different groups of people who prefer communications in different ways. eg Pacific communities, residents' associations, etc
What sort of statements should the ratepayers' money be used to support? This question is complicated by the fact that it entails having a view on who speaks for the Council.
Does the mayor speak for the Council? Not if recent history is anything to go by. Often the mayor intertwines Council policy with other views. This creates problems for people expect that mayor's utterances to be Council policy.
To work out who speaks for the Council you need to look at the decision-making processes of the Council.
How about this:
The next part of this is the media strategy and key messages. I will deal
with that later.
r
Sunday, April 9, 2006
The State Services Commission has a project on e-govenment. As a part of
that project, they are writing a paper on the practice of democracy in local
government and how the internet and computing might be relevant to that.
Several people mentioned to the SSC the Porirua Wellington Web Blog and a
chap appeared to interview me about the blog. I spoke for about two hours
on the subject. I suggested he contacts some community people for my opinion
is but one opinion. He had already contacted council officers. With luck
we will be able to put his report on the blog when it is ready. One of my
key points was that the blog changes the relationships in the local government
arena dramatically, and that it facilitates the provision of information
and opinion in a unique way.
r
Thursday, April 6, 2006
New Centre included in draft 10 year Plan for City
Porirua City Council has flagged its intention to include the cost of building a new Sports and Events Centre in its draft Long Term Council Community Plan. At a meeting on Monday night, councillors agreed to include the cost of the $17.5 million development in the draft LTCCP.
Mayor Jenny Brash said Council planned to offset the cost of the new Centre to ratepayers by a $6.25 million contribution from the sale of the Aotea Block.
While the balance ($11M) had been built into the rates base for the 10 year LTCCP period, Council would be making its "best endeavours" to reduce the cost further by an application to Central Government's Significant Facilities Fund as well as money raised through the Porirua Community Appeal Trust and private/public sponsorships.
Other major initiatives in the LTCCP included greater investment in existing city infrastructure, a synthetic hockey turf, a new extension to the city cemetery, city centre design work for Cobham Court, a District Plan review of the suburban and rural zones and city centre, renewal of public toilets, an upgrade of stormwater facilities at Takapuwahia and the Eastern Porirua trunk sewer pipeline, village development, heritage management and sites, Karehana Bay storm water improvements, Ngati Toa Domain foreshore work, Porirua Harbour and catchment management, and walkways development.
Ms Brash said Council had not made the decision lightly to include the new Sports and Events Centre in the draft plan.
"We know it is a significant amount of money, but we have to face a number of realities. We have a huge number of young people in our city, many of whom excel at sports and performance. They need and deserve a facility. "Secondly, the current Recreation Centre badly needs a new roof, other repairs and seating. The cost of this work is estimated to cost well over $2 million and once done, we would end up with a building that was not big enough and not designed to meet current and future needs.
"We have been losing a number of national age group events to other centres. These events bring inspiration to our young and also dollars to the city. We cannot afford to ignore this.
"We have had a very successful visitors' strategy built on the back of the retail sector. We now need to build and widen that strategy to include other aspects of city life, including a new Sports and Events Centre." Critics had said 'why not let Wellington build their new centre which we can use?' That is a fair question, but the answer is clear. We need a facility for our own people, right here in our own city centre. There is a huge need for such a facility now, which is why the current Recreation Centre needs replacing.
Wellington is looking to build at Evans Bay which is a long way from Porirua.
Our proposed new Centre has also been designed to complement and not compete with the sort of facility Wellington City is looking to build. Ms Brash warned that Council could not do everything people wanted, "so we will have cut our cloth to suit. "If more money is raised for the new Centre than anticipated, then we may be able to bring forward some of the other projects currently excluded." Ms Brash said Council had used a number of key principles to guide its decision making when bringing the LTCCP together.
These included prioritising the core business of Council to ensure assets were maintained and significant programmes of work were completed; a budget that kept debt levels manageable, that invested in future assets, provided a return in terms of public use of investment, and supported intergenerational equity. Decisions made had to take the city forward with projects that added vitality, excitement and colour, that were sustainable and also encouraged social cohesion and wellbeing as well as strengthening the city's villages.
Ms Brash urged residents to take a close interest in the draft LTCCP. "This is your plan for the next 10 years. It is an important document. It does contain options and it certainly carries a cost."
Under the scenario flagged by Council on Monday night, the average ratepayer could face an increase of 5.7% in 06/07, 5.2% in 07/08, 4.4% in 08/09, 3% in 09/10, 4.7% in 10/11, 1.1% in 11/12, 0.7% in 12/13, 1.1% in 13/14, 1.7% in 14/15, and 2.2% in 15/16.
Ms Brash said the figures were indicative at this point and could change depending on feedback from residents. "Under the current time line, Council hopes to adopt the draft LTCCP on April 27. The draft document will then be printed and open for public submissions from May 18 till June 19. We will then hear submissions and make a final decision on July 26. "We won't know the exact figures till then."
ROBERT COMMENTS
Jenny's opinions here were not written by Jenny, so we cannot really blame
her.This "feel-good" statement does not provide, in my view, an
adequate account of the Council's position as set out in the draft budget.
There is a long list of specific things in the media statement with which
we might take issue. When I have more time I will set some of them out. There
is also the overall approach that strongly advocates for a particular position.
The idea that the mayor and councillors should be in the Council fighting
for particular things destroys all possibility of a rational planning process.
Yet the very press statements of the Council take us into that sort of mentality.
More later. In the meantime, your comments are welcome as usual.
r
Thursday, April 6, 2006
WHAT HAS HAPPENED to the VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PLANS?
Robert Shaw and John Green - greetings again. This is a follow-up to the brief query I had with you both when the Council had its "tea break "at 7.30 last night (Mon 03 April) with your assurance you would check out the issue below.
My query related to the apparent omission of the "Suburban Improvement Programme " ( ie . Village Development) which was listed in the last LTCCP 2004-2014 (p.34) and read:
"Council has budgeted $1.0million per year for the 2006/07, 2007/08, and 2008/09 years for suburban work. These projects will arise out of the community planning done as part of the review of the suburban zone of the District Plan. It is likely that these projects will be identified in the 2006 Long Term Plan or in subsequent annual plans ."
On the large A3 sheet issued at last night's meeting entitled "Strategic, Basic Change and Discretionary Projects" there
was listed No. 15 - Vil D - Village Development - with a Rate Funding figure of $3.663m followed by the figures of :
$132,000 for 2006/07 - $219,000 for 2007/08 - and $ 306,000 for 2008/09 years - very different from the last LTCCP.
As you know there is much interest and enthusiasm for the initial Plimmerton plans from the rail crossing to the fire station and we try to keep residents up-to-date with developments. Our deadline for our "News & Views" is coming up very soon and I would appreciate some comment and feedback on the discrepancy between these two LTCCP's : ie . which figures on Village Development are likely to appear in the Draft LTCCP and explanation for any change ?
Many thanks for any information on this issue - Pip Piper
HWTM AND COUNCILLORS
The table attached shows the projected rates increases that will be included in the draft LTCCP following Council's decisions on Monday 3 April.
Please note:
1 To allow you to compare the final rates revenue result with what you started with before the meeting on Monday 3 April 2006 , you can compare the %ge increase in rates revenue for the City in the attachment with the Annual Increase line (4 lines from the bottom) in Appendix Two, page 32 of the Order Paper on 3 April.
The comparison for the first 3 years is:
06/07 07/08 08/09 P 32 of Order Paper on 3 April 7.2% 8.3% 2.0% Attachment above-final figures 7.2% 6.2% 5.4%
2 The Year 1 (06/07) rates revenue increase figure above is the same (7.2%) , but it is lower in the second year and a smoothing out in subsequent years.
This is because you took out some annual costs on Monday night on items like Pauatahanui Walkway, Cannons Creek Library Internet , Drainage Improvement on Rural Roads, Additional Toilets Maintenance, Research Centre Development (from second year), but you added back in $120,000 per year on Economic Development Strategy.
3 The attachment above has presented the bottom line as the Effect on the Average Ratepayer, eg for the first 3 years as follows: %ge increase of rates income for City 7.2% 6.2% 5.4% Less growth in rating base -1.5% -1.0% -1.0% Effect on Average Ratepayer 5.7% 5.2% 4.4% The first line above is the growth in the total rates revenue for the City. But the assessed contribution to that from growth in the rating base from new subdivisions and extra ratepayers is 1.5% in Year 1 and 1.0% in subsequent years. Therefore , the net of those 2 figures is the effect on the average ratepayer.
This is the number that people are interested in , and you can quote that figure when people ask you what the effect on the average ratepayer will be.
4 Please note that you have now made the final decisions for the draft LTCCP. We will be submitting these numbers to the Auditor on 12 April with the draft LTCCP and you will receive their report at the Council meeting on 27 April to adopt the draft LTCCP.
As explained to you on Monday night, in practical terms there is no way you can change your decisions of Monday night for the draft LTCCP and still meet our end date of adoption of the LTCCP on 26 July 2006-which is essential for Council to set the rates for 2006/07.
Of course, you will have the opportunity (and indeed you have the obligation ) to consider submissions on the draft LTCCP and make changes as you see fit in response to those submissions in the final LTCCP to be adopted on 26 July 2006.
I hope I have made this all clear for you. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns about the process. Regards, Roger Roger Blakeley Chief Executive Porirua City Council
To: Board
Date: April 2006
Through: CEO
Subject: Integrated Laboratory Services Project RFP Update
PURPOSE
This paper sets out the process being undertaken for the request for proposal (RFP) for community laboratory services in Hutt Valley , Wellington and Kapiti Coast .
The current contracts for community laboratory services finish on 30 September 2006.
Capital & Coast and Hutt Valley DHBs worked together to undertake a joint RFP process.
Quality Standards Sub-group
One of the first steps was to set up a Quality Standards sub-group to set standards that any proposer would have to meet in order to be successful. This group included General Practitioners, nurses and PHO representatives.
It was set up in July 2005. It met throughout August 2005 and draft service specifications were finalised in September 2005.
Those standards were included in a draft RFP which was sent out to organisations which had registered interest for consultation between 23 September and 17 October. It was widely distributed, including to Primary Health Organisations throughout the greater Wellington region, the Wellington Independent Practitioners' Association (WIPA), the Association of GPs, other DHBs nationally, the Ministry of Health and ACC.
Following feedback a finalised RFP and draft contract were released on 2 December 2005.
Minimum Quality Requirements
The RFP documents set out minimum quality requirements, including:
• That testing centres be provided where they are now – in Lower Hutt, Petone, Naenae, Upper Hutt, Wainuiomata, Terrace end of Wellington Central, Courtenay Place end of Wellington Central, Newtown, Karori, Johnsonville, Mirimar or Seatoun, Porirua, Paraparaumu and Waikanae.
• At least one of these centres in each DHB will be open 7am – 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am -12 noon Saturday
• For urgent tests (which are any tests GPs see as urgent for a particular patient), 80% must be done within 3 hours.
• For non-urgent tests, 70% must be done within 48 hours.
• All laboratories carrying out tests must be accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand to ensure quality.
• Systems must be in place to allow referrers such as GPs to talk to a pathologist about test results.
Evaluation
The evaluation was carried out in two stages. A clinical/technical evaluation was carried out first to ensure that each proposer was capable of meeting the clinical standards required and should go to the second evaluation stage.
It was not until that first stage was concluded that the second RFP envelope was opened – that was the one which included the proposer's price for carrying out the service.
Clinical Evaluation
We ensured that a GP from each DHB, Chief Medical Officers from both DHBs and an independent pathologist from outside the region were on the panel. (Unfortunately, at the last minute, the GP from the Hutt Valley withdrew from the panel as he had signed a letter of support in favour of one of the proposers which was included as part of that proposer's response).
The clinical/technical panel scrutinised the five bids received, determined that all should go forward to the next stage of evaluation and noted some concerns to be further scrutinised.
Second Stage Evaluation
The second stage evaluation committee for Capital & Coast DHB comprised two planning and funding managers, the DHB's Chief Medical Advisors, HV DHBs lawyer, and the integration manager from Capital & Coast DHB. As it was possible our hospital laboratory might bid, we ensured no hospital managers were on this panel.
The panel was provided with independent financial analysis of the bids and the scoring associated with the cost was provided by the independent expert, according to accepted methodologies. The second stage evaluation committee felt it needed further information from two proposers, so further information was requested and both proposers asked to attend a clarification meeting.
Scoring of proposals against pre-agreed criteria then took place and both the Hutt Valley and Capital & Coast evaluation committees agreed to proceed to negotiation with the proposer that scored highest. But, if some issues could not be resolved, they agreed to then proceed to negotiations with the proposer that scored second highest.
These negotiations are complex, with the negotiation team wanting to make sure whoever eventually wins the contract, is able to provide a quality service.
Negotiations with the first choice of preferred provider were originally scheduled to last until 7 April 2006, but it may take longer.
It was anticipated from the beginning that some of the participants in the RFP might challenge the process. The DHBs therefore developed a probity plan, which dealt with how we would ensure the process was fair. An independent auditor – Audit New Zealand , signed this off.
However, the DHBs knew that even if we had a plan, we might be accused of not following it. So we appointed Audit New Zealand as a probity auditor. This has meant Audit New Zealand has sat in on all the main evaluation meetings to ensure the process that was followed was fair.
Apart from internal advice, the DHBs have also received advice from one of New Zealand 's leading national law firms.
The Office of the Auditor General has issued public entities with guidelines for negotiations after the closing of tenders. These guidelines state that:
“A public entity should negotiate first with the preferred tender. If the outcome is unsatisfactory, it should then negotiate with the next highest ranked tender.”
RFP processes ask for proposers to submit a price for a service, knowing that others will be competing for the same business. This mechanism is designed to create a competitive tension so that proposers are encouraged to submit their best price.
But again, the negotiations should proceed according to the Auditor General's guidelines – which means we negotiate with the highest scoring proposer first.
The negotiation team has to conclude negotiations before making a recommendation to both the Capital & Coast and Hutt Valley Boards on which, if any, of the proposals should be accepted.
Negotiations with the first preferred proposers were scheduled to conclude by 7 April 2006, but may take longer. Negotiations are designed to ensure that the DHBs have comfort that, amongst other things, the proposal will deliver a good, clinically sound service.
Should the first proposer not be able to meet the organisations' requirements, according to the Auditor General's guidelines, we will then commence negotiations with the second preferred proposer.
It is not until that process is completed that management will be able to make a recommendation to the two Boards.
According to Greater Wellington the key points to note are:
• Capital expenditure and transport
investment, primarily rail rolling stock,
peaks at $136 million in 2009/10
• Other operating revenue increases and
decreases with the expenditure on public
transport infrastructure because the
majority of this is funded by government
grants
• Debt rises to $170 million over the period
it is required to fund Greater Wellington's
share of public transport
infrastructure and other capital expenditure.
• Regional rates are projected to rise to $93
million. The increase is mainly to fund the
purchase of transport infrastructure
• The water supply levy increases from
2007/08 onwards to fund the new water
source and to cover increasing costs due
to inflation.
The government wants" less bums on seats", so the newsreader says. Now that would be a laugh if someone had known the word needed was "fewer".
Hutt City has figured out how to consult on its budgets. They provide a table that sets out a very brief statement on each project and the sum of money involved. People are asked to tick, yes or no. For four years in a row I have asked that Porirua City Council adopts the same approach. I even brought copies of the Hutt papers and gave them to key people.
Council needs to ask a small number of key questions at the start of its consultation document:
1 Rates are going to increase, do you want:
2 Do you support the sports and events centre at $17.2 million and next to the swimming pool, and funded by loan. Yes / No
3 What is your order of priority for spending? Place in order (eg 2,1,3)
That is all the councillors need to know really. The rest of it is detail.
If we asked these questions and provided a list of the projects as per the
method of Hutt City, the job would be done. Of course longer reasoned statements
are welcome. Also, the consultation document should be sent to each ratepayer
with a reply paid envelope and fax back number. Some sort of random sampling
would also be helpful. Provided it was suburb-by-suburb and separated out
the ratepayers from the residents.
r
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
Robert,
What is it with the Porirua City Council, do they not understand the word NO. Is it the first or second letter which is the problem?
Last year public meetings were held, where the Council were told in no uncertain terms, the proposed Event Centre was a non-starter.
It was not affordable, would not be used to capacity, and the running costs would be another mill-stone around the ratepayers neck.
At the same time the Wellington City Council was looking at a new Centre, possibly next to the Stadium. The thought comes to mind, is this an exercise in one upmanship? Kerrytown has one, why not Brashville.
The Council should get real, we cannot compete with Wellington , and we should not have to. They have the accommodation, nightlife, etc. that will attract patronage, we do not. The hospitality industry will not set up where a high return cannot be guaranteed either.
Our Mayor and her followers should listen to the public, lower our rates, and come back to reality.
Yours sincerely,
Benjamin. R. Tredrea.
In a public session that was all of 3.5 hours, the full Council decided the draft budget. With the exception of Takapuwahia drainage works where about $1.2 million was added, things were cut dramatically.
As the initial advice of the officers was not discussed in public you cannot actually know much about this, although you could have read the officers' reports over the last three days when they have been available.
The District Plan work was reduced to a trickle, the village strategy plan was cut even further by a $1 million, the rural road work was put on hold, and so on. The result is the rates rise to be announced as a draft will be about 7% (this does not include inflation of 3%).
Now the rates rise will be calculated and announced in the next few days - this assumes the computer program works. This was the first time in about 12 years that we have not been able to have a model of the decisions on the screen. Normally, the rates rise could be seen as we worked, and announced on the very night of the decisions. Hence, we were not able to see the effects of our decision and time was spent on debates about not-very-much. . Whilst the cuts were many, they actually will not take much money out of the budget because we only hit small projects.The large project, the regional recreation centre is the feature of the budget for the decade.
Another, and I think significant, departure from the tradition, was the provision of a list of the basic projects. This was essentially the list that blog readers have seen and commented upon. I was able at the meeting to read out several of the large items. Councillors noticed how these things, decided "below ground" by the officers, were in fact larger than those things councillors considered in their "above ground" deliberations.
As usual, we did not focus on the big ticket items (apart from the rec centre), and left these decisions to the officers.
As soon as we have the rates rise calculated, I will blog it. My prediction
of 5% plus inflation is not looking good.
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
DOMPOST REPORT:
Publicity-shy Wellington telco FX Networks will spend tens of millions of dollars setting up an alternative fibre-optic backbone that will connect Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin.Managing director Murray Jurgeleit says its cable will contain 30 pairs of fibre, each capable of carrying data at 320 gigabits per second, and will provide much-needed competition to Telecom and TelstraClear. "We can offer bulk data transport at a substantial discount to Telecom. Simply because of the prices being charged, there is a very profitable opportunity." Mr Jurgeleit headed up multinational Logical CSI in New Zealand till its Australasian business was bought by IBM for $100 million in 2004. He says the first part of the link, between Auckland and Wellington, should be ready during the second half of the year. It is understood much of the cable will make use of railway line ducting to avoid trenching costs. FX Networks is one of 10 firms that was selected by the State Services Commission to provide infrastructure and services for the Government Shared Network earlier this year. The Government hopes all core government departments will use the GSN to some degree by 2008. IBM was selected as the main preferred contractor. The GSN is due to be piloted by August. Roger de Salis, formerly at Cisco, is a director of the company.
ROBERT COMMENTS
Porirua ratepayers invested $70,000 in Smartlinks3. What have we for our investment? Are they doing what was said? Instead, I see other companies moving in and being competitive in our area. I do not blame Smartlinks3. They were smart in the move to get our money. The Council voted to give it to them. Last time they came to Council with a report I put my hands in front of my mouth to remind myself not to say anything. It is us who made the silly decision.
The railway's cable that runs next to the main trunk line is a major network
vitually unused. It is for train management and major emergencies. We could
access it thought the blue painted building in Tawa, if my memory serves me
correctly. Now it looks as if someone is going to capitalise on the opporutunity,
and we will have to buy service form them - and pay for it!
r
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
"Southern ward councillor Celia Wade-Brown said the impact of the Gully route on climate change had not been properly taken into account. She would propose that the council support an alternative public transport option." Report in the Dominion Post.
ROBERT COMMENTS
Someone should tell Transmission Gully opponent Wade-Brown that the alternative
option is coastal and involves dependence on the coastal road.
April 3, 2006
 |
By KIM RUSCOE
Wellington City Council looks set to do an about-face and support building a motorway through Transmission Gully.
A report to be debated this week recommends that the council accept the Gully as the best option to alleviate growing traffic problems, but with conditions attached.
Mayor and council transport spokeswoman Kerry Prendergast said that despite having concerns about technical aspects of the proposed Gully motorway, she had to accept that an overwhelming majority of the region's residents wanted it.
New information on costs and the difficulties of getting resource consents had come to light since the council voted to support the coastal option in November, she said.
The council had believed the Gully was too expensive and would leave little money for other roading projects in the region for the next 20 years.
But a Transit-Greater Wellington regional council committee that has heard more than 6000 public and technical submissions on the issue, found the project would cost significantly less than thought and was affordable if other, less urgent works were delayed.
Ms Prendergast said the council had agreed to the hearings process and must accept the outcome. A report by council officers was sent to councillors on Friday and would be debated and voted on at a meeting on Thursday.
"It will be a very interesting debate. Some councillors firmly believe Transmission Gully shouldn't go ahead and there are some who think it should."
If the council accepted the report's recommendations, its support for Transmission Gully would come with conditions, Ms Prendergast said.
etc etc
By Roger Monckton - www.betterdemocracy.co.nz
Fullmarks have to go to new Wanganui Mayor, Michael Laws and the 6 new councillors from the "Vision Wanganui" team for literally, giving "power to the people". Laws and his team have initiated Direct Democracy in the Wanganui District Council and have ensured that Wanganui now leads the rest of the country in this enlightened decision making process.
The "Vision Wanganui" team utilizes
Council Initiated referendums which allow Wanganui citizens the final decision
on "matters of significance". The
referendums only proceed after a balanced information campaign outlines the
pro's and con's of each referendum question, enabling the district to make
clear informed choices. These council initiated referendums were initially
considered non binding but the council now considers itself bound by the voting
results to date.
The "Vision Wanganui" team have also allowed citizens to initiate binding referendums
- this is achieved if 10% or more of those enrolled on the Wanganui District
Council electoral roll sign a particular referendum petition. In overcoming
this hurdle a binding referendum is initiated whereby all the enrolled Wanganui
voter's can vote on this particular issue, the result of this voting would
then be binding on Council.
In May 2005 the Wanganui Council initiated their first referendum, each person listed on the Wanganui electoral roll was given the oppotunity to prioritize 3 projects out of 14 capital funding proposals, voting was done by post with 54% of voters returning forms.
The Splash Centre extension came in first position followed by the
Central City Waterfront Development and the Footpath upgrades.
And although the referenda were non binding, Law's said that the council considered
itself bound by the results, and as a result the council changed it's capital
project priorities and voted $2.5 Million to the Splash Centre extension, $600K
to the riverfront development and an additional $120K (annually) to the footpaths.
Following this success, Council initiated a second referendum in January 2006
involving 5 referenda questions, with results published on the 11th Feb 2006.
After well informed debate and dissemination of information 55% of voters returned
postal forms.The referenda questions and the summary of the voting response
is listed below
1.WATER FLUORIDATION ................. 74% voted to have no Fluoridation
2. WATER SOFTENING..................... 75% voted to soften wanganui's
salt laden "hard" water
3.SPELLING OF WANGANUI.............. 82% chose to spell Wanganui without
an h
4. SIZE OF COUNCIL......................... 60% voted for the number
councillors to be reduced.
5.ABOLUTION OF RURAL AND
URBAN WARDS:............................. 53% voted for one
district wide ward.
Laws has stated that the council will also treat these referendum results as
binding, and with the average national turnout in the 2004 local body elections
running at 49% - the Mayor has hailed the 55% voting response as a stunning
success, giving a clear indication that the Wanganui People want to have a
say in how their hard earned ratepayer dollars are spent.
Regarding the referenda results, Laws said: "The Fluoridation voting was for
an overwhelming rejection of changing the status quo. I compliment the campaign
of the anti Fluoridation lobbyists, particularly PJ Faumui. Wanganui's decision
was made on a factual basis not fear." He said, he was also personally delighted
at the results of the referenda questions on: water softening, reducing the number
of councillors and the abolition of the urban ward. "The latter was the only
really close vote but it still will be persuasive in terms of the council's
representations to the Representation Commission."
One can only hope that other politicians will follow Wanganui's lead, and that
at the next Local Body elections held in New Zealand in 2007 we will see other
teams of visionary councillors elected on the basis of introducing binding
referenda at the local body level.
If we take a moment to think about all our collective colonial grass roots.....it
is entirely appropriate and not that surprising that a small deeply historic,
vibrant city such as Wanganui is initiating such radical change .......long
may provincial New Zealand show us the way forward!!
Sunday, April 2, 2006
Councillors are demanding that there be a positive review of the Council's media strategy and policy. Slowly it is happening. The key issues to consider include:
I have a position on all of these questions, but let us see how the debate
develops.
r
Sunday, April 2, 2006
The big decisions will be made this week and the draft budget issued to public. I refer to the poorly named Long Term Council Community Plan the LTCCP.
The papers for this meeting are all public now and I wonder how many people have read them. Particularly having regard to the fact that Jenny Brash had us all meet, residents associations and councillors, when they were all secret and could not be discussed. The meetings this week are at 5.30 pm on Monday 3 and Wednesday 5 April. About four hours of public debate and 10 hours of secret preparation.
The
plan was to have all the budget work done by the Strategy Committee and thus
chaired by Ken Douglas. That sensible plan was lost somewhere along the way
and Jenny Brash is to chair the meetings. They are also set as full council
meetings, so there will be instant decisions made. The plan was
to have them as Committee decisions first and then to have them as full Council
decisions. This would allow some time between the public revelation and
the final decision. Now there is no such time at all. Who changes all the
hard work we do? All the effort the councillors put into setting this sensible
pattern out is swept away. It is very frustrating.
r
Sunday, April 2, 2006
Here is a copy of an email I sent to someone who had asked about delegations and street names.
Hi Mr Citizen
"I agree with you this is all a bit back-to-front. That is the way it all happened,
and I guess we can cope ok.
At the Committee I moved an amendment to ensure that there is a very specific
schedule in the Delegations Register that will say in detail the limits of powers
and the accountability mechanism for each and every separate delegation. Although
the amendment did not carry (it was not put to the vote because there were a
whole raft of things that made it necessary for the officers to do yet another
paper on the delegations (I was trying to make it a one hit job) this will be
the approach that will be adopted.
Regarding the street names. I have been of the personal view that we should
not delegate naming because names are enduring and very significant, and
elected persons should make such decisions. However, the decision of the
Council is that they should be delegated. Accordingly, I now have in mind
to tighten these delegations greatly. The statements for each of the suburbs
are far to vague and I plan to tighten them - decisions might best
be done in consultation with the RAs / public in each case. Plimmerton RA
was too busy to consider the matter when it came to their meeting which I
happened to be at. I think the officers should
have to consult someone before they name things. General rules are general,
and unlikely to be sufficient in every case. Names are very permanent and determine
the whole character of an area. They can be a very powerful force for good
if insight and creativity come forward. The names we have developed recently
have been appalling - they have been designed to assist developers and real
estate agents as marketing slogans. We have thus blighted the city and lost
our opportunity to brand the place. I have several ideas on how we might do
much better. ... The
plan is that this policy be a model for the whole of New Zealand. We are not
the only council that has these problems.
regards
r"
Sunday, April 2, 2006
News item:
"The Scottish Executive has recently announced it will accept most of the recommendations of the Scottish local authorities remuneration committee and will replace the outdated system of councillors' allowances with a salary-based system.
Following the May 2007 council elections, all councillors will be paid a basic salary of £15,452."
Local Note: As that represents about NZ$44,000, this item should not get onto Robert's Blog in case Porirua councillors get to read it !
John W
 |
The bill's sponsor, ACT leader Rodney Hide, said families across the country were being squeezed by continual increases in rates, which had averaged twice the level of inflation in the past two years.
"With this bill councils could only increase rates by the level of inflation plus 2 per cent in any one year, or by inflation plus 4 per cent over three years," Mr Hide said.
"Local government will have to work to a strict budget – just like everyone else.
"It's neither fair nor sustainable for families to pay the increased cost of rates every year."
Mr Hide said he was hoping for cross party support for the bill.
ROBERT COMMENTS
Rodney Hide has a point: if the Council's will not discipline themselves someone
has to do the job. When the Porirua City Council does its budget it should
put in place the big things first. Set the parameters. Hence, decide the level
of rates. Then decide on the large capital projects. Then force everything
else within that framework. This is a part of the strategy for the reform of
budget mechanisms that I advocate and which has been developed in many articles
in this blog.
r
Friday, March 31, 2006
I wonder what Ascot Park residents will think of the plan to put a Vodafone tower in the reserve? Consultation will begin shortly. Once all the towers are in place the Council will complete its policy on towers. You think this is an unworthy remark? How about the examples of brothels, coastal protection, etc? We have to get on with all.
Notice also there is now a project to rewrite the management plan for the Plimmerton Domain. If you want it to be available for commercial golf now is the time to speak up.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Our regional council is responsible for the bulk water supply, and sells
water to four customers including Porirua City. We are told the price is
going to go up from next year to keep debt down and prepare for the building
for a dam. Greater Wellington have already done their LTCCP. The clever Council
is taking advantage of the current wave of enthusiasm for pumping up the
population in the Wellington region. The population growth figures have not
changed, and the projections are still the same. We are not going to need
a new facility for at least a decade and when we do it is a cheap build.
However, the cost increase has been announced and Greater Wellington is going
to have the money to keep the business in readiness. For all that, I agree
with Greater Wellington's looking ahead and being prepared.
r
Friday, March 31, 2006
The wandering stage is to be placed under the canopies. This is the recommendation
of the Committee, and it may well be the decision of the full Council. The
chief executive will implement that decision in consultation with others.
r
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Report to Meeting on 30 March 2006 – Proposed Western Corridor Plan Follow Up
Admittedly, I'm rather removed from what's been going on lately at government and local government level and I could be quite wrong. However, I'm rather concerned about where the emphasis is put in this report and fear that, by approaching the Government along the lines proposed, the region could be running the risk of consigning yet another report on Wellington 's Western Corridor to the rubbish bin. My fear is that the region would be undermining the main messages in the Hearings Subcommittee's report, would be inviting the Government to seek yet more reports and would be providing some officials with excuses for letting the whole issue get bogged down again.
The major messages in the Hearings Subcommittee's report that make it so good are:
• People want “action, not more reports” (para 1.34)
• Because of previous undertakings, a coastal upgrade would be seen as “a major breach of faith by Transit and contrary to the spirit and intent of the order of the Environment Court in decision W52/2001” (para 4.48 etc);
• There is no acceptable alternative to Transmission Gully (para 4.73 etc);
• The existing route should revert to local and scenic use;
• TGM can be done without tolls (para 4.77);
• It can be completed within 10 years; and
• Funding considerations shouldn't be allowed to delay it (para 1.18).
The Subcommittee's position is summarised in para 4.74. What they seem to be saying is that the Government was prepared to provide a Crown funding package – subject to regional agreement - based on a belief that a coastal expressway would be acceptable. Now that that belief has been shown to be erroneous, “the Region should respond by suggesting a way forward to which, in return, the Government could respond by releasing the funding package to enable an amended WCP to proceed. The Subcommittee, through this Report, is attempting to assist the Government and the Region in that process” .
I didn't read that paragraph as an invitation to go off on tangents and get bogged down in discussions on tolling regimes, etc. If you read the earlier Cabinet papers, the original funding (based on building a coastal expressway) was not complicated by such considerations – the additional money was simply to come from Crown funding (and the only real concern mentioned was the comparative amount given to Auckland).
I see no reason why the initial approach to Government now shouldn't be on the same basis. In other words, I believe that the region simply needs to ask the Government for a commitment to provide sufficient Crown funding to enable the plan to be implemented. It should be emphasising the Subcommittee's messages outlined above and refer in particular to an obligation (at least a moral one) to see Transmission Gully built. Essentially, the aim should be to persuade the Government to instruct its officials and agencies to get on and ensure that the corridor plan is implemented and TGM is built within 10 years.
Obviously the region should be prepared for a negative response and the need for other funding mechanisms to be considered. However, I think any detailed discussion of those aspects (perhaps with the exception of rules relating to benefit/cost ratios) with Ministers should be avoided if possible at the initial stages. In particular, I would be concerned if PCC was seen to be advocating tolls on TGM. There is no doubt that Porirua communities would be better off with no tolls on TGM. That now seems to be a real possibility and the PCC should do nothing to lessen that prospect.
My concerns could probably be addressed by adding to or altering the recommendations along the following lines:
Add new subparagraph 1a.
Note the Hearing Subcommittee's messages that submitters want “action, not more reports” and would see any coastal route upgrade as “a major breach of faith by Transit and contrary to the spirit and intent of the order of the Environment Court in decision W52/2001” .
Replace subparagraph 4 with
Agree to approach the Government to seek the provision of sufficient Crown funding and, if necessary, the employment of other funding mechanisms, to enable the proposed Western Corridor Plan to be implemented.
I don't see any need to spell out potential funding mechanisms at this stage, but if that is felt necessary for reasons which I don't appreciate, then I suggest that is included in another subparagraph noting those potential mechanisms (but without inclusion of tolls).
Russell Morrison
29 March 2006
| Year | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |
| No. Businesses | 2,588 | 2,550 | 2,614 | 2,674 | 2,929 | 3,057 |
| Employment | 11,220 | 11,570 | 12,530 | 12,650 | 12,830 | 13,270 |
Robert,
I thought you knew better than to quote statistics without listing the source. Your employment figures are not all full-time employees! At the time of the 2001 Census there were 20,625 Porirua residents in employment either in Porirua or elsewhere. Of that number 21.9 % were employed part-time. Of the 20,625 Porirua residents 11,514 (56%) were employed in Porirua and 26.8% of that number were part-time. The latter fact indicates the greater predominance of part-timers in Porirua jobs. John W
Over the period 2000-2005 businesses have increased 18% and employment by an equal percentage.
Ken Rae is now the Secretary of the Guardians of the Pauatahanui Inlet group, phone 233 9614. John Wells is still the chair. Report everything to do with the Inlet to Ken, please.
We need to make clear how things work. Who does what, and who decides what. The Delegations Register (see below) is a big part of the exercise.In the meantime consider this example.
"Keep Porirua Beautiful", in the form of Dennis
Ormsby and John Poppleston, came forward with a plan to develop a small
community garden.It is a great idea and brings together the Community Probation
Service workers, Bunnings Warehouse, and others. They asked me as chairperson
of the City Services Committee to have the committee consider the matter
and decide whether to fund it or not. My decision was that the matter should
be dealt with by the chief executive. It does not need to come to a Council
committee. We already know we support community gardens. There is no policy
issue. The only person who has control of money is the chief executive. We
have voted a sum of money for gardens in the current Annual Plan. If the
chief executive can from this sum support the project, I am sure he will.
If not, next year perhaps. End of story.
r
Sunday March 26, 2006
POSTSCRIPT
This does not mean the public and the councillors do not have an absolute right to know about the proposal and the officers' decisions. Hence, the accountability part of the Delegations Register. Fact is, under current budget arrangements the councillors have very little idea where the money goes.
POST POST SCRIPT
I am asked what the garden will be like. It will produce food, plants, and firewood for local food banks.here will be a concreted wet weather area on one side. Bunnings will use the area for educational purposes. Bunnings staff will provide expertise for the project.
Tertiary education is big business in New Zealand. Taxpayers' pay for institutions
throughout the country. So why is it that ratepayers are also paying for
to help these institutions? I refer to Positively Wellington Business and
their "Tertiary Education Cluster" This is of course an innovation of the
last decade. It is based on the tenuous argument that everyone in the community
benefits if an education provider increases their student numbers. That may
be so, but it does not of itself constitute a reason why property taxes should
be used to help tertiary education businesses. Or any other business for
that matter. Can you as a Porirua City ratepayer say how much money you are
paying in subsidy to Victoria University, The Open Polytechnic, etc? There
is no transparency and if there was those who pay, the ratepayers, would
revolt. What
is more, all the businesses who do not get ratepayer subsidy would also revolt.
Indeed, if you think about it is even worse, for some businesses pay rates
to subsidise other businesses. We are a very confused country.
r
Sunday, March 26, 2006
POSTCRIPT
I read that our rates are being used to help a group of manufacturing companies
make an application for taxpayer money through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.
Nine people are involved in a committee that you pay for and they include consultants
(including one old friend of mine). Now it so happens that I have just three
weeks ago done such an application. I did it myself, with my friends help,
and a personal cost to us all, Why are the ratepayers helping the large
companies and not me? Do the ratepayers even know they are doing this?
r
Sunday, March 26, 2006
POST POST SCRIPT
I am asked how we might fix this. Two ways: toughen up the budgets of the Council; put in contracts a cascading clause that says that should the business make money, the ratepayers investment be considered a loan and paid back.
An exceptionally nice card came to me to acknowledge Porirua City Council's
support to the regional marine education centre. Perhaps there are some perks
to being a chairperson after all.
r
Sunday, March 26, 2006
The Council must delegate more to officers. This thought terrifies the community! Truth is the councillors will never be able to focus on the big-picture stuff until they get out of the petty and stupid arena. We sit in meetings and decide how to spend $5,000 when the officers clear enormous sums without our being aware of it. Councillors debate the painting of a kitchen in a hall,and do not consider the leaking sewer that passes the hall.
There is now a paper from the officers on delegations., Unfortunately, it does not in its recommendations get to grips with the core policy issues. Instead it is about specific delegations (and it gives them without any accountability mechanism). We do need the list of new delegations and what is suggested is fine, but we need policy first. Hence, I am thinking of an amendment to add to the current motion:
That the Porirua
City Council:
a) Keeps publicly available a Delegations Register
b) That the Register shows for each delegation:
Who made the delegation
Who holds the delegation
The delegation
Conditions that apply to the delegation
Accountability
The first problem we have is to find the delegations that have been made
in the past. (Put your hand up if you can cite the delegations in the tree
policy? Or the loans policy? Or litter?). The second problem is
to make them more explicit and in the process place as much as is possible
with the chief executive. But, the third problem - and the thing that makes
everything else possible - is that we must define the accountability mechanism
(sometimes it will just be a note in the Annual Report, but sometimes it
is an regular list of delegation use provided to councillors, etc).
r
Sunday, March 26, 2006
I read that the Council has a "synthetic hockey turf" as a strategic
priority ($1.6 million, but not all ratepayer money). How about the fact
that the sewer system in Cannons Creek is failing and that shit goes onto
the street from the system covers and into the streams (that is what the
council officers say, but in less crude language). In the meantime, a contract
for $100,000 per year is now let to have someone inspect the sewer system.Fat,
paper, and tree roots block the pipes. I have just given you one example
of vital infrastructural work.
r
Sunday, March 26, 2006
The 80th birthday celebration of the Pukerua Bay Residents' Association
went very well. Nice to meet so many friends from years ago, and to acknowledge
all those who have worked so hard for the Bay over the years. I used to live
in Pukerua Bay, was a member of the association there for many years. A history
book is being written and that is something to look forward to.
r
Saturday, March 25, 2006
I intend to move at the City Services Committee a motion
that the wooden stage (cost $40,000) will be located next to the skateboard
park ,adjacent to the recreation centre and library. If this motion is sufficiently
supported, this will be its home for a few years until the new recreation
centre is built at which time, if anything remains of it, it will be shifted. Of
course no site is perfect!
r
Friday, March 24, 2006
ROBERT COMMENTS
The model being developed for the modification of the District Plan is now somewhat better defined, in my mind at least. How we do proceed is of course subject to decisions of the Council, but as yet no one seems to have a better idea than what I propose here.
What I would like to see happen is:
1 An annual allocation in the Annual Plan for ALL District Plan amendments/work. Hence the sum of money for the work would be fixed and it would be in bulk. That is, it would not be a a list of smaller projects and a general allocation for other things as at present. This would establish some budget flexibility that would be very sensible. It will also help the Council to see the District Plan work as a whole in the budget decision-making process.
2 A programme of amendments proposed for action in a given year could be considered by the City Services Committee each year as soon as the Annual Plan is in place. The community could have input into this programme in the usual way. Once the programme was signed off by the Council it is what would be done, and any new or different ideas would be listed for consideration in the next annual round.
What is new in this is that all DP work is being at the governance level brought into one framework. The idea is to establish a rhythm for the decision making. This means we will develop our District Plan incrementally. The review required by law in 2009 may well be quite a minor event if we work in this way. Below is some communication about the District Plan.
The officers in the Annual Plan process will need to have some idea of what is likely to be required in order to recommend a budget level that is realistic. In practice I do not expect this to create a difficulty. They have already managed to do that for the next decade in the LTCCP.
If this system works well for a few years, we may be able to bring the annual programme list into the Annual Plan itself, and thus facilitate consultation and avoid overworking the officers, the councillors, and the community.
Below is an exchange of emails about the current situation.
r
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Hi Janita,
Yes I would like to be more precise in terms of dates, but unfortunately
I can't be more specific than what I have provided to date. Our suburban
zone review work is still on hold, awaiting the appointment of a replacement
planner to our team (that planner will be leading out that programme). As
indicated in my email I don't expect to have that replacement until early
May (at earliest, subject to finding a suitable candidate). I won't be able
to look at project timelines until then, given that we have no capacity in
our team to currently lead out that work. Our Heritage Management Strategy
project (which will lead to a district plan change next year) is still proceeding
as planned. Could I suggest that you contact Peter Matich (Senior Policy
Analyst- Environment) if you want a detailed update on timelines for ongoing
consultation associated with that work. The Recreation Zone plan change investigation
project is still in a draft discussion document development stage. As previously
advised this was reported to council prior to Christmas (with the intent
to put the document out to the public for feedback), but was referred back
to committee for further discussion. This still has not occurred (copies
of what council considered prior to Christmas can be viewed by accessing
council's order papers on line). I should note that the reporting back of
this work to Committee has not at this stage been scheduled, as it has been
complicated by the issue of how the District Plan, in its current form, deals
with network utilities - including their placement on council owned reserves
(the Vodafone cell towers being the catalyst for this). Unfortunately this
issue and how it should be resolved is still being worked through, and is
affecting the development of a revised discussion document for the proposed
recreation zone plan change. I have no timeline for this work at present,
although we will be looking at this in the coming month. Consequently I can
only give a rough guide on timelines for progressing the recreation zone
work. The rural review project, as stated, has commenced in part with the
heritage project (which has advanced work on ecological site management,
management of historic places and sites (buildings, archaeological sites,
and management of cultural sites (particularly sites of significance to Ngati
toa)). Work is being scoped, as we speak, to undertake landscape work which
will form a core component of this review, and also input into any suburban
zone review (i.e. this involves review of existing landscape assessment work,
gaps analysis, management approaches, related community evaluation and consultation,
etc). Work is also being looked at a regional level on the issue of rural
lifestyle developments, this may affect the timing of some of our work. At
this time I can only advise that I hope to be able to advise you of more
specific timelines for the rural review project, including preliminary community
consultation on key management issues, sometime in the next 6 weeks or so.
As stated in my previous email we will be advising all key stakeholders of
more detailed timelines for key DP review work as they come to hand. This
will include providing ample notice of intended preliminary consultation/
contact to discuss input into the development of discussion documents, feedback
on such documents, and of course more formal feedback on any subsequent draft
plan changes. If you wish to discuss any of the above further, can I ask
that you contact me to arrange an appointment for us to meet. I hope the
above goes some way to assisting you with your planning of commitments through
this year.
Regards
Matt Matthew Trlin Manager Environmental Policy
Original Message----- From: Janita Stuart [ mailto:janita@clear.net.nz ]
Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2006 7:35 p.m. To: Matt Trlin - PCC Subject: RE:
District Plan process Hi Matt, I remember seeing this email and continued
to ask because it had no dates that we could use as a meaningful deadline.
So that is still what we want to know. Can you provide some dates that are
a bit more specific?
Thanks
Janita
-----Original Message----- From: Matt Trlin - PCC [ mailto:MTRLIN@pcc.govt.nz ] Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:44 PM To: ' janita@clear.net.nz ' Cc: Sue Veart - PCC; Peter Matich - PCC; Janine Dunlop - PCC Subject: RE: District Plan process
Good afternoon Janita. Following on from our conversation this afternoon I have updated the email that I last sent to you in November 2005 (see below). The body of this email formed a response to an email that you had forwarded to Sue Veart, requesting information on Council's District plan change programme. As discussed I have tried to be specific on the various programmes and timelines that we have underway to 'review' parts of the current District Plan. If you have any questions about what is covered below, please do not hesitate to contact me directly in the first instance. District Plan review With regard to the review of the District Plan, you are probably aware that the Porirua City District Plan was made operative in November 1999. Under the Resource Management Act Council is currently required to initiate a full review of this District Plan starting in November 2009 (10 years after its operative date). Rolling review Currently, Council is running a 'rolling review' of the District Plan, leading into its requirement to run a full review in 2009. The rolling review programme is intended to review specific/targeted sections or issues within the current District Plan, as part of an ongoing rolling programme. Council has set what the current priorities are for that programme (although it is likely to review these priorities before June 2006). This targeted 'rolling review' approach has the benefit of:
* Targeting: Enabling the council and community to focus on specific issues within the District Plan, in a way that is simply not possible as part of a comprehensive full District Plan review exercise.
* Responsiveness: Enabling pressing issues to be dealt without having to wait until 2009 for a full District Plan review process to start;
* Affordability: Staggered affordability- where council is able to appropriately resource targeted reviews of parts of the district plan over time, largely working within existing programmes and budgets. Timetable Council's focus, and timetable, for this rolling review programme has been as follows: 2002
* Above Ground Line Network Utilities-
Plan Change 1- o This was notified in 2002. The Plan Change aimed at introducing new District Plan controls for regulating the introduction of new above ground lines into roads within the city. o Appeals on this plan change are close to being resolved. It is expected that this plan change will become operative before June 2006. o If you require further information about this programme please contact Matt Trlin, Manager Environmental Policy. 2003 * Plan Changes 2-5- Aotea Block- o This plan change suite introduced 4 plan changes aimed at facilitating the development of the Aotea Block in accordance with the comprehensive development design produced for this area. Plan Changes introduced a New Business Park Zone, along with new Suburban Zone overlays for - a commercial recreation area- a medium density development area- an Aotea Mixed use area and a new suburban shopping area. o
Plan Changes 2-5 were made operative between November 2004 and January 2005. These changes have been incorporated into the operative District Plan. 2005/06+ * Heritage- Cultural, Historic and Natural -
o Work commenced in May 2005 to prepare a heritage management strategy for Porirua City. o This strategy is focused on producing an overall management framework for promoting heritage protection and management within the city. This strategy is aimed at assisting Council in giving effect to its responsibilities under the RMA where heritage is now a matter of national importance. The strategy's development is intended to look at using non-regulatory methods (i.e. education, advice, assistance, acquisitions etc) which are supported, where appropriate, by appropriate regulatory provisions (i.e. District plan policies and rules) to promote fair and effective long term heritage management. o Consultation commenced midway through last year with the community on this project.
o The issue of heritage was actively discussed as a key theme within the city forum workshops held in May 2005. o A heritage management strategy programme was also launched in May 2005, leading to advertised community workshops in November 2005 which sought feedback on the preliminary work done to date to develop appropriate heritage identification and assessment methods for Porirua City. Community workshops covered Cultural, Historic (built, archaeological) and natural (i.e. ecological sites) heritage. o Further consultation is planned to outline a developed methodology for assessing and evaluating heritage items, and to seek nominations for items to be assessed for inclusion within a reviewed heritage register. o A draft Heritage Management Strategy document is scheduled to be developed and released for public submissions in late 2006 (dates to be confirmed); o Following Council adoption of a finalised heritage management strategy, District Plan Changes which are required to directly support / give effect to that strategy will be prepared. These changes will initially be prepared as draft documents and will be released for feedback in early/mid 2007. These drafts will have considered all the public feedback and comments obtained from the Heritage Management Strategy development process run in 2006. o Council has a list of stakeholders, including residents' associations, who are being kept informed of and involved in the heritage management strategy programme. These stakeholders will be kept informed of any scheduled consultation activity, discussion document releases or plan change preparations. o Residents' Association representatives attended a workshop in September 2005 where the heritage management strategy project, and future heritage plan change programme, were discussed. o If you require further information about this programme, or copies of any material which has been circulated or presented to date please contact Peter Matich, Snr Environmental Policy Analyst, or Janine Dunlop, Environmental Policy Analyst. * Recreation Zone- o The Porirua City District Plan currently does not contain a zone/s for public recreation and open space areas. o A draft discussion document outlining possible options for introducing a plan change to 'zone in' public reserves and open space areas was developed over the course of 2005.
o Council considered this discussion document in November 2005, and its suggestions for proposed zones, and related policies and rules, along with a programme for releasing this discussion document to the community for feedback and discussion. Council asked that this discussion document be referred back to committee early this year (2006).
o It is currently expected that a revised discussion document will be considered by Committee and released for community feedback in mid 2006. Community feedback will then be reported back to council and considered in shaping the development of a proposed plan change. o It is currently anticipated that a proposed plan change will be prepared for notification in late 2006/early 2007.
o Residents' Association representatives attended a workshop in September 2005 where this was discussed. o If you require further information about this programme please contact Matt Trlin, Manager Environmental Policy. * Suburban Zone review-
o Council has identified its desire to review the suburban zone section of the District Plan.
o A programme for this review has commenced in part.
o Informally, feedback from the community planning exercises run within the communities of Plimmerton and Titahi Bay have raised a number of issues that will need to be considered further in any review of the suburban zone section of the district plan. o Council's engagement with communities as part of its LTCCP is also likely to raise issues that are directly relevant to the District Plan. o Outcomes of any 'place based' urban design exercises may also influence any review (i.e. outcomes from any design initiatives run around the Titahi Bay Shops, could have a bearing on aspects of any review of the suburban zone within Titahi Bay). o Formally, the review of the suburban zone has commenced with the recreation zone programme. >80% of the city reserve and open space areas are contained within the city's existing suburban zone area. This exercise is seen as an important first stage to the Suburban Zone review process. Community consultation on this recreation zone programme is discussed above;
o The heritage programme is also part of the suburban zone review- particularly given that it will assist with defining and better understanding the heritage values that need to be considered as part of further developments within the suburban zone area (where most development activity occurs); o Council is also scheduled to commence a review of its code of land development in 2006. This will focus on reviewing technical issues associated with service design and construction for new developments (linked with Council's interest in (a) promoting more effective management standards for erosion and sedimentation control on development sites and (b) promoting management of stormwater and contaminant run off from new sites and developments into the Porirua Harbour);
o A programme aimed at investigating general residential issues, associated with development form, character and subdivision issues (i.e. bulk and location standards, density of development, design guides for development etc) is expected to be developed over 2006. Council is currently seeking to employ a replacement Snr Policy Planner who will run this process. An appointment to this role is not expected until around May 2006. Progress in advancing the Suburban review work is not expected until mid 2006; o Council has a list of stakeholders, including residents' associations, who will be kept informed of and involved in the suburban review programme as it develops. These groups will be specifically consulted prior to and following the development of any discussion documents.
* At present a tentative target date of late 2007 has been proposed for possible plan change notifications. o If you require further information about this programme please contact Matt Trlin, Manager Environmental Policy.
* Rural Zone review- o Council has identified its desire to review the rural zone section of the District Plan- largely in response to operative issues with the zone, a perceived need to respond to growing pressures for rural-residential development, and the need to effectively 'plan' how the rural section of the city evolves and develops with time. o A programme for this review has commenced in part. o Formally, the review of the rural zone has commenced in part with the start of the heritage programme. The issue of landscapes and ecological site management is a significant issue for development in the rural area. These issues are currently being explored in conjunction with the natural heritage section of the heritage review project. Community consultation on this programme is outlined above; o A programme aimed at specifically investigating rural issues i.e. the official rural review, is expected to be developed over 2006. o Council has a list of stakeholders, including residents' associations, who are being kept informed of this programme as it evolves. These groups will be specifically consulted prior to and following the development any discussion documents. o At present a tentative target date of 2007 has been proposed for possible plan change notifications. o If you require further information about this programme please contact either Peter Matich, Snr Environmental Policy Analyst, or Matt Trlin, Manager Environmental Policy.
Further information Hopefully the above information paints a reasonably detailed picture of where Council is at with its rolling review programme. All the scheduled programmes (with the exception of the proposed recreation zone discussion document) anticipate contact and consultation with key communities, groups etc prior to the development of any detailed discussion documents and draft plan changes. All the scheduled programmes anticipate community consultation to occur on draft plan change documents, prior to preparing any proposed plan changes for formal council consideration. If you have any general questions about the programme, or any specific projects, please feel free to call or book an appointment with me, or the suggested contacts mentioned above, at any time. Regards Matt Matthew Trlin Manager Environmental Policy PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL Address: Cobham Court PO Box 50-218 Porirua City Tel: 04 2371505 Fax: 04 2371445 -----
Original Message----- From: Janita Stuart [ mailto:janita@clear.net.nz ] Sent: Saturday, 26 November 2005 3:45 p.m. To: sveart@pcc.govt.nz Subject: District Plan process Hi Sue, We in the Plimmerton Residents Association would like to know if there is a time-line, process chart, etc for providing input into the District Plan. We know there are consultants already writing reports that will input into the Plan and want to know when we can do the same. We don't want to wait for the draft Plan to come out and then our wants be considered an after-thought. We want to be able to input into the Plan before the draft comes out so that the draft reflects our input. So when and how can we do that?
Thanks Janita Stuart
SNR / ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST-PLANNER
If you wish to be part of a dynamic innovative environmental policy and planning
team, at a city based in the Wellington Region, then this could be the opportunity
for you.
You will be part of a team leading a diverse and exciting range of environmental
and development policy and district plan work, including:
• District Plan changes- including rural, suburban and heritage plan change
reviews;
• Long term urban and peri-urban development and growth management planning;
• Integrated catchment planning – involving the Porirua Harbour catchment
basin;
• Environmental restoration and enhancement initiatives; and
• City and Suburban centre revitalisation.
In 2005, on 27 September, the Council decided on some specific provisions regarding the recreation centre.
This was necessary to advance the planning for inclusion of the project in the LTCCP process. The cost of the planning was $200,000.
This work is now largely done and the outcome will be reflected in the draft LTCCP. What is decided is that Council will consult on one project defined by a sum of money, a site, and a statement of purpose (ie the things to be in the facility). There is no alternative site, or project, costed or surveyed. Other sites were considered in earlier work. This project will appear in the LTCCP, or we have wasted $200,000.
We have yet to hear the results of the fundraising activity. The funding mechanism has yet to be decided, but is likely to include a substantial loan.
The current cost, which will go into the LTCCP for community comment, is $14.2 million.
The one option will appear in the LTCCP draft for community reaction.
The motion of the Council that sets this up reads (note the $40,000 figure is a top-up):
"That the Council:
1. Agree that the Proposed Porirua Sports and Events Centre be considered for inclusion in the Draft 2006 - 2016 Long Term Council Community Plan.
2. Agree that the project triggers the Significance Policy and therefore is consulted on in line with the Significance Policy.
3. Agree that the Porirua Community Appeal Trust has a significant role to play in community fundraising for the project and invite the Trustees of the Trust to reconvene with the objective of appointing new Trustees to initiate fundraising activities in support of the proposed Sports and Events Centre.
4. Agree that the additional work is needed prior to the Sports and Events
Centre being included in the 2006 - 2016 Long Term Council Community
Plan and that this work include: a) A full financial analysis of the facility
with reviewed capital costs, the preparation of an accurate operation
budget and the development of a business case and cost benefit analysis for
the inclusion of the commercial gym and dance/aerobics studio in the proposed
complex. b) An urban design impact assessment: to include a review of
the site location, parking and traffic/pedestrian flow, and a peer review
of the current design to occur after Stephenson and Turner have finalised
the design. c) Authorise additional expenditure of up to $40,000 to be
funded from working capital to complete the additional work required and
outlined in the report."
r
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
I set out below the motion that set up the new committee structure. You can see that it involves many concomitant changes. We need to:
We are going to make greater use of short-term sub-committees,
which might be for specific community concerns or projects. We are also going
to have to tidy-up the terms of reference for specific purpose committees
such as those delegated the power to give out grants. Hence,
not only is the Council in the middle of a major budget exercise, but we
are undergoing governance reform at the same time. In the past,
council structures have just evolved slowly without any overall design. Right
now they are being consciously re-established. It is no wonder the chief
executive looks a bit tired. People have been telling me I look tired also
- this is the busy season. Incidentally, most of the senior staff in the
Council have very significant central government experience, and they cope
well when the pressure goes on; the councillors are trying to reduce the
workload for the officers and help with priorities.
r
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
MOTION OF COUNCIL
That Council:
1. Agree in principle that, where possible, the power to approve operational
matters be delegated to the Chief Executive. Such recommended delegations
are to be the subject of a separate report.
2. Agree that the following principle applies to decisions as to the appropriate
Committee to deal with strategic policy and operational issues:
a. The Strategy and Finance Committee deals with major strategic policy
decisions of Council which by their nature have broad impacts across
the City (rather than impacts which are focused on a particular area such
as Infrastructure, or Leisure and Recreation, or Community or Culture
and the Arts), or where financial impacts of the decision will have a
strategic significance.
b. Once the strategic decision is made (for example, included within a
Long Term Council Community Plan), the implementation would be the
responsibility of the appropriate functional Committee.
3. Agree in principle that training be provided for all Councillors in meeting
skills as Chair or Member, and direct officers to report further on mechanisms.
4. Agree that greater use be made of the Councillors’ Bulletin to convey
information rather than papers on the agenda for information only, except
where that is necessary for a documentary record that certain issues have
been
formally addressed at the Governance level.
5. That the current four Standing Committees be replaced as from 1 January
2006 by two “Committees of the Whole” plus a Hearings Appointments
Committee. The functions of each of the committees of the whole are to be:
• Strategy, Finance and Regulatory Committee (including the current
functions of the Strategy and Finance Committee and the Environmental
and Community Protection Committee).
• City Services Committee (including the current functions of the
Infrastructure Committee and the Recreation, Cultural and Community
Services Committee).
Other specialists committees will include Chief Executive’s Employment
Committee and Creative Communities Assessment Committee.
6. Direct the Chief Executive to report to the next meeting of the Strategy
and
Finance Committee with revised Terms of Reference and delegations for the
Committee’s approval.
MAYOR LAUNCHES COMMUNITY PLANNING AT 80 YEAR CELEBRATION
The Pukerua Bay Residents Association will celebrate 80 years this Saturday and Porirua City Mayor Jenny Brash will use the occasion to launch community planning in the suburb.
The PBRA has been active on a number of issues since its establishment on 26 March 1926, more recently in the fight to stop the proposed Coastal route decimating part of their community and threatening the local marine environment. Association member Pat Hanley says that process highlighted for the community the need to develop a plan to address other issues of importance to Pukerua Bay residents.
"We thought it was time to look at the whole of our community - not just the road and we approached Council for help.
People in Pukerua Bay have been very active on the Coastal Route issue and this has provided some energy to look at how the community overall wants to develop in the future "Other issues we are likely to consider might include extending the present rahui (fishing ban) to establish a permanent marine reserve; looking at beach front development; addressing the issue of paua poaching in the area and so on." He says the planning exercise will allow residents to identify what they value about their community and how to work collaboratively to achieve these goals. "Although Pukerua Bay is a relatively small community it has layers of networks and voluntary groups who are all active in their separate ways. There are those involved in Civil Defence, marine protection, community beautification through planting and artistic groups to name some. Bringing all those skills together in future planning will be very good for Pukerua Bay."
Mayor Brash will open the celebration at 2pm in the Pukerua Bay School Hall with displays of historical photographs, arts and craft exhibitions and community group promotions. "This launch is following on from community planning work Council did last year with the Plimmerton, Titahi Bay and Eastern Porirua communities which helped them to develop a vision for their areas along with an action plan. "People in Pukerua Bay are passionate about their community and I am sure they will get behind this initiative as they look back over 80 years and forward into the future," Mayor Brash says. The day will wrap up with a dance from 7.30pm to midnight and a concert of local talent. Dance music will be provided by local band Deaf Shepherd. A charge of $8 for adults and $4 for children will apply.
ROBERT COMMENTS
According to the press statement, the people of Pukerua Bay approached
the Council. The Council has not actually heard their request. They mayor
has taken a unilateral action to launch something called "community planning".
What exactly is being launched I wonder. Why is it a mayoral initiative and
not something to involve all councillors? How much is it going to cost ratepayers,
does it have a timeframe, what are the goals?
r
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
FURTHER
As a very sensible councillor comments to me:
I don't believe it is our role to "launch" a planning exercise. Communities make their own decisions about whether to progress with their development plans and are supported by Council to do that. Projects that arise out of the process would normally come to the annual plan round. However, provided we go down the track proposed in the LTCCP, they should be able to apply for funds from the pool to fund projects. We would need to develop criteria for distribution to guide officers. At least that was how I envisaged it.
And Councillor Liz Kelly says:
I agree Robert. Ask the questions? Do we not exist? Liz
And Councillor Naureen Palmer says:
"My thoughts for what they are worth.
But I agree with Liz, the initiative seems big stuff for the residents of Pukerua Bay and at the least I would have thought Northern Ward Councillors would have been invited to the launch of this initiative. The community in Pukerua Bay are, I believe, because my daughter bought a house and lived there for a short while, pretty active in their small community. I was impressed by the level of community togetherness there is. It is disappointing that the Mayor has not thought to include those Councillors who represent their constituents.
Naureen"
Of course no decisions have been made ...
Not all these will be included in the Council's budget, but they indicate the sort of thing that is called "basic".
| Total 10 years | 2006/07 | |
| Mail Franking Machine Replacement | 6,000 | 3,000 |
| Mail Folder/Inserter | 16,000 | 8,000 |
| Tools Replacement - Cleaning City (54022) | 30,000 | 3,000 |
| Minor Tools - Workshop (54016) | 35,000 | 3,500 |
| Tools Replacement - WW Retic (54023) | 50,000 | 5,000 |
| Gallery Lighting - CU1.1 | 60,000 | 15,000 |
| PABX Sofeware Upgrade | 60,000 | 0 |
| Replacement Printer (45100) | 66,000 | 0 |
| Second coat | 71,000 | 9,000 |
| Landscaping Capital Expenditure-G (54005) | 80,000 | 8,000 |
| Grounds Capital Expenditure (54006) | 80,000 | 8,000 |
| Monitoring system renewal | 87,000 | 6,000 |
| Water capital expenditure (54013) | 98,000 | 14,000 |
| Pataka Art Acquisition - CU1.1 | 100,000 | 10,000 |
| Tools Replacement - Reserves (54020) | 100,000 | 10,000 |
| Flow monitoring mechanical | 108,000 | 0 |
| Audio Visual materials CU2.1 | 120,000 | 12,000 |
| Animal Control Vehicles | 140,000 | 20,000 |
| Pump station renewals | 152,630 | 4,300 |
| Road Stabilisation (25307) | 170,000 | 17,000 |
| Upgrade Aircon Plant CU1.1 | 183,000 | 66,000 |
| Monitoring system | 220,000 | 0 |
| Hardware (45308) | 280000 | 20000 |
| Library Furniture & Fittings (01000) | 350000 | 35000 |
| Pump station Major Maintenance | 360000 | 36000 |
| Software Replacements | 370000 | 35000 |
| Landfill Stormwater Management | 420000 | 25000 |
| Sludge thickners- mechanical | 464000 | 0 |
| Diffusers | 514000 | 0 |
| Major Pump Stations 10/11 | 521472.55 | 0 |
| Claifiers | 551000 | 0 |
| S/C Smooth Total (25303) | 560000 | 56000 |
| Shape Correction - AWPT | 610000 | 61000 |
| Minor Safety Projects (25500) | 690000 | 69000 |
| Miscellaneous-mechanical(20years) | 700000 | 0 |
| New Play Equipment (12000) | 728000 | 55000 |
| Mechanical | 812880 | 0 |
| New Investment | 1000000 | 100000 |
| Aeration - mechanical | 1039621 | 0 |
| Local PS contents renewal | 1042000 | 23000 |
| Development Earthwork and Leachate Coll. | 1150000 | 190000 |
| Major Pump Stations 09/10 | 1370268 | 0 |
| Server Replacements | 1420000 | 205000 |
| Replace Work Stations (45102) | 1450000 | 230000 |
| Toby replacement internal | 1500000 | 150000 |
| Front Face and Final Cover | 1654000 | 240000 |
| Pool Vehicle Replacement | 1660800 | 153200 |
| Maintenance C/S (25302) | 1680000 | 168000 |
| Asphaltic Surfaces | 1680000 | 168000 |
| Pipeline renewals | 1775670 | 54000 |
| Footpath Renewals (25700) | 2,100,000 | 180,000 |
| Library Books & Genealogy - CU2.1 | 2860000 | 286000 |
| Landfill Gas Management | 2893000 | 100000 |
| Vehicle & Plant Purchases/Sales (WBU) (54000) | 3797000 | 404000 |
| Admin Building Tower Anchor Points | 12000 | 12000 |
| Training Allocn for Mgmt Devt Plan | 7500 | 7500 |
| Plimmerton Hall Recarpet Supper Room | 10000 | 0 |
| Bradey Room Recarpet | 12000 | 0 |
| New City Marketing Plan | 12000 | 12000 |
| 8 Cobham Court Resurface Walkway | 12000 | 0 |
| Moana Court Main Switchboards | 12000 | 12000 |
| Moana Court Replace Unit Switchboards | 14000 | 0 |
| Code of land development | 15000 | 15000 |
| Diesel storage tanks | 15000 | 15000 |
| Code of Land Development (sewer) | 15000 | 15000 |
| Stormwater code of land development | 15000 | 15000 |
| Ngatotoa Hall Repaint Interior | 20000 | 0 |
| Plimmerton Hall Repaint Interior | 20000 | 20000 |
| Moana Court Repair Driveway | 20000 | 20000 |
| Review metering strategy | 20000 | 10000 |
| Identify Overland flow paths | 20000 | 0 |
| New Booklet | 24000 | 12000 |
| Mungavin Homestead Repaint | 25000 | 0 |
| Mungavin Hall Resurface Hall Floor | 25000 | 0 |
| Tireti Hall Reroof | 25000 | 0 |
| Moana Court Replace Stoves | 26000 | 0 |
| 8 Cobham Court Repaint | 30000 | 0 |
| City Recovery Plan Development | 30000 | 30000 |
| Backflow preventer surveys | 30000 | 30000 |
| Sewer deterioration model | 30000 | 0 |
| Assess system capacity site specific | 30000 | 0 |
| Stormwater deterioration Model | 30000 | 0 |
| Stormwater treatment strategy | 30000 | 0 |
| TBCH Repaint | 35000 | 0 |
| Security Cameras - Exterior | 40000 | 20000 |
| Plimmerton Hall Repaint Exterior | 40000 | 0 |
| Pump station storage study | 40000 | 0 |
| Rainfall and Runoff analysis | 40000 | 0 |
| Water capital expenditure (54013) | 40000 | 40000 |
| Ngatitoa Hall Repaint Exterior | 47000 | 27000 |
| Pedestrian strategy | 50000 | 0 |
| Area metering | 50000 | 10000 |
| Runoff and Catchment review | 50000 | 0 |
| Review trade waste bylaw | 50000 | 50000 |
| Repairs to reservoirs | 51500 | 1500 |
| Replacement of Mobile Radio Sets | 55000 | 55000 |
| Backscanning Building Files (70500) | 60000 | 60000 |
| Mungavin Hall Refurbish Kitchen | 60000 | 60000 |
| Improve Deterioration Model | 60000 | 30000 |
| Integrate pump station control | 60000 | 0 |
| Protection of Overland Flow Paths | 60000 | 0 |
| Update Finance1 to CI environment | 60000 | 0 |
| Update Proclaim1 to CI environment | 60000 | 0 |
| CC - Parumoana \Norrie Street Round About | 180000 | 180000 |
| Replace diesel storage tanks | 65000 | 22000 |
| Admin building redecoration | 125000 | 0 |
| Tireti Hall Repaint | 70000 | 0 |
| Moana Court Repaint | 75000 | 0 |
| Admin Building Replace Sun Screens | 100000 | 0 |
| Admin Building Replace Carpet | 150000 | 0 |
| Chief Executive Recruitment | 100000 | 50000 |
| Pataka Public Toilet Refit | 100000 | 50000 |
| TPAC Plant upgrade | 100000 | 0 |
| Emergency water distribution | 117000 | 40000 |
| Cannons Creek Main Pool Access Ramp | 120000 | 0 |
| Auto shut off valves | 120000 | 60000 |
| Paekakariki Hill Road Stabilisation | 140000 | 0 |
| Pataka Spine Floor Replacement | 147000 | 0 |
| Payroll Software Replacement | 150000 | 0 |
| TPAC Maintenance | 160000 | 0 |
| 001-Aotea Block Playgrounds | 163000 | 1000 |
| Transportation Study | 180000 | 45000 |
| Improve water pressure | 188000 | 107000 |
| Paint Exterior Pataka Building | 200000 | 50000 |
| Pataka Roof | 200000 | 50000 |
| Refurbish Lifts | 153500 | 0 |
| Aerial Photos Replacement | 240000 | 0 |
| Moana Court Refurbish Bathrooms | 260000 | 0 |
| 006-Aquatic Centre Renewal Programme | 300000 | 0 |
| 23-Aquatic Centre Re-Theming | 300000 | 0 |
| R & Repainting of P. Bay Footbridge | 150000 | 0 |
| PABX Replacement | 300000 | 0 |
| 004-Safety Surfacing Compliance Programme | 327000 | 65000 |
| Cannons Creek Maintenance Closedown, | 347000 | 0 |
| Update financials and regulatory systems | 419908 | 0 |
| Elections | 466500 | 30000 |
| Update residential Landfill charges | -1456000 | -208000 |
| Reservoir door alarms mtce | 15000 | 1500 |
| Valuations | 21000 | 0 |
| Sewer revaluations | 21000 | 0 |
| Stormwater valuations | 21000 | 0 |
| Reservoir condition surveys | 40000 | 20000 |
| Water AMP Reviews | 49000 | 7000 |
| Amp reviews | 49000 | 7000 |
| Sewer Amp reviews | 49000 | 7000 |
| Pump station condition study | 50000 | 0 |
| Street light Upgrade | 56000 | 5600 |
| Analysis of CCTV data | 100000 | 10000 |
| Street Lighting Renewal | 110000 | 11000 |
| Ground surveys | 132000 | 24000 |
| Sewer Asset management | 170000 | 10000 |
| Address inflow/ infiltration | 180000 | 0 |
| Stormwater asset management | 250000 | 0 |
| Sewer study | 290000 | 60000 |
| Repair pipelines in poor condition | 450000 | 0 |
| Increased refuse collection cost | 528000 | 0 |
| Minor stormwater works | 600000 | 60000 |
| Extra MIS staff member | 630000 | 0 |
| Landfill charges- change per tonne | -3964744 | -626124 |
| Aotea Lagoon (247) - Landfill Charges | 3535 | 3535 |
| Mowing (252) - Landfill charges | 7500 | 7500 |
| Online communities handling emergencies | 55000 | 5500 |
| Gardens (LS1.2) - LTCCP - Landfill charges | 99315 | 0 |
| Plant Operation (815) - Landfill Charges | 103800 | 103800 |
| Rural Kerbside Recycling Collection | 114300 | 0 |
| Catchment studies | 120000 | 60000 |
| Asset management JV 1.1 | 120000 | 20000 |
| Strengthening of Road Reserves | 170000 | 17000 |
| Repair of Scours | 170000 | 17000 |
| Vil D - Cannons Creek Library Internet | 225000 | 15000 |
| Asset management | 250000 | 0 |
| Drainage Improvement on rural roads | 370000 | 37000 |
| Visitor strategy | 375000 | 45000 |
| Festivals | 400000 | 40000 |
| Civil Defence Training Contractor | 400000 | 40000 |
| Additional Toilet Mtce | 400000 | 40000 |
| Additional Biodiversity - Harbour Mgmt | 500000 | 50000 |
| Youth Development Project | 600000 | 60000 |
| Treatment Plant - Landfill charges | 934200 | 0 |
I cannot tell you what happened at the mayor's meeting with
residents' association. It is a secret. The mayor sent all the associations
a letter of invitation, and all the councillors a letter of invitation.
The only thing that was clear was that it was a secret meeting. Basically,
we all sat round wondering why we were there. The Council itself has several
meetings planned with the community to advance budget decision-making. Some
material from the planning workshops was given to the associations, and
that is good. It saves me putting it on the blog.
r
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Final note:
A blog is a blog not a newspaper. It is opinion, and ideas, about Porirua City and the Wellington Region. I hope that debate develops and in that way our region becomes smarter and the councils make better decisions. The letters copied here are in their original form, and not the way they were published by the newspaper. Most of the letters were sent to the Kapi Mana News, The Porirua News, The Dominion-Post, the Whitby NewsBrief, or the Northerner. The statements from others are not edited or sanitised. Remember - no attempt is made to ensure there is balanced opinion.
Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor