The Porirua Wellington Web Blog - June to September 2006
For current material please visit The Porirua Wellington Web Blog - Current Material
Porirua
City Councillor Robert Shaw 
I was pleased to present a petition to Council on behalf of 80 people from Whitby concerned about the new mast. Fact is, people never like these things. I will ask the ceo to follow-up directly with Vodafone, for that is perhaps the best way we can get some movement (pardon the pun). The decision has been made by the Council regarding the sites in the City and there is now a contract with Vodafone accordingly. When Council asked for objections to the plan, there were none from Whitby so far as I remember and two from Papakowhai if you count my own.
Tonights Council meeting was very peaceful and quick. Seems when I go away
peace breaks out and there is nothing to resolve. Noticed Graeme Ebbett in
the audience, and a few from Whitby. Euon
is looking fine after a health upset. Good progress is being made on the notion
that we need to find a new approach to budgeting.
r
Wednesday September 20, 2006
From: Graeme <gebbett@buzz.net.nz>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:51:56 +1200
To: Donald Borrie <dborrie@ihug.co.nz>, John Watson <jonwat@xtra.co.nz>,
Roger Blakeley - PCC <RBlakeley@pcc.govt.nz>
Cc: "Graeme Ebbett (home)" <gebbett@clear.net.nz>, Pip Piper <pippiper@paradise.net.nz>
Subject: Re: Sustenance.....And Public Participation
I agree.
Also I think PCC is long overdue to review Standing Orders which preclude public
participation in Full Council meetings.
It is the only local body I am aware of which does not have "Public Forum" as
a standard agenda item.
The NZ standard provides for it, so why is PCC continuing to exclude the public?
What is it afraid of?
A meeting which cannot be entirely predetermined?
Councillors being held to account in public?
The fear that ratepayers may have some influence on the meeting?
Graeme Ebbett
From: Donald Borrie <dborrie@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:09:53 +1200
To: John Watson <jonwat@xtra.co.nz>, Roger Blakeley - PCC <RBlakeley@pcc.govt.nz>
Cc: "Graeme Ebbett (home)" <gebbett@clear.net.nz>, Pip Piper <pippiper@paradise.net.nz>
Subject: Re: Sustenance
Hi,
I share John's concerns. The current meeting times are apparently designed to serve the needs of Councillors who have full time jobs and want to pop in for a bite to eat and a bit of Council business before heading home for the evening. 5.30pm is certainly not in the interests of Council staff who have also worked a full day, albeit in front of a computer screen , and the time is equally inconvenient for workers in the general public who are tired, hungry and needing to deal with immediate family responsibilities.
The democratic wellbeing of Local Government needs Councillors who accept Council responsibilities as part of their fulltime work, and a meeting schedule which encourages public scrutiny.
I favour open daytime committee and workshop meetings and a 7.30pm meeting of the full Council.
Regards,
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: John Watson <mailto:jonwat@xtra.co.nz>
To: Roger Blakeley - PCC <mailto:RBlakeley@pcc.govt.nz>
Cc: Graeme Ebbett (home) <mailto:gebbett@clear.net.nz> ; Don Borrie <mailto:dborrie@ihug.co.nz> ; Pip Piper <mailto:pippiper@paradise.net.nz>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 9:37 AM
Subject: Sustenance
Roger,
By all accounts the Council meeting this coming Wednesday, according to the posted agenda, should be wrapped-up in half-an-hour or so with councillors on the way home to an evening meal and TV One's "Fair Go" programme in good time, just like the rest of us. Or will councillors still sit down beforehand to a hot meal on the premises at ratepayers' expense?
This is part of my continual opposition to the 5.30pm timing of Council's approach to public participation. Such is but an expression of lop-sided democracy to suit the convenience of councillors which results in the willful exclusion of the public. Couple that with the daytime committee meetings and we have a sorry state of affairs. All this makes a mockery of "meaningful engagement with the public", as set out as a Council objective on page 80 of the LTCCP.
When the Council really wants public participation it calls meetings at 7.30pm, as per this coming Monday and Tuesday.
Under the heading - Resident satisfaction with Council consultation and communication - the level of performance is rated at 60% by the NRB survey. Can that result any wonder, especially when it cost ratepayers $1.366 million in the past year or more than 4% of the rates to meet the Democratic Process with such a poor cost/benefit?
What is going to be done in future to raise the projected level of satisfaction?
Regards - John W
Hi
all
Gillian Mitchell Ward Clerk, Ward 5 Medical/Detox, Kenepuru:
For always being willing to give a helping hand or useful info rmation. Described as a mine of info rmation' about all the activities, both clinical and administrative, within the ward, she has shown great efficiency, discretion and is always highly professional in all her dealings with staff, patients and visitors to the Ward.
"Council is urging Porirua residents to get rid of old car wrecks from their properties as part of Clean Up NZ Week (18-25 September). "Last year 34 householders took up our invitation, as part of Clean Up NZ Week, to get wrecks removed which created an instant makeover of their properties," says Councillor Rob Rangi, Council's representative on Keep Porirua Beautiful. "
The Health Board says:
"One of the country's top sports doctors has agreed to take on a new challenge as head of our Planning and Funding Directorate.
Dr Chamberlain, whose medical experience includes General Practice, Sports Medicine, Anaesthetics and Obstetrics and Gynaecology, has most recently been GP Liaison and an important team member at Northland District Health Board's Planning and Funding and Elective Services.
He brings impressive and wide-ranging experience in both clinical work and health management.
His clinical work has taken him around the world, both to work with patients and to give lectures. Within the specialty of Sports Medicine he has lectured in Palau, Pohnpei and Tonga, and has been team doctor for Northland regional rugby and soccer teams and the NZ rugby sevens team. He has worked on the medical team for the Sydney Olympic Games Team and was Health Team Leader for the Manchester Commonwealth Games Team.
Having completed an MBA and more recently a Fellowship in Medical Administration (FRACMA), Dr Chamberlain has also held regional and national advisory positions, which involved working closely with Managers, Clinical Directors and with GPs, Practice Nurses and Maori Providers.
He has also taken a lead role in the Health Needs Analysis, Strategic and District Annual Planning processes in Northland, and the establishment of the region's Primary Care Strategy.
Dr Chamberlain was the Primary Care advisor for the Meningococcal Vaccine (MeNZB) Programme National Advisory Group and is a past Chairman of the Whangarei Independent Practitioners Association.
Dr Chamberlain will join our Planning and Funding Directorate team in early November. "
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The consultant from the Health Board, tells us that roads are bad for us.
They contribute to obesity, create pollutants and so on. These consultants
confine themselves to public health (that is health issues around population
statistics) and do not speak of personal health and hospitals policy. The re-development
of Newtown hospital, still to ay on the same remote peninsula, argues strongly
for the rapid development of the Transmission Gully road. People in Kapiti
and Porirua cannot access the hospital. I am pleased the Regional Land Transport
Committee is to invite the Health Board to its meeting. Stand by for loads
of self-justification.
r
Friday, September 15, 2006
Yesterday, I represented Porirua City a the RLTC meeting, held at Hutt City Council. The only real issue was the lack of progress over the building of the Transmission Gully Motorway. Transit New Zealand has yet to embrace urgency on this project. Indeed, they seem to be content to tell us they are working very hard and that there could be great delays because it is difficult to find contractors to build such roads.
The is unconvincing, when engineers tell us that potential road builders should be involved in the process of planning at this stage. The Minister of Transport has said the road will be build following a massive consultation exercise in which all units of local government came to one mind. There is now no excuse for taking things easy.
Apart from potential builders, Transit NZ should work with potential funders.
Such as Macquarie Bank. Whoever funds this project is certain to get their
money back with a very reliable and healthy profit. We need a partnership with
the private sector.
r
Friday, September 15, 2006
Last night, Cr Sue Dow and I were present for the meeting of the Pukerua Bay Resident's Association. Also present was Graham Taylor, the Wellington Regional Manager for Transit New Zealand.
There was an excellent discussion about short-term measures to improve safety on state highway one through Pukerua Bay. The pedestrian underpass is funded and the final stages of public consultation will be cleared before Christmas. Construction will be early next year. There are significant minor works under discussion for the SH1 intersection with both Beach Road and Grey Street. This is very good news. Transit was at its most creative and positive.
Of most concern was the acceptance by Transit that they could not build the Transmission Gully road within a decade because they would be unable to secure contractors at a reasonable price. This casual attitude is unimpressive. They should be moving heaven and earth to get that road in place in the shortest possible time. Pardon the pun.
Also from the meeting is some follow-up work regarding Pukerua Bay submissions to the LTCCP. Some matters concerning recreation areas are yet to be addressed.
r
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The story below, from the Northerner, highlights a problem in the health sector. There is a critical shortage of funds for the health budget. The Government, on behalf of the taxpayer who provides the money, says that no more money is available.
It is also the case that prevention is far better than cure. The needs of
Pacific people are also obvious. However, if the health budget is spent on
sports for some, we end up unable to fund the medical operations and services
we all need right now. You might argue that the funding of sports is an important
long-term approach to health and that it is cost effective. I would not deny
this - but it needs to be from a different budget category (perhaps called "sports")
and not come from the money for medical services.
r
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
As the Northerner reports:
PACIFIC people throughout the region are being encouraged
to take up more physical activity in a new
Capital & Coast District Health Board programme
dubbed ‘Shake It, Beat It, Learn It’.
Recently launched
to deliver what is being
described as a
health message with
a difference, the new
programme is being
operated in conjunction
with the New
Zealand Institute of
Sport.
“The ‘Shake It,
Beat It, Learn It programme’
encourages
Pacific people to take
up more physical activity
by participating
in exercise groups,”
said Capital & Coast
District Health Board
Pacific Health manager
Lee Pearce.
“The groups are being
run by a number
of young Pacifi c students
from the New
Zealand Institute of
Sport.
"These students
also teach participants
skills so that
they, in turn, can
teach others.”
Despite having only
been operating for a
few weeks, the programme’s
popularity
has grown rapidly Ms
Pearce says.
“We already have
three pilot groups that
are actively involved –
Te Raro group, Elderly
Samoan group and
a Cook Island group,”
she said.
“The groups are a
good mixture of young
and old, and we’re
currently in the process
of establishing a
fourth group.”
And, as well as being
popular, the programme
already appears
to be displaying
signs of success.
“There’s been a
signifi cant drop in
heart rates and blood
pressure in all three
groups,” Ms Pearce
said.
“And we’ll be extending
the programme
to also include
groups throughout
the Wellington
region.”
Part of Ms Pearce’s
role involves funding
and strategic planning
and, she says,
this is where the
impetus for the programme
stems from.
“I was getting a
lot of requests from
community groups
wanting the DHB to
fund for exercise programmes,”
she said.
“I thought that,
rather than giving
out lots of little bits of
money, I would put it
into something the entire
community could
benefi t from.”
Another plus, she
says, is that the programme
also fi ts with
the government’s strategic
health plan.
A formal evaluation
of health outcomes
to assess the effectiveness
of the programme
will be carried out in July next year..
Robert was at the University of Illinois for a while and this blog paused.
Now it resumes.
r
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Time To Cull Councillors?
AS part of the Porirua City Council's current Representation Review, Councillor
Robert Shaw has put forward the proposal of cutting the number of members
currently sitting on the Council. (From NORTHERN Courier – 19 July
2006)
The Porirua City Council currently consists of 13 Councillors
In the mind of Cr Shaw however, this is too great a number for the workload
that Council currently handles.
"The Porirua City Council would be better off with fewer Councillors,"
Cr Shaw said.
Representation Reviews are carried out by all territorial authorities once
every six years, under the provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001. The
aim of these Representation Reviews is to ensure that the constituents of the
Council conducting the review are receiving the appropriate amount - not too
little, not too much - of representation on their local authority.
Other Representation Reviews in the area have seen the Hutt City Council considering whether or not to abolish all the community boards in its area territory, and the Wellington City Council deciding on the option of reducing its number of community boards from two to one.
In May, the Porirua City Council decided to stay with the current number of Councillors at the next election, but re-jigged the way in which some were to be elected - reducing the number representing the city's three wards by one, and having three elected by the city at large.
Cr Shaw, however, wants to cut three seats altogether - removing the `at large' seats on Council, but leaving ward representation at its current proportion.
And if I'm one of the three being axed, then, so be it," said Cr Shaw - a former Greater Wellington Regional Councillor.
"It is up to the public to make the best decision in the interests of the city."
Cr Shaw points out' that the axing of three Councillors would not decrease
the amount of rates local residents are currently paying.
But, he says, it would certainly save money, as the Porirua City Council would
be able to make better decisions.
Because currently, he says, the same things are being demanded again and again
without any notable increase into insight of the actual problem.
"What counts is the quality of the decisions that the Porirua City Council
is, and should be, making," he said.
"We must ask ourselves whether or not we would be making smarter decisions with fewer people on Council.
"We have to stop going around in circles - it's a complete waste of time."
With doubt already rising about the equality of representation for Porirua communities, Cr Shaw doesn't believe a reduction of three would influence the adequacy of representation in any form.
"I believe there would be great support around the Council for the axing,"
he said.
Key points as I am advised:
Residential and rural rates do not go up as much as might have been expected - see Appendix One at the end of the report which is on the Council's website.
Most residential ratepayers will experience increases of between 6.5% and 7%, rural ratepayers will get lower increases.
The eligibility for rate rebates is much greater than we had appreciated - therefore many ratepayers will experience significant reductions in the rates paid once the rebates are taken into account (see the table on page 3 of the report). Business ratepayers that pay the covered walkways and city centre development rates will get increases typically between 5.25% and 6.5%. Other business ratepayers will experience increases of approximately 8.1%.
r
Friday, July 21, 2006
ANNUAL INCREASES IN C.P.I.
Year to March 1987 18.3
Year to June 1987 18.9
Year to September 1987 16.9
Year to December 1987 9.6
Year to March 1988 9.0
Year to June 1988 6.3
Year to September 1988 5.6
Year to December 1988 4.7
Year to March 1989 4.0
Year to June 1989 4.4
Year to September 1989 7.2
Year to December 1989 7.2
Year to March 1990 7.0
Year to June 1990 7.6
Year to September 1990 5.0
Year to December 1990 4.9
Year to March 1991 4.5
Year to June 1991 2.8
Year to September 1991 2.2
Year to December 1991 1.0
Year to March 1992 0.8
Year to June 1992 1.0
Year to September 1992 1.0
Year to December 1992 1.3
Year to March 1993 1.0
Year to June 1993 1.3
Year to September 1993 1.5
Year to December 1993 1.4
Year to March 1994 1.3
Year to June 1994 1.1
Year to September 1994 1.8
Year to December 1994 2.8
Year to March 1995 4.0
Year to June 1995 4.6
Year to September 1995 3.5
Year to December 1995 2.9
Year to March 1996 2.2
Year to June 1996 2.0
Year to September 1996 2.4
Year to December 1996 2.6
Year to March 1997 1.8
Year to June 1997 1.1
Year to September 1997 1.0
Year to December 1997 0.8
Year to March 1998 1.3
Year to June 1998 1.7
Year to September 1998 1.7
Year to December 1998 0.4
Year to March 1999 -0.1
Year to June 1999 -0.4
Year to September 1999 -0.5
Year to December 1999 0.5
Year to March 2000 1.5
Year to June 2000 2.0
Year to September 2000 3.0
Year to December 2000 4.0
Year to March 2001 3.1
Year to June 2001 3.2
Year to September 2001 2.4
Year to December 2001 1.8
Year to March 2002 2.6
Year to June 2002 2.8
Year to September 2002 2.6
Year to December 2002 2.7
Year to March 2003 2.5
Year to June 2003 1.5
Year to September 2003 1.5
Year to December 2003 1.6\
Year to March 2004 1.5
Year to June 2004 2.4
Year to September 2004 2.5
Year to December 2004 2.7
Year to March 2005 2.8
Year to June 2005 2.8
Year to September 2005 3.4
Year to December 2005 3.2
Year to March 2006 3.3
Year to June 2006 4.0
Dear Euon, Robert, Sue, Maureen and John
The WRA committee would like to understand your rationale for voting for ratepayer funding of the Sports and Events Centre in light of the clear lack of support for this expenditure from the majority (90% plus) of the community. The surveys carried out by Plimmerton and Whitby were quite unambiguous and the results would undoubtedly have been repeated in other areas of the N.Ward. On face value, unless you can explain to the contrary, it would seem that the consultation process has once again been a complete sham. Why ask for comment if there is no intention not only to listen but to hear. Residents' associations put a huge amount of work into understanding, reasearching and making comment that reflect the views of the community at large. Do you actually want us to continue? If so, why don't you listen? I am of the view, that we should perhaps withdraw from this sterile and time consuming process and find other means to get our councillors to reflect the wishes of the community. We understand that this decision was qualified by 'soft sell' statements that Council would set up a funding committee to get external funding. We cannot help being somewhat cynical about this proposal. What chance has it got when you have already allocated the money for the project? You have effectively cut the ground from under it. Vain hope is no substitute for a real possibility to raise $8M. May we remind you of your pre election assurances that you would do all you could to keeping rates under control. We would be interested to know how you reconcile that with the decision to expend $18.5M on a facility that perhaps 1% of the residents of Porirua will use on a regular (weekly) basis. Consultation includes feedback, so we do not believe we are being in anyway presumptuous in asking for a full explanation of the thinking and logic behind what, at first sight, seems to be disregard for your obligation to represent the community.
Regards Jim
Porirua City Council last night finalised its 10-year plan, and voted to build a new sports and events centre for the city, and fund previously considered projects in response to submissions from residents, many of whom wanted money spent on core services. This year the Council will collect $34.3 million in rates, which is an average increase of 7.9 percent for existing ratepayers, after taking account of growth in the rating base. The bulk of the extra rates are targeted at the city's infrastructure, core services and maintaining assets. Council increased funding for village development by another $3 million over 10 years and added $100,000 a year to a new 'Safer Communities' project for dealing with graffiti and vandalism. The extra safer communities funding will be used across the whole city, but was largely in response to submissions from community groups from Eastern Porirua. Mayor Jenny Brash says the new sports and events centre will be a wonderful facility for the whole city, and the extra village development and safer communities funding will help improve the quality of community life across the city. "The decision to build the sports and events centre means that councillors will soon be making important decisions on the final design brief and site of the centre," Jenny Brash said. Council decided last night to invest further in infrastructure and asset management, including extra staff, and put in more money for rural roads and safety work at the Te Hiko Street/Wi Neera Drive intersection. Not all of these projects will be funded this year (2006/07), and some will only start to be funded from the next financial year. Chief Executive Roger Blakeley said that an external review earlier this year showed that Council did not have all the resources necessary to do the job that confronts it in managing the city's infrastructure. "The extra resources are necessary to ensure we manage the city's assets efficiently, and it is a matter of beginning to spend money now to save it later." The 10-year plan sets aside money for the new extension to the city cemetery, city centre design work for Cobham Court and Ferry Place, a new synthetic hockey turf, the District Plan review of the suburban and rural zones and city centre, renewal of public toilets, an upgrade of stormwater facilities at Takapuwahia and Karehana Bay and the Eastern Porirua trunk sewer pipeline, improving water pressure, heritage management, Ngati Toa Domain foreshore work, Porirua Harbour and catchment management, the extension of Trash Palace, laying safety surfaces on children's playgrounds and walkways development. The $17.5 million sports and events centre will replace the existing recreation centre, which needs a new roof, other repairs and seating. About one third of the money for it - $6.25 million - will come from the money Council received from the sale of the Aotea Block, with provision for a loan of up to $11.5 million to cover the balance. Any money raised by the Porirua Community Appeal Trust will reduce the amount of loan required. However, the effect the new centre has on rates this year - $84,000 in 2006/07 - is minor (0.25 percent of 2006/07 rates). "We have held rates down in previous years - last year they were 3.6 percent when the average for metropolitan areas was 8.4 percent - but, as with other councils, we have struggled to keep the increase at that level while providing the quality of core services rate payers expect,"
Jenny Brash said. "We are aware of the effect that rate increases have on people on low or fixed incomes. While some impact is inevitable, the increases in rates rebates that government has brought in for rate payers on low incomes should help. We estimate that between one and two thousand rate payers in the city will be eligible for a rebate of up to $500 on their rates, which will greatly ease the burden on them.
"I want to thank the residents who made submissions on the LTCCP. Their contributions were very valuable, and Council is following through on a number of suggestions made in the submissions," Jenny Brash said.
While the average rate increase for 2006/07 is 7.9 percent, individual ratepayers will pay more or less than that, depending on the value of their property. Council will meet again on July 26th to adopt the 10-year Long Term Council Community Plan and strike the rates for the year 2006/07. Items Council approved for inclusion in the LTCCP last night are: * A new sports and events centre * $6 million over 10 years for village development ($3 million more than in the draft LTCCP) * An extra $100,000 per year for control of graffiti and vandalism * $290,000 per year to implement the results of a review of asset and infrastructure management * $45,000 per year for festivals (starting in 2007/08) * $18,000 per year for repairing scouring on rural roads (starting in 2007/08) * $430,000 to rebuild the Ti Hiko Street/Wi Neera Drive intersection in 2008/09.
Remember the good old days when there were five major commitees of Council and long meetings almost every night. We now have just two committees and the one I chair has on the agenda for the next meeting only 5 items and not a difficult decision anywhere. They are:
As a general rule of organisation, there should not be on average more than one evening meeting a week for councillors (excluding school holiday periods) and one whole-day meeting every 6 weeks. Longer is not smarter in the goverance business.
r
Friday, July 14, 2006
The Long Term Council Community Plan is done. Now we have to urgently address the problems that process revealed. Council actions needed right now are:
I trust the mayor is onto this lot. In addition, she said Council should be
able to raise two-thirds of the $17 million capital required for the Sports
and Events Centre, and hence she must be working pretty hard on that.
r
Friday, July 14, 2006
| 2006 Census of Population and Dwellings | |||
| Census Night Population Count
for Area Units in the Porirua City , 1996, 2001 and 2006 |
|||
| Area Unit | 1996 Census Night Population Count | 2001 Census Night Population Count | 2006 Census Night Population Count (Provisional) |
| 565601 Pauatahanui | 666 | 816 | 940 |
| 565602 Endeavour | 2,217 | 2,883 | 3,330 |
| 565603 Resolution | 48 | 87 | 100 |
| 565604 Adventure | 1,251 | 1,215 | 1,230 |
| 565700 Paekakariki Hill | 132 | 114 | 130 |
| 570400 Titahi Bay North | 2,271 | 2,334 | 2,410 |
| 570500 Onepoto | 1,881 | 1,836 | 1,740 |
| 570600 Titahi Bay South | 3,228 | 3,102 | 3,130 |
| 570700 Elsdon-Takapuwahia | 2,427 | 2,271 | 2,200 |
| 570800 Porirua Central | 504 | 357 | 360 |
| 570900 Porirua East | 1,995 | 1,998 | 2,050 |
| 571000 Ranui Heights | 1,191 | 1,257 | 1,260 |
| 571100 Cannons Creek North | 3,279 | 3,138 | 3,100 |
| 571200 Cannons Creek South | 1,536 | 1,596 | 1,560 |
| 571300 Cannons Creek East | 3,882 | 3,846 | 3,650 |
| 571400 Waitangirua | 4,104 | 4,152 | 4,010 |
| 571500 Papakowhai | 2,259 | 2,394 | 2,560 |
| 571600 Ascot Park | 2,691 | 2,796 | 2,690 |
| 571800 Pukerua Bay | 1,623 | 1,680 | 1,680 |
| 571900 Plimmerton | 2,016 | 2,073 | 2,110 |
| 572000 Mana-Camborne | 2,187 | 2,274 | 2,360 |
| 572100 Paremata-Postgate | 2,358 | 2,364 | 2,350 |
| 572200 Discovery | 2,577 | 2,688 | 2,740 |
| 572300 Mana Island | - | 3 | - |
| 622201 Inlet-Porirua Harbour | 57 | 30 | 20 |
| Total | 46,392 | 47,295 | 47,700 |
He has noticed that Jenny Brash is on the expert group for the Asia Knowledge Working Group, and demands of me, "what does Jenny Brash know about my business or Asia?"
I quote from the report the blog reader sent me:
"THIS IS THE final report of the Asia Knowledge Working Group, which was set up following the Seriously Asia conference in 2003 to address the need for increased knowledge and understanding of Asia at all levels in New Zealand society. The working group is made up of 19 influential New Zealanders. It is convened by the Ministry of Education and the Asia New Zealand Foundation. The group consulted widely, and set up expert panels to consider the contributions made by the media, business, education and cultural sectors to knowledge and understanding of Asia."
The same irate business person (in a telephone call) notes that the 8% rates
rise must be added to inflation and then you must also add in the error the
council made last year. The overall, actual increase in the size of the cheque
to be written is thus on average 12%, and for higher valued properties much
more. He did not want his name in the blog.
r
Friday, July 14, 2006
SCOOP – News Item
New Campaign to Abolish Council Rating System
A new campaign is being launched with the objective of replacing council rates with a fairer system of paying for services provided by local councils together with voter control over future expenditure proposals.
The campaign, to be known as NoMoreRates.com, is being organised by David Thornton, a former North Shore City councillor, who was the spokesman for the Ratepayers Rebellion campaign in 2003 against Auckland Regional Council rates hikes proposed that year.
That campaign included a 40,000 strong petition to the ARC and a ratepayers’ revolt in which 140,000 ratepayers withheld all or part of their ARC rates for several months. It was this campaign which ultimately saw the downfall of several leading councillors at the 2004 local elections.
Recognising that high rate increases are not limited to the Auckland region, this new NoMoreRates.com campaign will be nationwide and ratepayers and community organisations around the country are being invited to join the campaign.
The campaign will be internet based and will involve supporters in developing ideas and proposals for a new system of council funding
First initiative of the campaign will be the lobbying of MPs to support the first reading of ACT leader Rodney Hide’s Rates Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill which is scheduled for a first reading on 26th July.
NoMoreRates.com does not support any political party but does want Parliament to support a first reading of this Bill to allow it to progress to Select Committee when both Parliament and the public will have the opportunity to have their say and for the whole future of council funding and expenditure and the current rating system to be debated.
The Bill in its present form is almost certainly not the best answer but by giving it a first reading the whole issue can be addressed in Parliament which is the only forum in which the legislation can be changed.
Restraints on local government expenditure are now in force, or are being debated, in 27 of the 50 states in the US .
Expenditure or tax restraints are also in force in some form in the UK and some parts of New South Wales .
NoMoreRates.com is itself developing a possible new system for local government funding and expenditure control which will be discussed with interested parties.
The campaign, while largely supported by residential ratepayers, will seek to work with Federated Farmers and Business lobby groups with the aim of presenting a united front to Parliament, Government and councils on the question of funding reform.
Council has cleared the decks with the new Long Term Council Community Plan. The most important decisions are:
I do not count the $17 million recreation centre redevelopment into a Sports and Events Centre as being of much significance. It was a decision forced upon the Council by its earlier bad decisions. The main financial problem is not the capital cost but the on-going operating costs. Some progress will be made on non-rates funding for the capital. There is also a new approach being proposed for the management of the project. I very much support the idea that the chief executive manages the whole thing and that he establishes his own committee of councillors and citizens to assist in the process. This is bold new stuff. What other council in New Zealand works in such a way? This move is a part of the clearing of the decks for the councillors. We have much new and different work to do.
So what is the big challenge now that the decks are cleared?
It is re-structure the budget itself, the budget process, the decision-making procedures, and to established mechanisms that enable the Council to integrate itself with the people of our City.
We must re-define the role of the councillor. We must focus on mechanisms that build trust and integrate the Council and its City. We must learn to trust the people. We must not keep lording over people.
How might we do this in practical terms, I hear you ask.
r
Thursday, July 13, 2006
THE baby boomer generation is splitting into two distinct groups in terms of spending patterns, ACNielsen says.
Those who are working, have children and are building their retirement nest eggs have been dubbed "life jugglers". Retired baby boomers, who are focused on "me time", have been tagged "life surfers".
Life surfers, the research claims, are willing to spend big on experiences, while life jugglers are focused on paying their debts.
There are many things wrong with the budget process, and what has been happening over the last few days.
The great danger now is that people will see it as a success. Already we have the mayor with great honesty of belief saying that the process has been open and extensive. What rubbish. It has been largely conducted well away from the public, the public debate was limited to two short meetings before the draft plan was issued, and the public reaction to it is largely negative.
Council must reform its basic business processes (in the jargon). That means
we must actually re-think how we do the budgeting business and involve the
public. There is no point in being too concerned about this year. That disaster
has already passed. It is a more fundamental and lasting reform that I seek.
Some progress has already been made on the governance side with the development
of the committee structures. Much more is needed.
r
Thursday, June 29, 2006
COMMENT BY MR WATSON
Robert,
As you were part of the Council's unanimous vote to approve the final draft
of the LTCCP, what is your purpose in providing not only a list of the main
points raised by submitters, but a commentary as well? Are you
trying to have "a bob each way" against the time when the chickens come home
to roost? Surely the Council in its wisdom took into account all the
points now raised by submitters before prioritising the Sports & Event
Centre as Porirua's No.1 need to advance the city as a whole. Submitters
have pointed out how availability of accommodation would have to
go hand-in-hand with any regional or nationally promoted sports or events.
But the Council, hand in glove with the licensing trust, allowed the Blue Heron
to become just another a petrol bowser against opposition from the
public. Where was the forward thinking at that time and have we any more of
it now? With a dwindling and aging population our city needs economic
vision and application if it is not to stagnate while others are moving forward.
The Council seems to be unable to distinguish between "must do" and "nice
to have" in this context.
John Watson
There have been a few readers who have said that the blog is not covering
enough topics of late. Why do we not get into this or that issue, they ask.
Fact is I have hit a very busy period as the council runs into its plan hearings.
We have meetings from 2pm to 8.30 pm every night this week except Friday.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
r
A friend once said to me the problem with Labour was that it never charted a true course.
Instead it was "five degrees to the Left in good times and 20 degrees to the Right in bad times".
At the time, I thought this was an overly cynical view, but 30 years and two Labour administrations later, I appreciate it is fundamental truth.
I thought of this 10 days ago when reading Minister of Finance Michael Cullen's comments to a parliamentary select committee, where he called for "wage restraint".
He was backing Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard, who had earlier in the week warned that he would need to put up interest rates if workers received "extravagant" wage increases.
Cullen then went further, saying "you can't expect wage and salary increases to compensate you for what are major shifts in relative prices over which we ourselves have no control. If we try to compensate ourselves for those, then there is a serious risk that we move into a more strong inflationary cycle".
However, the recent facts point to where the problem lies, and it's not with workers' wages.
The official inflation rate for the year to March 2006 was 3.4 per cent, but over the same period, wages increased only 3.1 per cent. In other words, working New Zealanders continue to go backwards and suffer cuts in their real take-home pay.
At the same time, those on the biggest salaries received increases well above the inflation rate. Bollard himself received a 7 per cent rise an extra $30,000 annually while Cullen took an 8.1 per cent increase up $18,300. When using the word "extravagant", these men need to look in the mirror.
Wealthy New Zealanders continue to race ahead, while the average wage has decreased in real terms by 20 per cent in 20 years.
A good example are cleaners. A few weeks ago, the largest contract for cleaners in New Zealand was settled for a two-year term. These workers received an increase this year of only 35 cents an hour, and will get a rise next year of only 35c.
Unlike Cullen, these low-paid workers are effectively suffering a pay cut because again their pay increases are less than the rate of inflation.
Under Labour, these cleaners had a right to expect a better deal, not just because Labour claims to represent the interests of people on low incomes, but because no fewer than seven current Labour MPs were once officials of the Service and Food Workers' Union , which represents cleaners.
These MPs Lianne Dalziel , Mark Gosche , Sue Moroney , Taito Philip Field, Dave Hereora , Rick Barker and Darien Fenton may have entered Parliament with the most honourable intentions towards working New Zealanders but have failed to stem the slide in wages, let alone chart a new course for the economy. From a distance, their union work seems to have been simply a stepping stone into Parliament, with their commitment to the low-paid left on Parliament's steps.
Labour cannot use economic excuses for failing to address the plight of working New Zealanders. The party has overseen six years of strong economic growth, but working New Zealanders have continued to slide further behind. Is Labour's real role simply to keep working New Zealanders quiescent and pliable? It seems so.
There has been barely a ripple from Cullen's comments. National is hardly going to complain when its business backers are those who will benefit the most from wage restraint.
Carol Beaumont, of the Labour-aligned Council of Trade Unions, described Cullen's comments merely as "unfortunate". She said it was unfair to expect workers to "magically deal with inflation by themselves". True enough, but hardly a voice ringing in support of those who cannot earn enough in a 40-hour week, or even a 60-hour week, to support their families.
Once Labour MPs would have led the charge for low-paid workers, but Labour now expects, as a matter of course, that those on basic wages will continue to make sacrifices to keep high-income earners such as Cullen and Bollard in clover.
What about CEO salary restraint? What about politician salary restraint? What about profit restraint, dividend restraint, or even price restraint? What about sharing the economic pain?
Instead, Labour talks only of wage restraint. This party is a vivid blue imitation of what it once was.
Its entire purpose now appears to be to keep National out of power rather than drive forward and chart the new economic direction that is so desperately needed across our middle and low-income communities.
It has now charted a course which is 90 degrees to the Right even in good times. The problem with Labour grows by the day.
Sports and Events Centre
• All submitters challenged Council on affordability and ability to pay.
They highlighted the impact of the proposal on fixed incomes and its effect
on rates, particularly for older people living in areas where house prices
have increased.
• Even those who did support the Sports and Events Centre were uncomfortable about cumulative costs and cautioned Council about perceptions of Council in the community and the frustration was evident.
• Comparisons with other Councils – submitters had undertaken projections based on ‘guestimates’ to show the impact of the rates increases over time. They showed a continuous upward trend rather than a levelling – this was misleading as it did not follow trends or prudence demonstrated by Council previously – there is evidence that Council has successfully kept rates around the rate of inflation for at least 8 years or more and averted the upward trend.
• There is a perception that the Sports and Events Centre will be at the expense of ‘core’ services. This is incorrect and may be a problem with the way information is presented in the LTCCP. For example I would have put the information not selected by Council as an appendix rather than profile it in the main text.
• Most submitters do not understand the “Core Business” of Council – The scope of the new Local Government Act determines what we must consider and the old ‘rates, roads, rubbish’ no longer applies. Only one submission mentioned triple bottom line accountability. Perhaps that should be given a higher profile in the LTCCP.
• Use of Aotea $6.5 ml – Council needs a clear statement to the community about its intention to use the funding to put back into developing the city – the decision is not taken lightly and we have considered the SEC will deliver the most benefit to all people in the City. There is a perception that we would be better paying for infrastructure out of cash reserves – that is a waste of 6.5ml and there is no intergenerational benefit.
• Impact of 12 new courts/white elephant – There should be better information about the synergies and impact of the Wellington project as a hub for Porirua and the region. This should come out of the regional strategy work and could be noted in the LTCCP.
• One submitter mentioned the need to fund projects of this size over 20, 25 – 30 years, not 10. If it’s not clear in the document that this is the plan, then it needs to be corrected. His statement regarding fairness was justified as it goes against the intergenerational equity argument that we are espousing.
• Fundraising, Civic Pride & Social Capital – we should quickly establish the community trust to fundraise but also encourage other local fundraising initiatives as suggested by Grey Power (Buy a brick, Buy a seat… ). The two grups should not be linked. The community funding ‘thermometer’ is a good idea and should be promoted as it raises the profile of the activity and community buy in. Funds raised should go into a central fund that accumulates interest or be invested.
• Do not move the skateboard park for the sports centre – I agree with this, it’s the centre of all the action, its attractive, people gather, stop and watch. Now that the café is across the road it adds to ‘watching’ as a sport. It’s a good use of the space and saves $250,000. Gary seems obsessed with moving it but not all skateboarders agree. One of the original skaties tells me that he does not want the skateboard park moved from its current site. It has ‘history’ so any other park would be in addition to the current model.
• Parking – was raised as a reason for not building the SEC on the proposed site. Parking studies undertaken by Council indicate times would be unlikely to conflict due to time of day. Porirua also has a shortage of land and Council considers car parks are not the best use of space. Long term solutions might be a user pays car parking building – privately owned.
• A Business Case – Calls for a business case. Any business case should make it clear that this is not just a financial consideration and that Council has a policy to include a public good component. That will automatically affect any business case.
• Numbers for and against – One submitter (against SEC) in particular noted that a range of submissions should be discounted because they were all the same. This undermines the integrity of people who took the trouble to submit something they believe in – one way or the other.
• Location – A number of submitters believed the SEC should be in Waitangirua. This does not enable fair access to people from other areas in the City. Early consultation has made it clear that central city is the best place because of the transport linkages and hub that exists in the city centre. Waitangirua may choose to have its own option but should not replace the generic facility.
• LTCCP presentation – the language is defensive and puts Council
on the back foot. I would like to discuss this because it presents Council
in a bad light. We need strong positive messages, not apologies in every sentence.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
A survey has revealed fears that the boards of state owned enterprises
are being stacked with government cronies and politically correct appointees.
One SOE director described the drive for "diversity" as being like "asking School Certificate students to attend an honours class".
Another said they were embarrassed "by the way very senior and experienced directors were quizzed by a very young person with no real governance experience".
The survey, by Victoria University researcher and senior lecturer Richard Norman, raises fresh questions about successive governments appointing political cronies to boards and agencies – which Labour opposed in 1999.
The survey questioned 28 of the 62 directors of the nine biggest SOEs. It reveals that two-thirds of directors thought the process for selecting board members after feedback on candidates from caucus and the Cabinet was too politically influenced.
That made the process long, sometimes unprofessional and embarrassing, one director said.
Dr Norman's survey, conducted anonymously, questioned only directors of SOEs.
But political patronage is widespread. It was revealed last year that Labour supporters held 69 senior positions, not counting hundreds of postings to smaller boards and community trusts.
The same trends as for the last census largely continue.
Suburbs that are emptying out are: Waitangirua, Elsdon, Ascot Park, Cannons Creek East and South. The Cannons Creek falls are the greatest and as they have the highest level of population they are what is driving the overall Porirua City population change.
Suburbs gaining people include: Pauatahanui (15%, but only 124 people), Endeavour, Mana-Camborne.
Overall change for the City as a whole is up 0.86 percent or 405 people. NZ
goes up 7.8 percent, and the Wellington Region 5.6 percent (23,860 people).
Be grateful that we are not being swamped with people in Porirua City. Some
absurd people think that there is a competition to "grow". They even
want to spend your money trying to win that competition. Yet our lifestyle
depends on the fine management of what we have, and it is hard to say we are
doing that perfectly.
r
Sunday, June 18, 2006
1. Introduction
Members of The Plimmerton Residents’ Association have given due consideration to many of the issues raised in the Long Term Council Community Plan. Whilst there are many positive aspects which we could reflect on, it is beyond the capacity of such a voluntary community organization to comment on all aspects which merit consideration. Thus we have chosen to comment on a few. For the purpose of this document we have given particular attention to a range of issues but have given greatest weight to 4 major aspects:
a) The proposed Sports and Events Centre
b) The Village Strategy
c) Infrastructure
d) Financial responsibility and balance.
These 4 aspects are of greatest concern as this Association considers that the proposed borrowing level required to fund one single ambitious project will have a severely restrictive effect on all other services provided by Council over a long period. This will leave the Council and thus ratepayers exposed to unacceptable risk.
Comments for this LTCCP are therefore necessarily tempered by the effect of this financially irresponsible proposal on all other aspects of the LTCCP and future planning for Porirua.
We hope Council will give our submission suggestions and requests due consideration and accept their intent as a genuine contribution to the submission process and thus the on-going success of our region.
2. P orirua City Council proposal for a new sports and events centre to the value of $17.5m.
The Plimmerton Residents’ Association considers that the borrowing level required to fund the Sports and Events Centre is financially irresponsible. As such it is unable to support the proposal for a facility to the value of $17.5million dollar as well as funding the on-going operational costs through rates increases. In arriving at this conclusion it has given consideration to the following:
a) COUNCIL CORE BUSINESS AND COSTS
In reading various documents associated with Porirua City Council and its (ratepayers/residents) associations, we have been struck by the complexity and high costs of maintaining local body activities as demonstrated, for example, in the Council’s LTCCP Financial Supplement.
The basic tasks of local government such as providing clean water, safe waste disposal, safety on our roads and so on, together with the community based proposals for Village Strategies seem in danger of being marginalised in favour of a single ambitious project – the proposed Sports and Events Centre. It is doubtful that this latter project has the degree of support in the local communities to match its great cost (see below). Additionally we appreciate t here are many compulsory infrastructure things a Council must do. We cannot compromise these core responsibilities in order to fund the one project and thus cause a major imbalance and risk to communities. For example the proposed Catchment Studies to investigate storm-water issues is essential. What if those studies show urgent replacement needs – how could they be funded? Community members have detailed some real problems with drainage but have gained little traction in getting them fixed. T he ability to adequately address, maintain and replace its core services and utilities is a major concern.
The financial risk in undertaking 1 major project appears to compromise the ability to perform core services.
b)OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES
The Village Strategies as already detailed, was based on extensive bottom-up decision-making in consultation with communities, Council staff, Councillors and consultants have been shown to result in financially modest projects. We have confidence that these projects will work, i.e. that they will provide community based services and activity which represent each Community’s vision and which will enhance everyone’s sense of belonging and pleasure in the place and region where they live.
The successful implementation of community projects will be seriously compromised by the implementation of this far reaching expense on the Sports Centre given the $3m. cap for city wide implementation now over 10 years. The Plimmerton Residents’ Association views this decision as insulting to the level of input they and other community groups have made over 3 years to create a vision for their future. They are totally supportive of every community vision for the future and have expressed their support for this strengthening of communities as being what will set Porirua apart from other regions in the future.
Council appears to give minimal support to this concept and the call for “restraint of the Village Development Project” pg 10 LTCCP Draft. by the CEO Dr Blakeley is absolutely unacceptable and insulting.
However the PRA would like to give credit and thanks to a wide range of Council Officers who have supported them and other communities in the development of these visions so far.
c)REPRESENTATION AND COMMUNITY RESEARCH.
Residents’ Associations are voluntary. Members are committed to their communities and work without the luxury of external funding yet with maximum energy. In an attempt to continue to make sure that the opinions, needs and wishes of members are well represented we carried out some informal research to find out what people from the Porirua region thought about the proposed Centre. We took the 2 options offered by Council in the Draft Plan given a 3 rd more balanced option did not exist and asked the interviewees which they would support.
a)To support the proposed Sports and Events Centre at a cost of $17.5m or
b) To support expenditure of between $1.5m and $3m to refurbish the existing centre
To ensure that we got a range of people to answer the questions, we based ourselves at Mana Supermarket on the 2 nd ,3 rd , and 4 th June from 10.00am until 12.00 noon
We asked people as they entered the supermarket if:
a)they were residents of the Porirua Region and
b)whether they would like to express their support for either proposal.
258 people signed their names and addresses during this exercise
8 (3.1%)people supported the proposal for the $17.5 m centre .
249 (96.5%) people supported the proposal for refurbishment
1(0.4%) person objected to both proposals on the basis that a Centre should be located in Waitangirua.
At the same time in the context of a normal PRA newsletter to
350 households we asked the same questions. Of the responses:
3(12%) people supported the proposal for the centre and expressed support for the youth of the City
21 (84%) people supported the refurbishment and expressed opposition to the level of funding proposed
1(4%) was undecided
This response however was a much smaller response sample 25/350 or 7.1% of those polled in total.
We view of far greater importance than the response itself, the unsolicited reaction to the survey. Verbal comments from people when offered a form on which to make their own submission should cause Council far greater alarm.
Of the 170 submission forms we had available, we were only able to persuade 11(4.2%) people to take one over the 3 day period. Only 3 people(1.1%) could be persuaded to take the full LTCCP Draft document.
High levels of apathy and even higher levels of cynicism were reflected in the unsolicited comments which strongly and regularly suggested:
- there was no point in making a submission because the Council would not listen anyway,
- that they were financially irresponsible in making such a proposal.
- that this type of Council decision making was par for the course and making a submission of any sort would be a complete waste of time.
People feel they have been treated in a cavalier fashion by Council over a long period and lip service is paid to genuine consultation.
Council must heed reactions to their decision making processes from their constituents and seek ways to build confidence and genuine partnerships with them.
d) COUNCIL RESEARCH
Councillors suggest they have commissioned and received sufficient consultants’ reports and briefings but residents are not indicating the same surety. Council has not sought their views by way of identifiable and professional market research. Indeed there is a strong perception that Council is acting unilaterally in this regard and intends to plough ahead regardless of Community feedback.
On 26 October 2005 The Residents Association received a letter from Council Officer Chris Linnell as detailed below as a result of the 2005 Sports and Events Centre submission round. They had every expectation and reason to believe and that this information would be readily available as indicated.
This same information guideline is also detailed in the LTCCP pg 46.
GRAPHIC REMOVED
When the information as detailed above was not apparently available, an additional request for information focused on a full financial analysis of the facility was made by the Combined Residents Association at it’s meeting with the CEO Dr Roger Blakeley, H.W. the Mayor and Mr G. Simpson, General Manager on 2 nd May 2006.
An agreement to address those issues (as identified by Mr Linnell) at a follow up public meeting on May 23 rd at Pataka was reached, particularly focused on a business plan and full financial analysis of the facility.
We have absolutely no sense that the financial concerns raised in 2005 and again in 2006 have been addressed. To commit members of this community to flagrant financial debt and assure us “it is our intention to do our level best…..” or “we are hopeful of support from..…”pg 7 LTCCP Draft is to make financial kite flying in Porirua the number 1 recreational activity.
The proposal remains, in our view, completely financially irresponsible .
e) PLANNING
We have perused the Wellington City Council Strategy and Policy Committee report of 1 March entitled Indoor Community Sport Centre Proposal and as ratepayers and residents of the Porirua Region we have been “underwhelmed” by the vagueness of our own Council research by comparison. We would appreciate knowing what similar specific and detailed research has been done to assess:
- provision for different codes of sport in the Porirua area,
- identities and specific numbers of all different confirmed user groups
- confirmed recreation as opposed to sports usage
- data to accurately demonstrate the need for such a large facility.
The Sports participation slide as detailed in the public presentation on 23 May by Mr Gary Simpson has not presented a compelling or sufficiently analytical case. Ad hoc “estimates” have been given to support the proposal which have failed to convince this community that a Centre of this dimension is needed.eg “Projected increase of 21 204 users was cited” pg 6 – we ask “using what basis and over what timeframe?”
At the meeting dedicated to the proposed Centre it was stated that 200 parking places would be adequate. 180 are in the plan. Where is the justification for this number when we have no analysis of where users are coming from? Supermarkets we were told were to be approached regarding parking to see if they would assist. Perhaps most sport will occur in the small hours of the morning? That this absolutely basic level of planning has not yet been undertaken increases our grave sense of unease.
We have seen no substantial research based statistics to indicate the numbers of people using each of the proposed facilities at different times of day (most people work or go to school at regular times). We are talking about four courts (three of which are in one building so they can’t be cut off for small events). In addition there is the concert hall, a fitness centre, warm-up gym (all the time?) It is often difficult for people working irregular hours to join teams. If they’re at work or school they can’t be playing a team sport at a Recreation Centre.
Researched planning from a community perspective appears to be loose at best and inadequate at worst.
This community is hugely concerned at the implications in the event that the financial projections have been assessed in a like manner.
f) REFURBISHMENT AND DE-CENTRALISATION.
We support the encouragement and development of sport and recreation facilities across the city through de-centralisation as being effective in developing participation in communities. This is seen as being the most feasible, realistic and financially responsible solution given the current ongoing financial constraints. It would achieve a better balance in the commitments Council has to make to the whole region.
This is in addition to the refurbishment of the current centre. However it is of real concern that Council has not seen fit to properly maintain the current Centre. Will this same fate befall other structures in the City over the next 10 years given that Council has this year cut back on their Asset Management budget which has obvious risks and apparent precedent in the current centre itself?
Council is acting irresponsibly by not maintaining its facilities to an adequate standard
g) ACHIEVING A BALANCE.
The Mayor states “We have a large number of young people in our City, many of whom excel at sports and performance. They need and deserve a facility.”
We have many other sectors in the community who also have needs such as the ability to stay in their own homes and communities as they grow old. For them the rates burden is becoming intolerable. We need to address the needs of an aging population (rates, fitness etc) as well as those of other age groups who will also be affected by serious demands on their purses.
In addition to financial responsibility, Council must bring their vision back into balance so that needs of all groups can be considered.
A balance in Council financial planning would alleviate some of our concerns.
h) GREEN SPACE
If the Centre were built as currently proposed, it would cover much of Te Rauparaha Park, destroying much of the essential open green space of our city. In building the Centre, Council would additionally and necessarily exclude strategic land purchase for City reserves and green space over the next 10 years and beyond due to financial restraints. It is short sighted decision making as this land cannot be reclaimed once utilised in this fashion.
The skate-boarding facilities would have to be moved/rebuilt at an unnecessary cost. There would be no recreation facility available for a period of three years.
The value of central city green space must not be overlooked or undervalued.
i) FINANCIAL RISK AND CONSTRAINT .
We believe we cannot afford to take on debt which will cripple and constrain city-wide development in the short, medium and long term. At the same time, we believe that no decision should be made to proceed unless and until the costs and sources of funding are firmly established and the precise effects on rates can be calculated and are affordable.
In his “Presentation on Evaluation of Financial Condition of Porirua City Council” by Keith Miller, General Manager Support Services in 2005 he stated pg 6 “The City’s debt is at the industry average. An increase in city debt of $15million would move it to top of the industry.” He concluded “The rapid growth in the last few years in operating expenses on payments to suppliers and employees is unsustainable – unless Council is prepared to match it with appreciable revenue increases.”
And that is without the proposed Sports Centre.
Porirua, as indicated, already has one of the highest rates levels in the country and already has one of the highest levels of municipal debt. Surely our sustainable focus should be on lowering both of these before embarking on major new discretionary projects. If we continue to “borrow and spend” on large scale capital projects we will not have a credit buffer for any unforeseen essential expenditure in future years.
This financial commitment of this magnitude is irresponsible and fraught with high risks and lost opportunities to this community.
j) WE SUGGEST:
(a) Council prepare a proper business plan in regard to usage as requested earlier and actually assess on-going risk to the City, simultaneously carrying out professional market research to determine ratepayer commitment to the project or
(b) go ahead with an new single court which could take the place of the existing Recreation Centre until it can be refurbished to a higher standard
or
(c) review, as promised above, the site location in consideration of a Centre at Waitangirua which would cater for a huge portion of our own Porirua population as opposed to meeting the needs of transient visiting (and most likely non economic) teams
In this way we could better establish the degree of fiscal risk, at the same time ensuring that smaller scale centralised and de-centralised facilities are available for indoor team sports in the interim.
We suggest as a population of 47,600 (Census 2006) with minimal expected future population growth, (and where 42% of the current rate take is already committed to council salaries,) that prime consideration must be to provide for our own region first and foremost in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner.
3. The Village Strategy
The hugely successful Village Strategy grew out of community concerns that money appeared continually to be spent in the CBD.
Viz pg 24 Porirua Long Term Community Plan 2004 – 2014
“Key themes arose repeatedly: There was “Concern that spending on the CBD is at the expense of providing services and facilities in communities and suburbs.
“Community or Village Planning is a way of recognizing and maintaining the distinct nature of Porirua’s communities.”
It was duly decided that $3 million dollars was to be allocated for all 9 villages to begin with $1m each year for 3 years from 2006-7, 2007-8 and 2008-9.”
That was the public commitment.
Realising that the Village Strategy had developed not only enormous energy and support but also strength in bringing communities together, on 20 March 2006 the Combined Residents Associations were invited to a meeting in Council Chambers where Proposed Projects for 2006 -were discussed and listed.
Pg 51 of ”Proposed Projects” lists as “Direct Contributions to Village development” $1million per year for the first 3 years. This had already been confirmed in 2004 and was the clear benchmark we were working towards in our very conservative planning.
Additionally $1million was to be allocated every 2 nd year through years 5, 7 and 9 totalling $6 million over 10 years.
Over the last 3 years Council has received a clear and positive expression of interest from its villages seeking to implement their vision for the future. The Village Strategy and its formulation has been one of the most successful processes in terms of widespread community involvement, working in partnership with Council that can be remembered.
It is therefore against this background of time, consultation, energy and voluntary expertise that we and like communities worked tirelessly to get buy-in and funding from Council and with help from Council Officers have developed our community concept plans.
Such is the value now placed on this clear expression from communities by Porirua City Council that the Draft LTCCP now proposes an allocation of $3million over 10 Years, averaging $300,000.00 per annum or $33,333.33 per village per year.
THIS IS A TRAVESTY.
In light of this unacceptable change in funding allocation this community can only express its total disillusionment that their respective visions for the future should be treated in such a derisory manner. That communities should have their projects so diminished for the next 10 years after all their efforts for a project with both uncertain funding and support – for just 1 grandiose scheme - the Sports and Events Centre, IS A TRAVESTY.
The Village Strategies, based on extensive bottom-up decision-making in consultation with communities, Council staff, some Councillors and consultants have been shown to result in financially modest projects. The PRA would again like to give credit and thanks to a wide range of Council Officers who have supported them and other communities in the development of these visions so far. Their partnership at least has been valued by us.
We have absolute confidence that these projects will work, i.e. that they will provide community based services and activity which represent each Community’s vision and which will enhance everyone’s sense of belonging and pleasure in the place and region where they live.
In previous Annual Plans, Council has supported the very Community Outcomes they now seek to diminish and manipulate.
THIS IS A TRAVESTY.
The successful implementation of community projects will be seriously compromised by the implementation of the far reaching proposed expense on the Sports Centre given the $3m. cap for city wide implementation now allocated over 10 years.
The Plimmerton Residents’ Association views this decision as insulting to the level of input they and other community groups have made over 3 years to create a vision for their future. They are totally supportive of each community’s vision for the future and have expressed their support for this strengthening of communities as being what will set Porirua apart from other regions in the future.
Council now gives minimal support to this concept and the call for “restraint of the Village Development Project” pg 10 LTCCP Draft. by the CEO Dr Blakeley is absolutely unacceptable and insulting.
The figures now produced in support of Village Strategies lack any form of consistent coherence viz.
1.Page 41: Critical Issues for the Next Ten Years: Community (Village) Planning and Development - "Funding was provided for the community planning process in 2004 and $1M per annum has been budgeted for from 2006 to 2009 to be available primarily for capital work in communities."
It was $1m every year for 3 years not $1m for 3 years.
2. Replacement page 51: Community (Village) Development: $2.770M etc. spread over 10 years, CEO comment pg 10.
It was to have been $3m over 3years .
3. Page 94: Economy and Community: Community (Village) Development - $2.770M etc. spread over 3 years.
At variance with previous statements .
4. Project Descriptions - Page 10 - Community (Village) Development (Budget EC4.3) - Same as Page 94 in draft LTCCP document as to $ amounts. Comment at variation.
We have been continually supplied with conflicting information which serves to confuse and disillusion communities - and we can only assume that Council itself does not know what it is doing.
We are absolutely appalled at Council decision making in regard to the Village Strategy, at their duplicitous change of mind regarding funding and their obvious lip service support for village community projects.
We suggest Council re-think their commitment to this strategy and at the minimum re-instate funding as originally agreed.
4.Infrastructural Services & Asset Management
a)Stormwater and sewage
As the Dominion-Post said in a recent editorial: “It’s the little things – the pot-holed road, the fenced-off path, the unpaved walkway…the darkened street light – that determine the quality of existence.” These are indeed aspects of community living that matter.
We are pleased with the proposed Catchment Studies to investigate stormwater issues. It is hugely important to analyse comprehensively the real state of our underground pipes. While we it is eminently feasible that underground pipes in newer areas, such as Whitby and the State housing subdivisions of the last 50 years, might be perfectly adequate for many years to come, we would question whether that is really the case for the older parts of Porirua, including Plimmerton. Our limited knowledge suggests that we have a haphazard mish-mash of old pipes which don’t work together well; which don’t meet modern standards and which hinder new construction owing to their inadequacies. We are not saying they are a major problem for the city, or not yet, but we would need a lot of persuading that they are all going to be perfectly satisfactory for a further 20 years or more, as the Draft Plan blithely assumes (except for stormwater upgrades necessary now in Takapuwahia and Karehana Bay).
We understand that there is a significant infiltration of sewage into stormwater networks and common discharge into gullies. There are reoccurring flooding incidents in several parts of the city which are indicative of additional stormwater capacity needs. We know too that older pipes are asbestos, with safety concerns for renewal. Just how prevalent these and other problems are will be revealed by the Catchment Studies.
What if those studies show urgent replacement needs – how could they be funded? Yes, the Draft Plan does provide a few million dollars over the full 10-year period for repairs, renewals and upgrades of all water supply, wastewater and stormwater networks. But the annual average for all three water services is markedly less than $1 million, for assets with a (depreciated) value of well over $200 million.
Allowing less than 0.5% p.a. for improvements to ageing assets would seem to be woefully inadequate and high risk.
We note too that on p 159 of the Draft Plan pipeline cost increases are forecast to be significantly higher than general cost increases – a factor which adds to our concern.
We also have grave concerns about the cancelled provision for additional capacity at the wastewater treatment plant and the city’s pump stations to reduce sewer overflow as we view sewage capacity as of fundamental importance
We request more detailed reassurance that the proposed budgetary provisions for infrastructural asset management, including the issue of depreciation discussed above, are fully reasonable.
b)Waste Management Plan
We recognise that the closure of the Spicer Landfill in a few years is a critical issue for Porirua and we acknowledge the Council’s endeavours to manage it.
In particular we acknowledge:
- the continuing transfer station for domestic consumers
- the diversion of green waste from the landfill
- reducing the volume of biosolids
- expanding Trash Palace (if feasible)
- budgeting over the next 10 years for the restoration of the closed landfill site.
We note it is ironic that Council is already starting to fund the latter programme - $22 million over the next 10 years - while they will not start funding the much larger cost of renewing our pipeline networks. Even though these may not be needed as soon, they will cost at least ten times as much and so it seems to us reserves should be accumulated for that programme too.
While we support the Waste Management Plan, we cannot accept realistically Council’s goal of “Zero waste by 2015”. Waste minimisation is obviously highly desirable – and is national policy – but an unrealistic “zero waste” slogan lessens the credibility of the whole plan.
We request Council re-think this policy and provide a more realistic, credible and achievable plan.
5. Financial Prudence & Responsibility
We are very concerned at the ongoing operating deficits, principally arising from Council’s decision not to fund depreciation on infrastructural assets ( ref Auditor’s Report on p14 of the Draft Plan). Although we are not trained accountants or auditors (but do understand the difference between an operating deficit and a cash deficit – ref p 173 of the Draft Plan ), it disturbs us deeply that Council seems to be skating on thin ice in terms of its statutory obligations (s 100 et seq of the Local Government Act). We have studied the sections in the Draft Plan, and the relevant documents on the website of the Auditor General, and urge Council now to re-examine these matters more thoroughly.
Our view is that it could well be deemed imprudent, as well as improvident, for Council to forecast continuing operating deficits for as long as can be foreseen. We also consider it inequitable (including inter-generationally) for Council not to fund depreciation. The blithe conclusion that this will lead to an exceptional rates increase in 19 years time of an estimated 9% just for sewer pipe replacements (and another exceptional 6% in 24 years just for stormwater pipes) in addition to all other increases is alarming – and seems imprudent. It is not “premature to start accumulating reserves for this asset replacement” (p 11 of the Draft Plan).
While this relatively arcane “technical” matter might not attract as much public attention as, say, the proposed Sports Centre, it seems to us extremely important and we ask that, after further consideration and review, Council reports in more detail to the public on it.
Our city’s financial situation would of course be substantially worsened by the proposed borrowing of $17.5m for a new Sports Centre. Last year CFO Keith Miller warned Council that “ an increase in city debt of $15m would move it to top of the industry”. Notwithstanding the claim on p 177 of the Draft Plan that – at $30 million - “ Council’s debt levels will remain well within the limits of its liability management policy”, in our opinion it would be quite imprudent to increase borrowings so greatly at this stage (and for this purpose). Mr. Miller has already advised that the building of the Centre would severely impact on any other development for Porirua over the next 10 years
The Draft Plan acknowledges there are major opportunity costs to Council in dedicating a large portion of budget to the proposed Sports Centre.
We consider that it is too high a price to pay that an important number of other projects and programmes will be severely constrained or simply abandoned as a result of this decision.
In particular we express our serious misgivings at the rejection of these items from the budget:
- provision for additional capacity at the wastewater treatment plant and/or the City’s pump stations to reduce sewer overflow;
- strategic land purchase for city reserves and green space and economic opportunities;
- biodiversity programmes;
- wetlands and foreshore development, including erosion control;
- construction of new reservoirs;
- delay of drainage improvement on rural roads;
- reduced provision for renewal of public toilets and
- limitation of the community developments project to just $3m over the whole 10 years for all nine villages (ie to an average annual investment of just $33,000 in capital works for each village).
We strongly submit these projects and programmes are more important than building a large new Sports Centre triple the size of the current Recreation Centre.
6. Local Body Decision making.
There is ongoing concern in our wider community about Council processes and their seeming cumbersome ineffectiveness.
This leads to ongoing frustration from members of the community and largely manifests itself in cynicism and real reluctance to participate, particularly in submission processes.
People want to be involved in their communities where they can see something happening in return for their efforts and energy. They actually want to see their community and region forge ahead.
Council consultation is ultimately expensive and complex viz the 275 page Long term Council Community Plan and all the draft papers which pre-ceded it. Whilst no-one doubts the work which went into its formulation, no-one has any sense that we will achieve anything substantive in terms of genuine consultation or decision making as a result of this current system.
Indeed many in our community, and indeed committee, become confused as to what it is that is actually happening as there appears to be a regular shifting sand. In addition there is a strong sense that decisions have already been taken so what is the point of spending many, many hours responding in this way. Consultation in its current form has lost credibility with this community.
As members of the PRA we are constantly being asked if we are any further forward yet with the Village Planning. Our own credibility as a very committed organization is being thrown into disrepute as a result of antiquated decision making processes where the outcomes in terms of funding are constantly uncertain
We too are accountable to our community. To have spent 25 hours of time for example, formulating a submission on just ONE part of the LTCCP which we have already been told is going to go ahead anyway, is an exercise in futility and despair.
We doubt Councillors have any realization of just what a huge amount of voluntary time this cumbersome process involves and what a negative impact this has on community members. It simply cannot continue.
We suggest that change in Council Community partnership and processes, how decisions are made and consequentially HOW people are consulted should form the core of the change process to possibly be undertaken by a Governance Working Group starting from 2006.
To start, this should involve a survey on representation BEFORE the current Council decision on representation goes out to consultation. This is not just about WHO represents us but more importantly HOW we as funders and participants in the process are involved in that representation. It must change.
7. Regional Growth and Cooperation and possible future amalgamation with the Wellington region.
This community request that the debate on amalgamation with the Wellington Region in the longer term be opened for exploration. Given the low projected population growth there is a growing sense that we cannot continue to afford the costs of infrastructure, high direct operating expenses and duplication of resources across the region in the long term .
There is a strong perceived need for Local Body reform with interest in a move to a regional focus.
We request that the debate on Local Body reform and amalgamation be opened.
8. Renewal of Public Toilets
Our community is concerned that to plan for the renewal of 1 public toilet a year for 30 years is quite inadequate. We would like re-consideration to be given to this proposal given the particular poor state of the public toilets in our area. These facilities, which get very heavy usage throughout the summer, do not reflect well to the very visitors to our region that we hope to encourage. We appreciate that several other toilets in our region will also not survive without being declared a health hazard for the next 30 years.
We include AGAIN part of the PRA submission to the DAP 2005/06
(5) ASSESSMENT of WATER & SANITARY SERVICES – (DAP vol. 2 – p.39)
This assessment of public toilet facilities is needed and long overdue. The condition rating gives 73% being “average” with 34% being 21-50 years old. The Plimmerton facilities would certainly fit into these two quoted categories. It is interesting that the Medical Officer of Health has made no comment on toilet facilities (p.43) because the Council at this stage has not completed a management plan. We believe the time is imminent for a programme to start a major overhaul of public toilets especially with our beach ones at Plimmerton and Karehana Bay . The existing facilities are probably up to half a century old, very cold and uninviting, needing a complete overhaul. We are often embarrassed by our visitor comments particularly during the hazy days of summer. Council should welcome ideas and help from our local community to participate in a major upgrade
The reply – Topic – Public toilets
“The Council is currently (July 2004) preparing an asset management plan for public toilets. This process will involve consulting the public on the matters of condition, cleaning, standard, amenity, numbers and location before completing the management plan. The completed plan will contain the strategy and action plan for maintenance, cleaning, refurbishment, new installation and removal.”
We comment:
Perhaps it still the intention of the Council to modernise our public toilets but we have not seen the asset management yet. We know a little bit about the northern suburbs facilities – two in Mana and three in Plimmerton. The one at the north end of Mana bridge is heavily used. It is the last toilet stop on SH1 before Wellington – very useful with a left turn from the highway. The toilet block is like an air raid shelter - 50 years old – concrete floor unsealed – no drainage to help internal cleaning. The cleaner sweeps /hoses rubbish out, but bits lie at entrance. There are no lights for night time travellers. Facilities needed – power supply for hand driers – hot water supply – toilet for disabled – auto flushing. All this to put Porirua “on the map”.
The above comments apply to Ngatitoa Domain and the beach facilities at Karehana Bay , Plimmerton pavilion and Steyne rail crossing. They are all nearly 50 years old – concrete block buildings – in winter limited use but summer crowds bring in a messy condition. Unsealed concrete floors allow ingrained uric acid and bacteria to build up because of the lack of scrubbing with soap and hot water. A solar heated shower would not go amiss.
We are appalled that at a recent Council meeting Crs Murrell and Green (03 April 2006) moved the following resolution –
“That the Renewal of Toilets project be amended by deleting the expenditure from years 2007/08, 2013/14, 2014/15, and 2015/16 to reduce the budget by $1 million – carried.”
May we remind councillors about our public toilets from the PCC own figures.-
Condition rating: excellent 8% - Good 15% - Average 73% - Poor 4%
Toilet age: less than 10 years 23% - 11 to 20 43% - 21-50 years 34%
We strongly request that the toilet renewal programme be revisited with a focus on replacement over a maximum 10 year period.
9. Re-Location of the Plimmerton Library
There has been on-going concern about the flooding in and around the Plimmerton Library in School Road such that there are current discussions about its temporary removal to another site. We suggest that Council consider leasing empty property in the Post Office Block at Mana or indeed renegotiate the underutilized space at the Community Policing Station with the Police so that this sub-branch facility can be shared with the wider community. Sadly there is no provision in the Long Term Plan for this need to be addressed yet it is becoming urgent. A Library facility in a location near the shopping area would be an enhancement for many as well as reduce the already difficult parking outside the Library in Porirua.
We suggest that Council include a budget for the consideration of this facility in the 10 year plan if not sooner.
10. Ara Haraheke walkway
This association would like to offer continued support for this project which has required a lot of detailed planning but will be a real asset to all sectors of not only our own community but an attraction for visitors as well. However we would like to propose a suggestion for consideration:
Re:
WALKWAYS and CYCLEWAYS STRATEGY - LTCCP p. 52
ARA HARAKEKE PATHWAY - from Pukerua Bay to Paremata Bridge –
The PRA understands there are two links needed to complete this section.
The Stage 5 link proposed for 2006 is from the Plimmerton Domain bridge across the Taupo stream southwards to the Steyne Ave rail crossing.
The Stage 6 link proposed for 2007/08 is from the Steyne Ave rail crossing to follow the rail line south to the Pascoe Ave rail crossing.
The PRA fully supports the completion of these two links. The only concern we have is about the actual route of the pathway to complete the Stage 5 link. In our opinion there is a feasible alternative to the current proposal. This is to construct the pathway to follow the Taupo stream from the Domain bridge to the “Carhoots” area. This proposal needs components of retaining wall, backfilling, and two sections of boardwalk over the stream, which we believe will be exceptionally expensive
The PRA suggestion is to expedite the consultations between the GWRC, ONTRACK, and PCC the complete the underpass at the north end of Plimmerton station, or construct a controlled pedestrian crossing over the southbound rail line to the platform. In our opinion this would solve two major problems in Plimmerton. Access to the Domain car park for a Park n’ Ride facility, and at the same time allow the Ara Harakeke to proceed from the Domain – over or under the rail – and down Steyne Ave to the road/rail crossing. We believe the money saved from one would largely facilitate the other .
11 . Hockey Turf
We would like to add our support for this facility as many families have had to travel to Newtown for years and it will enhance the range of codes available in the area to have such a turf.
12. Exclusion of funding for Strategic Land Purchase for City Reserves and green space and economic opportunities.
We view as short-sighted the exclusion of funding for this purpose. With the imminent sale of Porirua Hospital Land , Council will have no means apart from extra unacceptable further borrowings, to participate in this sale for the long term future of the City. To so limit our options by tying up all funding in 1 financially irresponsible project is to lose sight of possible future land acquisition opportunities which if lost will not be re-captured.
We expect Council to review and restore funding for strategic land purchases over the next 10 years so that important opportunities are not lost through lack of planning and financial foresight.
13. Economic Development Funding
This community is unsure how the monies contributed to PWB have been utilized for the benefit of our region. There may indeed be benefits which are not immediately visible. There is however support from this community for funding for Business Porirua which over time has developed an active profile in the area of economic development.
We note that on 21 February 2006 Positively Wellington Business made a formal request to Council to increase its funding by 10% (from $180,000.00 to $201,400.00 this financial year.) We note also that Council has loaded an extra $120,000.00 into the Draft LTCCP to “support the implementation of the City’s Economic Development Strategy” over the next 10 years. This is supported.
However should PWB seek similar increases every year there will be scant extra available over the next 10 years for any other funding stream which supports economic development.
We request that Council carefully monitor both the annual expenditure of PWB and most importantly the Return on Investment to this City of that agency and support Business Porirua where the return as our economic development agency is more visible.
14. SUMMARY:
BALANCE is at the heart of our submission.
That approval for such a single, costly, ambitious proposal as the Sports and Events Centre should deny and jeopardise so many other facets of our Community development is reprehensible. It is hard to adequately convey our disillusionment and dismay at the size of this project.
No one proposal should be allowed to monopolise planning and financial commitment (without so much as even a business plan) at the expense of everything else and at the same time put this community at financial risk and regressive development for a minimum of 10 years.
We ask Council to seriously consider the implications to our whole Community of proceeding with this $17.5m. project.
Contact Details:
Helen Chipper, Pip Piper, Claire Toynbee, Tim Sheppard, George McNeillage and Meryl Harwood
On Behalf of and for the PRA,c/o 49 Moana Road Plimmerton Tel 04 2339495
Members of the PRA would like to speak to our submission.
The Council decided two things regarding the stage: (1) it would be sited under the Canopies and (b) the chief executive would be responsible for its exact placement.
Now the Porirua Canopy Connecition have conducted a survey of the their members. 20% responded (how many exactly I wonder). Basically, they all hate the idea of a stage and 4 business owners say it will drive business away from the area.
Porirua Canopy Connection AGM is 3 October 2006.
r
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
----- Original Message ----- From: John
Watson To: Roger
Blakeley - PCC Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:35 PM Subject: Apparent
errors in draft LTCCP 2006-2016
Roger, CEO's Introduction page 10 of draft LTCCP: "restraint of the
Village Development Project to $3M over the life of the draft Plan". Page
41: Critical Issues for the Next Ten Years: Community (Village) Planning
and Development - "Funding was provided for the community planning process
in 2004 and $1M per annum has been budgeted for from 2006 to 2009 to be available
primarily for capital work in communities." Replacement page 51: Community
(Village) Development: $2.770M etc. spread over 10 years, as per your
comment page 10. Page 94: Economy and Community: Community
(Village) Development - $2.770M etc. to be spread over 3 years. Project
Descriptions, a separate document - Page 10 - Community (Village) Development
(Budget EC4.3) - Same as Page 94 in draft LTCCP document as to $ amounts, but
comment at variation. Not only are we being supplied with conflicting
information, but there's far too much of it which can only confuse everybody
- including it seems the Council itself. Regards - John W
When I said to an officer that we have made little or no progress on the reform of budget mechanisms the reply was instructive. First, there was the claim that only myself and John Green were interested in that and hence there was no demand. Second, there have been unspecific discussions and a decision to look at this some time in the future.
Why do I think progress is slow? Because I can remember outlining what I thought was needed in the Paremata School Hall the first time I stood for the mayoralty. It was so many years ago I cannot remember the year. The question was asked: how would you get rates down, what would you do? I spoke after Jenny and if I might say so myself, my answer was comprehensive and practical. Another time when I set out the same programme was after my election back to the Porirua Council. I had been on the regional council for a spell. All the newly elected councillors were all taken to the 6th floor and asked were our aspirations. I set out my aspirations for the reform of budget processes.
It is against that background that I say progress is slow. What is more the same problems with the process appear year-after-year. I will not again list the lack of credibility etc that the process produces. The public's frustration is unnecessary. It is actually possible to communicate and generate understanding, and to take peoples' views into account. This is not an impossible ask.
The demand here is for the officers to have the insight into the situation.
To see that the process is rotten and to come up with creative ideas about
reform. To think from first principles. The be creative and to educate us all.
To work from the notion that only Shaw and Green are worried, and hence we
can relax is appalling. We need drive and intellectual energy.Let us find a
better way to do things.
r
Monday, 12-Jun-2006
Jim
I appreciate that you and a few others would have seen the information I presented at your mtg on Wednesday however I was expecting a turnout of people who would not be familiar with the LTCCP process nor the details of the Sports and Events Centre proposal. My logic in presenting as I did was to place a context around the meeting and why PCC is consulting at this time with the community once again. The turnout as it happened was much lighter than I had expected and made up of a number of familiar faces.
I was concerned at the manner in which Trevor seemed to be suggesting the financial information in the plan was shonky. I fully understand people in the community not liking a range of the information presented and some of its implications, I'm not too fussed on some of them myself, however it is totally inappropriate in my view to question the integrity of the officers in presenting factual information via the LTCCP to the community.
As I commented at the meeting the plan has received an unqualified audit opinion and I reiterate, we may not like some of the implications, especially future rates implications for example, and it is clearly our individual prerogative to have a difference of opinion but I get concerned when the integrity of PCC's staff is being questioned in the manner I understood on Wednesday.
Trevor nevertheless has raised concerns based on his understanding of the financial information presented which were not resolved at the meeting. I have suggested to CEO Roger Blakeley that he ask Keith to phone Trevor and talk through these concerns. In his capacity as a member of the WRA committee I would expect Trevor to report back to you on the concerns he raised in public at the meeting and the outcome of his discussions them with Keith about these concerns. I am sure I speak for the four of us who attended the meeting when I say that we appreciated the opportunity to talk through issues associated with the future direction of PCC as indicated in the draft LTCCP with the WRA and Whitby community. Cheers John. -----Original Message-----
ROBERT COMMENTS
The frustration the public feels with the Council is considerable. The system
we operate has no credibility. It is complicated, generates confusions, and
erodes trust. At the end of the day you have to trust the elected people to
make the best of what the officers have put in front of them. Year in and year
out we persist with this system. We need to reform our methods of decision-making
and a part of this is the reform of the methods of consultation. Some work
has been promised on this by the officers, although why we should all have
to wait until the officers are ready is beyond me.
r
Sunday, June 11, 2006
PS
I am asked how many people were at the Whitby meeting: 19 people from Whitby, 4 councillors, 2 council officers. This is a good turn-out for this sort of event. I can remember one meeting there with just 12 people from Whitby, another with 4 members of the public which was Pukerua Bay. The first time the Council did its annual plan under the new Act there were a total 19 submissions (from memory).
PPS
Several people have now contacted me to point out that there is conflicting
information on different pages of the draft LTCCP. That is hardly news to me,
given the overall haste and perfunctory scrutiny given by the councillors.
r
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Tena Koutou, Maraeroa Marae, Waitangirua also have a meeting on this evening.
One of the Agenda items will be Maraeroa Marae's submission to the LTCCP which
we have already had much discussion on. Discussion has centered on development
and upgrading in and around Waitangirua and on wider issues such as City Development
and the Porirua Sports and Events Centre which has been very positive. I will
endeavour to get to the Cook Island Hall to support and listen to discussion,
however that will depend on how long our meeting will take. If I don't make
it, hope all goes well.
Naureen Palmer (Porirua City Councillor)
Media release from Greater Wellington Regional Council
8 June, 2006