Home    Contact

The Porirua Wellington Web Blog - March 2006

Political debate is a sign of a healthy community. This blog is a place for opinions and debate about Porirua City, its Council, and the Wellington region.

For current material please visit The Porirua Wellington Web Blog - Current Material

Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw

Stage just about set

The wandering stage is to be placed under the canopies. This is the recommendation of the Committee, and it may well be the decision of the full Council. The chief executive will implement that decision in consultation with others.
r
Thursday, March 30, 2006

PCC Strategy, Finance & Regulatory Committee

Report to Meeting on 30 March 2006 – Proposed Western Corridor Plan Follow Up

Admittedly, I'm rather removed from what's been going on lately at government and local government level and I could be quite wrong. However, I'm rather concerned about where the emphasis is put in this report and fear that, by approaching the Government along the lines proposed, the region could be running the risk of consigning yet another report on Wellington 's Western Corridor to the rubbish bin. My fear is that the region would be undermining the main messages in the Hearings Subcommittee's report, would be inviting the Government to seek yet more reports and would be providing some officials with excuses for letting the whole issue get bogged down again.

The major messages in the Hearings Subcommittee's report that make it so good are:

•  People want “action, not more reports” (para 1.34)

•  Because of previous undertakings, a coastal upgrade would be seen as “a major breach of faith by Transit and contrary to the spirit and intent of the order of the Environment Court in decision W52/2001” (para 4.48 etc);

•  There is no acceptable alternative to Transmission Gully (para 4.73 etc);

•  The existing route should revert to local and scenic use;

•  TGM can be done without tolls (para 4.77);

•  It can be completed within 10 years; and

•  Funding considerations shouldn't be allowed to delay it (para 1.18).

The Subcommittee's position is summarised in para 4.74. What they seem to be saying is that the Government was prepared to provide a Crown funding package – subject to regional agreement - based on a belief that a coastal expressway would be acceptable. Now that that belief has been shown to be erroneous, “the Region should respond by suggesting a way forward to which, in return, the Government could respond by releasing the funding package to enable an amended WCP to proceed. The Subcommittee, through this Report, is attempting to assist the Government and the Region in that process” .

I didn't read that paragraph as an invitation to go off on tangents and get bogged down in discussions on tolling regimes, etc. If you read the earlier Cabinet papers, the original funding (based on building a coastal expressway) was not complicated by such considerations – the additional money was simply to come from Crown funding (and the only real concern mentioned was the comparative amount given to Auckland).

I see no reason why the initial approach to Government now shouldn't be on the same basis. In other words, I believe that the region simply needs to ask the Government for a commitment to provide sufficient Crown funding to enable the plan to be implemented. It should be emphasising the Subcommittee's messages outlined above and refer in particular to an obligation (at least a moral one) to see Transmission Gully built. Essentially, the aim should be to persuade the Government to instruct its officials and agencies to get on and ensure that the corridor plan is implemented and TGM is built within 10 years.

Obviously the region should be prepared for a negative response and the need for other funding mechanisms to be considered. However, I think any detailed discussion of those aspects (perhaps with the exception of rules relating to benefit/cost ratios) with Ministers should be avoided if possible at the initial stages. In particular, I would be concerned if PCC was seen to be advocating tolls on TGM. There is no doubt that Porirua communities would be better off with no tolls on TGM. That now seems to be a real possibility and the PCC should do nothing to lessen that prospect.

My concerns could probably be addressed by adding to or altering the recommendations along the following lines:

Add new subparagraph 1a.

Note the Hearing Subcommittee's messages that submitters want “action, not more reports” and would see any coastal route upgrade as “a major breach of faith by Transit and contrary to the spirit and intent of the order of the Environment Court in decision W52/2001” .

Replace subparagraph 4 with

Agree to approach the Government to seek the provision of sufficient Crown funding and, if necessary, the employment of other funding mechanisms, to enable the proposed Western Corridor Plan to be implemented.

I don't see any need to spell out potential funding mechanisms at this stage, but if that is felt necessary for reasons which I don't appreciate, then I suggest that is included in another subparagraph noting those potential mechanisms (but without inclusion of tolls).

Russell Morrison
29 March 2006

BUSINESS STATISTICS FROM BERL(RATEPAYER FUNDED) - Porirua City

New secretary - Pauatahanui

Ken Rae is now the Secretary of the Guardians of the Pauatahanui Inlet group, phone 233 9614. John Wells is still the chair. Report everything to do with the Inlet to Ken, please.

Delegations at work - community garden proposal

We need to make clear how things work. Who does what, and who decides what. The Delegations Register (see below) is a big part of the exercise.In the meantime consider this example.

"Keep Porirua Beautiful", in the form of Dennis Ormsby and John Poppleston, came forward with a plan to develop a small community garden.It is a great idea and brings together the Community Probation Service workers, Bunnings Warehouse, and others. They asked me as chairperson of the City Services Committee to have the committee consider the matter and decide whether to fund it or not. My decision was that the matter should be dealt with by the chief executive. It does not need to come to a Council committee. We already know we support community gardens. There is no policy issue. The only person who has control of money is the chief executive. We have voted a sum of money for gardens in the current Annual Plan. If the chief executive can from this sum support the project, I am sure he will. If not, next year perhaps. End of story.
r
Sunday March 26, 2006

POSTSCRIPT

This does not mean the public and the councillors do not have an absolute right to know about the proposal and the officers' decisions. Hence, the accountability part of the Delegations Register. Fact is, under current budget arrangements the councillors have very little idea where the money goes.

POST POST SCRIPT

I am asked what the garden will be like. It will produce food, plants, and firewood for local food banks.here will be a concreted wet weather area on one side. Bunnings will use the area for educational purposes. Bunnings staff will provide expertise for the project.

Tertiary education - it is your money they are after

Tertiary education is big business in New Zealand. Taxpayers' pay for institutions throughout the country. So why is it that ratepayers are also paying for to help these institutions? I refer to Positively Wellington Business and their "Tertiary Education Cluster" This is of course an innovation of the last decade. It is based on the tenuous argument that everyone in the community benefits if an education provider increases their student numbers. That may be so, but it does not of itself constitute a reason why property taxes should be used to help tertiary education businesses. Or any other business for that matter. Can you as a Porirua City ratepayer say how much money you are paying in subsidy to Victoria University, The Open Polytechnic, etc? There is no transparency and if there was those who pay, the ratepayers, would revolt. What is more, all the businesses who do not get ratepayer subsidy would also revolt. Indeed, if you think about it is even worse, for some businesses pay rates to subsidise other businesses. We are a very confused country.
r
Sunday, March 26, 2006

POSTCRIPT

I read that our rates are being used to help a group of manufacturing companies make an application for taxpayer money through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. Nine people are involved in a committee that you pay for and they include consultants (including one old friend of mine). Now it so happens that I have just three weeks ago done such an application. I did it myself, with my friends help, and a personal cost to us all, Why are the ratepayers helping the large companies and not me? Do the ratepayers even know they are doing this?
r
Sunday, March 26, 2006

POST POST SCRIPT

I am asked how we might fix this. Two ways: toughen up the budgets of the Council; put in contracts a cascading clause that says that should the business make money, the ratepayers investment be considered a loan and paid back.

Marine education centre

An exceptionally nice card came to me to acknowledge Porirua City Council's support to the regional marine education centre. Perhaps there are some perks to being a chairperson after all.
r
Sunday, March 26, 2006

DELEGATIONS -the proper way

The Council must delegate more to officers. This thought terrifies the community! Truth is the councillors will never be able to focus on the big-picture stuff until they get out of the petty and stupid arena. We sit in meetings and decide how to spend $5,000 when the officers clear enormous sums without our being aware of it. Councillors debate the painting of a kitchen in a hall,and do not consider the leaking sewer that passes the hall.

There is now a paper from the officers on delegations., Unfortunately, it does not in its recommendations get to grips with the core policy issues. Instead it is about specific delegations (and it gives them without any accountability mechanism). We do need the list of new delegations and what is suggested is fine, but we need policy first. Hence, I am thinking of an amendment to add to the current motion:

That the Porirua City Council:
a) Keeps publicly available a Delegations Register
b) That the Register shows for each delegation:
   Who made the delegation
   Who holds the delegation
   The delegation
   Conditions that apply to the delegation
   Accountability

The first problem we have is to find the delegations that have been made in the past. (Put your hand up if you can cite the delegations in the tree policy? Or the loans policy? Or litter?). The second problem is to make them more explicit and in the process place as much as is possible with the chief executive. But, the third problem - and the thing that makes everything else possible - is that we must define the accountability mechanism (sometimes it will just be a note in the Annual Report, but sometimes it is an regular list of delegation use provided to councillors, etc).
r
Sunday, March 26, 2006

Priorities and responsibility

I read that the Council has a "synthetic hockey turf" as a strategic priority ($1.6 million, but not all ratepayer money). How about the fact that the sewer system in Cannons Creek is failing and that shit goes onto the street from the system covers and into the streams (that is what the council officers say, but in less crude language). In the meantime, a contract for $100,000 per year is now let to have someone inspect the sewer system.Fat, paper, and tree roots block the pipes. I have just given you one example of vital infrastructural work.
r
Sunday, March 26, 2006

Great birthday at Pukerua Bay

The 80th birthday celebration of the Pukerua Bay Residents' Association went very well. Nice to meet so many friends from years ago, and to acknowledge all those who have worked so hard for the Bay over the years. I used to live in Pukerua Bay, was a member of the association there for many years. A history book is being written and that is something to look forward to.
r
Saturday, March 25, 2006

Home for the wandering stage

I intend to move at the City Services Committee a motion that the wooden stage (cost $40,000) will be located next to the skateboard park ,adjacent to the recreation centre and library. If this motion is sufficiently supported, this will be its home for a few years until the new recreation centre is built at which time, if anything remains of it, it will be shifted. Of course no site is perfect!
r
Friday, March 24, 2006

How we are going to develop the District Plan

ROBERT COMMENTS

The model being developed for the modification of the District Plan is now somewhat better defined, in my mind at least. How we do proceed is of course subject to decisions of the Council, but as yet no one seems to have a better idea than what I propose here.

What I would like to see happen is:

1 An annual allocation in the Annual Plan for ALL District Plan amendments/work. Hence the sum of money for the work would be fixed and it would be in bulk. That is, it would not be a a list of smaller projects and a general allocation for other things as at present. This would establish some budget flexibility that would be very sensible. It will also help the Council to see the District Plan work as a whole in the budget decision-making process.

2 A programme of amendments proposed for action in a given year could be considered by the City Services Committee each year as soon as the Annual Plan is in place. The community could have input into this programme in the usual way. Once the programme was signed off by the Council it is what would be done, and any new or different ideas would be listed for consideration in the next annual round.

What is new in this is that all DP work is being at the governance level brought into one framework. The idea is to establish a rhythm for the decision making. This means we will develop our District Plan incrementally. The review required by law in 2009 may well be quite a minor event if we work in this way. Below is some communication about the District Plan.

The officers in the Annual Plan process will need to have some idea of what is likely to be required in order to recommend a budget level that is realistic. In practice I do not expect this to create a difficulty. They have already managed to do that for the next decade in the LTCCP.

If this system works well for a few years, we may be able to bring the annual programme list into the Annual Plan itself, and thus facilitate consultation and avoid overworking the officers, the councillors, and the community.

Below is an exchange of emails about the current situation.
r
Thursday, March 23, 2006

Hi Janita,

Yes I would like to be more precise in terms of dates, but unfortunately I can't be more specific than what I have provided to date. Our suburban zone review work is still on hold, awaiting the appointment of a replacement planner to our team (that planner will be leading out that programme). As indicated in my email I don't expect to have that replacement until early May (at earliest, subject to finding a suitable candidate). I won't be able to look at project timelines until then, given that we have no capacity in our team to currently lead out that work. Our Heritage Management Strategy project (which will lead to a district plan change next year) is still proceeding as planned. Could I suggest that you contact Peter Matich (Senior Policy Analyst- Environment) if you want a detailed update on timelines for ongoing consultation associated with that work. The Recreation Zone plan change investigation project is still in a draft discussion document development stage. As previously advised this was reported to council prior to Christmas (with the intent to put the document out to the public for feedback), but was referred back to committee for further discussion. This still has not occurred (copies of what council considered prior to Christmas can be viewed by accessing council's order papers on line). I should note that the reporting back of this work to Committee has not at this stage been scheduled, as it has been complicated by the issue of how the District Plan, in its current form, deals with network utilities - including their placement on council owned reserves (the vodaphone cell towers being the catalyst for this). Unfortunately this issue and how it should be resolved is still being worked through, and is affecting the development of a revised discussion document for the proposed recreation zone plan change. I have no timeline for this work at present, although we will be looking at this in the coming month. Consequently I can only give a rough guide on timelines for progressing the recreation zone work. The rural review project, as stated, has commenced in part with the heritage project (which has advanced work on ecological site management, management of historic places and sites (buildings, archaeological sites, and management of cultural sites (particularly sites of significance to Ngati toa)). Work is being scoped, as we speak, to undertake landscape work which will form a core component of this review, and also input into any suburban zone review (i.e. this involves review of existing landscape assessment work, gaps analysis, management approaches, related community evaluation and consultation, etc). Work is also being looked at a regional level on the issue of rural lifestyle developments, this may affect the timing of some of our work. At this time I can only advise that I hope to be able to advise you of more specific timelines for the rural review project, including preliminary community consultation on key management issues, sometime in the next 6 weeks or so. As stated in my previous email we will be advising all key stakeholders of more detailed timelines for key DP review work as they come to hand. This will include providing ample notice of intended preliminary consultation/ contact to discuss input into the development of discussion documents, feedback on such documents, and of course more formal feedback on any subsequent draft plan changes. If you wish to discuss any of the above further, can I ask that you contact me to arrange an appointment for us to meet. I hope the above goes some way to assisting you with your planning of commitments through this year.
Regards
Matt Matthew Trlin Manager Environmental Policy

Original Message----- From: Janita Stuart [ mailto:janita@clear.net.nz ] Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2006 7:35 p.m. To: Matt Trlin - PCC Subject: RE: District Plan process Hi Matt, I remember seeing this email and continued to ask because it had no dates that we could use as a meaningful deadline. So that is still what we want to know. Can you provide some dates that are a bit more specific?
Thanks
Janita

-----Original Message----- From: Matt Trlin - PCC [ mailto:MTRLIN@pcc.govt.nz ] Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:44 PM To: ' janita@clear.net.nz ' Cc: Sue Veart - PCC; Peter Matich - PCC; Janine Dunlop - PCC Subject: RE: District Plan process

Good afternoon Janita. Following on from our conversation this afternoon I have updated the email that I last sent to you in November 2005 (see below). The body of this email formed a response to an email that you had forwarded to Sue Veart, requesting information on Council's District plan change programme. As discussed I have tried to be specific on the various programmes and timelines that we have underway to 'review' parts of the current District Plan. If you have any questions about what is covered below, please do not hesitate to contact me directly in the first instance. District Plan review With regard to the review of the District Plan, you are probably aware that the Porirua City District Plan was made operative in November 1999. Under the Resource Management Act Council is currently required to initiate a full review of this District Plan starting in November 2009 (10 years after its operative date). Rolling review Currently, Council is running a 'rolling review' of the District Plan, leading into its requirement to run a full review in 2009. The rolling review programme is intended to review specific/targeted sections or issues within the current District Plan, as part of an ongoing rolling programme. Council has set what the current priorities are for that programme (although it is likely to review these priorities before June 2006). This targeted 'rolling review' approach has the benefit of:

* Targeting: Enabling the council and community to focus on specific issues within the District Plan, in a way that is simply not possible as part of a comprehensive full District Plan review exercise.

* Responsiveness: Enabling pressing issues to be dealt without having to wait until 2009 for a full District Plan review process to start;

* Affordability: Staggered affordability- where council is able to appropriately resource targeted reviews of parts of the district plan over time, largely working within existing programmes and budgets. Timetable Council's focus, and timetable, for this rolling review programme has been as follows: 2002

* Above Ground Line Network Utilities-

Plan Change 1- o This was notified in 2002. The Plan Change aimed at introducing new District Plan controls for regulating the introduction of new above ground lines into roads within the city. o Appeals on this plan change are close to being resolved. It is expected that this plan change will become operative before June 2006. o If you require further information about this programme please contact Matt Trlin, Manager Environmental Policy. 2003 * Plan Changes 2-5- Aotea Block- o This plan change suite introduced 4 plan changes aimed at facilitating the development of the Aotea Block in accordance with the comprehensive development design produced for this area. Plan Changes introduced a New Business Park Zone, along with new Suburban Zone overlays for - a commercial recreation area- a medium density development area- an Aotea Mixed use area and a new suburban shopping area. o

Plan Changes 2-5 were made operative between November 2004 and January 2005. These changes have been incorporated into the operative District Plan. 2005/06+ * Heritage- Cultural, Historic and Natural -

o Work commenced in May 2005 to prepare a heritage management strategy for Porirua City. o This strategy is focused on producing an overall management framework for promoting heritage protection and management within the city. This strategy is aimed at assisting Council in giving effect to its responsibilities under the RMA where heritage is now a matter of national importance. The strategy's development is intended to look at using non-regulatory methods (i.e. education, advice, assistance, acquisitions etc) which are supported, where appropriate, by appropriate regulatory provisions (i.e. District plan policies and rules) to promote fair and effective long term heritage management. o Consultation commenced midway through last year with the community on this project.

o The issue of heritage was actively discussed as a key theme within the city forum workshops held in May 2005. o A heritage management strategy programme was also launched in May 2005, leading to advertised community workshops in November 2005 which sought feedback on the preliminary work done to date to develop appropriate heritage identification and assessment methods for Porirua City. Community workshops covered Cultural, Historic (built, archaeological) and natural (i.e. ecological sites) heritage. o Further consultation is planned to outline a developed methodology for assessing and evaluating heritage items, and to seek nominations for items to be assessed for inclusion within a reviewed heritage register. o A draft Heritage Management Strategy document is scheduled to be developed and released for public submissions in late 2006 (dates to be confirmed); o Following Council adoption of a finalised heritage management strategy, District Plan Changes which are required to directly support / give effect to that strategy will be prepared. These changes will initially be prepared as draft documents and will be released for feedback in early/mid 2007. These drafts will have considered all the public feedback and comments obtained from the Heritage Management Strategy development process run in 2006. o Council has a list of stakeholders, including residents' associations, who are being kept informed of and involved in the heritage management strategy programme. These stakeholders will be kept informed of any scheduled consultation activity, discussion document releases or plan change preparations. o Residents' Association representatives attended a workshop in September 2005 where the heritage management strategy project, and future heritage plan change programme, were discussed. o If you require further information about this programme, or copies of any material which has been circulated or presented to date please contact Peter Matich, Snr Environmental Policy Analyst, or Janine Dunlop, Environmental Policy Analyst. * Recreation Zone- o The Porirua City District Plan currently does not contain a zone/s for public recreation and open space areas. o A draft discussion document outlining possible options for introducing a plan change to 'zone in' public reserves and open space areas was developed over the course of 2005.

o Council considered this discussion document in November 2005, and its suggestions for proposed zones, and related policies and rules, along with a programme for releasing this discussion document to the community for feedback and discussion. Council asked that this discussion document be referred back to committee early this year (2006).

o It is currently expected that a revised discussion document will be considered by Committee and released for community feedback in mid 2006. Community feedback will then be reported back to council and considered in shaping the development of a proposed plan change. o It is currently anticipated that a proposed plan change will be prepared for notification in late 2006/early 2007.

o Residents' Association representatives attended a workshop in September 2005 where this was discussed. o If you require further information about this programme please contact Matt Trlin, Manager Environmental Policy. * Suburban Zone review-

o Council has identified its desire to review the suburban zone section of the District Plan.

o A programme for this review has commenced in part.

o Informally, feedback from the community planning exercises run within the communities of Plimmerton and Titahi Bay have raised a number of issues that will need to be considered further in any review of the suburban zone section of the district plan. o Council's engagement with communities as part of its LTCCP is also likely to raise issues that are directly relevant to the District Plan. o Outcomes of any 'place based' urban design exercises may also influence any review (i.e. outcomes from any design initiatives run around the Titahi Bay Shops, could have a bearing on aspects of any review of the suburban zone within Titahi Bay). o Formally, the review of the suburban zone has commenced with the recreation zone programme. >80% of the city reserve and open space areas are contained within the city's existing suburban zone area. This exercise is seen as an important first stage to the Suburban Zone review process. Community consultation on this recreation zone programme is discussed above;

o The heritage programme is also part of the suburban zone review- particularly given that it will assist with defining and better understanding the heritage values that need to be considered as part of further developments within the suburban zone area (where most development activity occurs); o Council is also scheduled to commence a review of its code of land development in 2006. This will focus on reviewing technical issues associated with service design and construction for new developments (linked with Council's interest in (a) promoting more effective management standards for erosion and sedimentation control on development sites and (b) promoting management of stormwater and contaminant run off from new sites and developments into the Porirua Harbour);

o A programme aimed at investigating general residential issues, associated with development form, character and subdivision issues (i.e. bulk and location standards, density of development, design guides for development etc) is expected to be developed over 2006. Council is currently seeking to employ a replacement Snr Policy Planner who will run this process. An appointment to this role is not expected until around May 2006. Progress in advancing the Suburban review work is not expected until mid 2006; o Council has a list of stakeholders, including residents' associations, who will be kept informed of and involved in the suburban review programme as it develops. These groups will be specifically consulted prior to and following the development of any discussion documents.

* At present a tentative target date of late 2007 has been proposed for possible plan change notifications. o If you require further information about this programme please contact Matt Trlin, Manager Environmental Policy.

* Rural Zone review- o Council has identified its desire to review the rural zone section of the District Plan- largely in response to operative issues with the zone, a perceived need to respond to growing pressures for rural-residential development, and the need to effectively 'plan' how the rural section of the city evolves and develops with time. o A programme for this review has commenced in part. o Formally, the review of the rural zone has commenced in part with the start of the heritage programme. The issue of landscapes and ecological site management is a significant issue for development in the rural area. These issues are currently being explored in conjunction with the natural heritage section of the heritage review project. Community consultation on this programme is outlined above; o A programme aimed at specifically investigating rural issues i.e. the official rural review, is expected to be developed over 2006. o Council has a list of stakeholders, including residents' associations, who are being kept informed of this programme as it evolves. These groups will be specifically consulted prior to and following the development any discussion documents. o At present a tentative target date of 2007 has been proposed for possible plan change notifications. o If you require further information about this programme please contact either Peter Matich, Snr Environmental Policy Analyst, or Matt Trlin, Manager Environmental Policy.

Further information Hopefully the above information paints a reasonably detailed picture of where Council is at with its rolling review programme. All the scheduled programmes (with the exception of the proposed recreation zone discussion document) anticipate contact and consultation with key communities, groups etc prior to the development of any detailed discussion documents and draft plan changes. All the scheduled programmes anticipate community consultation to occur on draft plan change documents, prior to preparing any proposed plan changes for formal council consideration. If you have any general questions about the programme, or any specific projects, please feel free to call or book an appointment with me, or the suggested contacts mentioned above, at any time. Regards Matt Matthew Trlin Manager Environmental Policy PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL Address: Cobham Court PO Box 50-218 Porirua City Tel: 04 2371505 Fax: 04 2371445 -----

Original Message----- From: Janita Stuart [ mailto:janita@clear.net.nz ] Sent: Saturday, 26 November 2005 3:45 p.m. To: sveart@pcc.govt.nz Subject: District Plan process Hi Sue, We in the Plimmerton Residents Association would like to know if there is a time-line, process chart, etc for providing input into the District Plan. We know there are consultants already writing reports that will input into the Plan and want to know when we can do the same. We don't want to wait for the draft Plan to come out and then our wants be considered an after-thought. We want to be able to input into the Plan before the draft comes out so that the draft reflects our input. So when and how can we do that?

Thanks Janita Stuart

Advertisment sets out nicely what we are doing with the District Plan

SNR / ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST-PLANNER

If you wish to be part of a dynamic innovative environmental policy and planning team, at a city based in the Wellington Region, then this could be the opportunity for you.
You will be part of a team leading a diverse and exciting range of environmental and development policy and district plan work, including:
• District Plan changes- including rural, suburban and heritage plan change reviews;
• Long term urban and peri-urban development and growth management planning;
• Integrated catchment planning – involving the Porirua Harbour catchment basin;
• Environmental restoration and enhancement initiatives; and
• City and Suburban centre revitalisation.

Have we all forgotten decisions last year re the recreation centre?

In 2005, on 27 September, the Council decided on some specific provisions regarding the recreation centre.

This was necessary to advance the planning for inclusion of the project in the LTCCP process. The cost of the planning was $200,000.

This work is now largely done and the outcome will be reflected in the draft LTCCP. What is decided is that Council will consult on one project defined by a sum of money, a site, and a statement of purpose (ie the things to be in the facility). There is no alternative site, or project, costed or surveyed. Other sites were considered in earlier work. This project will appear in the LTCCP, or we have wasted $200,000.

We have yet to hear the results of the fundraising activity. The funding mechanism has yet to be decided, but is likely to include a substantial loan.

The current cost, which will go into the LTCCP for community comment, is $14.2 million.

The one option will appear in the LTCCP draft for community reaction.

The motion of the Council that sets this up reads (note the $40,000 figure is a top-up):

"That the Council:

1. Agree that the Proposed Porirua Sports and Events Centre be considered for inclusion in the Draft 2006 - 2016 Long Term Council Community Plan.

2. Agree that the project triggers the Significance Policy and therefore is consulted on in line with the Significance Policy.

3. Agree that the Porirua Community Appeal Trust has a significant role to play in community fundraising for the project and invite the Trustees of the Trust to reconvene with the objective of appointing new Trustees to initiate fundraising activities in support of the proposed Sports and Events Centre.

4. Agree that the additional work is needed prior to the Sports and Events Centre being included in the 2006 - 2016 Long Term Council Community Plan and that this work include: a) A full financial analysis of the facility with reviewed capital costs, the preparation of an accurate operation budget and the development of a business case and cost benefit analysis for the inclusion of the commercial gym and dance/aerobics studio in the proposed complex. b) An urban design impact assessment: to include a review of the site location, parking and traffic/pedestrian flow, and a peer review of the current design to occur after Stephenson and Turner have finalised the design. c) Authorise additional expenditure of up to $40,000 to be funded from working capital to complete the additional work required and outlined in the report."

r
Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Changes with the new committee system - a sea change

I set out below the motion that set up the new committee structure. You can see that it involves many concomitant changes. We need to:

1. Set up delegations
2. Tidy-up the Standing Orders
3. Set up a rolling programme to manage the District Plan
4. Further address the terms-of-reference for committees
5. Re-establish the Sister Cities business
6. Re-work the media policy and strategy
7. Rework the budgeting documents to make them shorter and more relevant
8. Redevelop the Annual Report by making it an important part of accountability regarding delegations
9. Re-establish the decision-making mechanisms on small sums of money (eg grants)
10. Re-establish the chief executive's contract to focus him on big things (as was done as an extra with the Transmission Gully project)
11. Re-establish the way we manage the chief executive to include all councillors equally, and cut out all the rubbish that the consultant has brought into the tortuous, self-defeating process (and to cut out the consultant)

We are going to make greater use of short-term sub-committees, which might be for specific community concerns or projects. We are also going to have to tidy-up the terms of reference for specific purpose committees such as those delegated the power to give out grants. Hence, not only is the Council in the middle of a major budget exercise, but we are undergoing governance reform at the same time. In the past, council structures have just evolved slowly without any overall design. Right now they are being consciously re-established. It is no wonder the chief executive looks a bit tired. People have been telling me I look tired also - this is the busy season. Incidentally, most of the senior staff in the Council have very significant central government experience, and they cope well when the pressure goes on; the councillors are trying to reduce the workload for the officers and help with priorities.
r
Tuesday, March 21, 2006

MOTION OF COUNCIL

That Council:
1. Agree in principle that, where possible, the power to approve operational
matters be delegated to the Chief Executive. Such recommended delegations
are to be the subject of a separate report.
2. Agree that the following principle applies to decisions as to the appropriate
Committee to deal with strategic policy and operational issues:
a. The Strategy and Finance Committee deals with major strategic policy
decisions of Council which by their nature have broad impacts across
the City (rather than impacts which are focused on a particular area such
as Infrastructure, or Leisure and Recreation, or Community or Culture
and the Arts), or where financial impacts of the decision will have a
strategic significance.
b. Once the strategic decision is made (for example, included within a
Long Term Council Community Plan), the implementation would be the
responsibility of the appropriate functional Committee.
3. Agree in principle that training be provided for all Councillors in meeting
skills as Chair or Member, and direct officers to report further on mechanisms.
4. Agree that greater use be made of the Councillors’ Bulletin to convey
information rather than papers on the agenda for information only, except
where that is necessary for a documentary record that certain issues have been
formally addressed at the Governance level.
5. That the current four Standing Committees be replaced as from 1 January
2006 by two “Committees of the Whole” plus a Hearings Appointments
Committee. The functions of each of the committees of the whole are to be:
• Strategy, Finance and Regulatory Committee (including the current
functions of the Strategy and Finance Committee and the Environmental
and Community Protection Committee).
• City Services Committee (including the current functions of the
Infrastructure Committee and the Recreation, Cultural and Community
Services Committee).
Other specialists committees will include Chief Executive’s Employment
Committee and Creative Communities Assessment Committee.
6. Direct the Chief Executive to report to the next meeting of the Strategy and
Finance Committee with revised Terms of Reference and delegations for the
Committee’s approval.

NICE THAT THE MAYOR PLANS TO DO SOME PLANNING AT PUKEURA BAY - first the councillors hear of it is this press release

MAYOR LAUNCHES COMMUNITY PLANNING AT 80 YEAR CELEBRATION

The Pukerua Bay Residents Association will celebrate 80 years this Saturday and Porirua City Mayor Jenny Brash will use the occasion to launch community planning in the suburb.

The PBRA has been active on a number of issues since its establishment on 26 March 1926, more recently in the fight to stop the proposed Coastal route decimating part of their community and threatening the local marine environment. Association member Pat Hanley says that process highlighted for the community the need to develop a plan to address other issues of importance to Pukerua Bay residents.

"We thought it was time to look at the whole of our community - not just the road and we approached Council for help.

People in Pukerua Bay have been very active on the Coastal Route issue and this has provided some energy to look at how the community overall wants to develop in the future "Other issues we are likely to consider might include extending the present rahui (fishing ban) to establish a permanent marine reserve; looking at beach front development; addressing the issue of paua poaching in the area and so on." He says the planning exercise will allow residents to identify what they value about their community and how to work collaboratively to achieve these goals. "Although Pukerua Bay is a relatively small community it has layers of networks and voluntary groups who are all active in their separate ways. There are those involved in Civil Defence, marine protection, community beautification through planting and artistic groups to name some. Bringing all those skills together in future planning will be very good for Pukerua Bay."

Mayor Brash will open the celebration at 2pm in the Pukerua Bay School Hall with displays of historical photographs, arts and craft exhibitions and community group promotions. "This launch is following on from community planning work Council did last year with the Plimmerton, Titahi Bay and Eastern Porirua communities which helped them to develop a vision for their areas along with an action plan. "People in Pukerua Bay are passionate about their community and I am sure they will get behind this initiative as they look back over 80 years and forward into the future," Mayor Brash says. The day will wrap up with a dance from 7.30pm to midnight and a concert of local talent. Dance music will be provided by local band Deaf Shepherd. A charge of $8 for adults and $4 for children will apply.

ROBERT COMMENTS

According to the press statement, the people of Pukerua Bay approached the Council. The Council has not actually heard their request. They mayor has taken a unilateral action to launch something called "community planning". What exactly is being launched I wonder. Why is it a mayoral initiative and not something to involve all councillors? How much is it going to cost ratepayers, does it have a timeframe, what are the goals?
r
Tuesday, March 21, 2006

FURTHER

As a very sensible councillor comments to me:

I don't believe it is our role to "launch" a planning exercise. Communities make their own decisions about whether to progress with their development plans and are supported by Council to do that. Projects that arise out of the process would normally come to the annual plan round. However, provided we go down the track proposed in the LTCCP, they should be able to apply for funds from the pool to fund projects. We would need to develop criteria for distribution to guide officers. At least that was how I envisaged it.

And Councillor Liz Kelly says:

I agree Robert. Ask the questions? Do we not exist? Liz

And Councillor Naureen Palmer says:

"My thoughts for what they are worth.

But I agree with Liz, the initiative seems big stuff for the residents of Pukerua Bay and at the least I would have thought Northern Ward Councillors would have been invited to the launch of this initiative.  The community in Pukerua Bay are, I believe, because my daughter bought a house and lived there for a short while, pretty active in their small community.  I was impressed by the level of community togetherness there is.  It is disappointing that the Mayor has not thought to include those Councillors who represent their constituents.

Naureen"

I am asked what are the BASIC COSTS OF COUNCIL

Creekfest a great success

Talofa lava, the Creekfest'06 day has finished but the spirit of the people continue.

An amazing day - Willie Taurima said more people turned up this year than 05. 18,000 throughout last year. The land was resting yesterday. It was peaceful. Fa'afetai tele lava (Big Thank You) to all the workers who came to gether throughout the planning and on the day and the day after. Creekfest is about ordinary folks from local communities engaging one another to making a difference. Everyone has a lens and a perspective to the day. We have received some valuable feedback already - thank you so much for your comments on the day, yesterday, today etc. We will bring your story into the Creekfest picture. Here's a sense from comments on the day: Tug’o war event between the schools and children making fruit kebabs captured the healthy family themes for the day. Wheelchair rugby was fun to look at; Kenny McFadden and Stephen Bachop can appreciate the challenge for those who participate in this sport. The person who inspired Creekfest to bring this in, John Fiu pulled a ligament in the early stage. Jump a rope was exciting for the children who participated. The health jingle and info. from the main stage was up from last year. innovative ways of health groups working together on the day; flags on the hill; off the wall murals have gone up a level of artistic expression - green theme was commented on the day. Please don't tagg! Having community folks sit with Mayor and MP etc at opening ceremony was special for some. Youth court, as we knew, attracted much presence from our young folks and parents. The seating arrangement was great. A number of our older folks used this space to watch our young folks perform in different elements of the sports and hip hop. Ground crews were magnificent in keeping a kind of 'order and stability.' NO POLICE PRESENCE ON THE DAY. There were signals leading up to Creekfest, even a few hours before the event, that something may take place. We were prepared to cancel the event hours before the event. The dignity of the people of Cannons Creek and Waitangirua is far bigger than Creekfest. We are real about these issues. Thank our people who have the ability to talk with our young people stressed out – Creekfest brings unlikely groups together for a few hours. A true community forum! Tagata Pasefika commented that there is a strong community feel to Creekfest. Get a sense that people are not hurried; they can sit down and talk, walk about, not rushed to buy food, take their time to check out the activities, enjoy the break with music…that must be healthy!!! Luamanuvao Winnie Laban commented that Creekfest is not too busy. Good to see our people enjoying the day, relaxing, walking around the park and drinking water - WELL DONE TO THE TEAM FOR MAKING THE DAY FIZZ FREE - 99% Water on the Day! Water water everywhere in the tents. Parents mentioned that children were able to walk about without pressure to spend money. We had limited craft stalls to add colour to the field. We wanted the health focus to be drawn out. The entertainment was something special. Aradhna and Nesian Mysitck kept the crowd their until after 6:00pm. Well done to Willie T and his crew. Cancer society's Karen Fukafuko said it was a good day overall. The Colossal Colon attracted young folks to journey through the colon. Think about Cancer's work this week with Relay for Life. People wanted to go through the journey but have to wait until this weekend for Relay for Life. Someone commented that one area did not have the 'magic' that was there last year. The person had missed the children doing the tug o war and other children's activities such as making fruit kebabs. The magic was in the children doing healthy activities. Access to the park still a major issue - Traffic crew did an orsm job managing HUGE VEHICLES. Unfortunately, Mr Portaloo Truck could not get to the lower fields In the afternoon to do his job. Life education Trust vehicle and the Treaty Truck from Te Papa were unable to have a presence because fo access. After three years, it's a privilege to participate in Creekfest, and use the opportunity to talk to folks we do not normally engage with. Surveys out there on the day! Yes, can’t wait for my special invite to attend. Debrief in the next fortnight (SHARED MEAL - NO fizzies!) Will get back to you.
Fa'afetai tele lava
Louis

Agenda structure - public forum

When the Standing Orders were last amended a note was added: "In preparing the agenda, where no business exists for a particular heading, that heading may be deleted from that particular agenda."

The result of this note is that the item "Public Forum" often does not appear in the agenda for committee meetings. Accordingly, people think there is no chance to be heard at that particular meeting. This needs to be fixed.
r
Sunday, March 19, 2006

Public's right to be heard before decisions are made

I was today asked about the public's right to participate in meetings. Quote from Standing Orders:

"73. Members of the public may attend committee meetings to express
their views, either as individuals or as part of a deputation, subject to
the following conditions:
a) Any person wishing to participate in the public forum preceding
the committee meeting shall advise the Chairperson, or the
Chief Executive, at least three working days prior to the day on
which the committee is meeting, or later at the discretion of the
Chairperson.
b) The Chairperson may decline requests for deputations or public
speaking time that are repetitious or offensive.
c) The Chairperson has the power to limit the number of public
speakers or deputations at a meeting, if the Chairperson feels
that the number of requests received are too many to be heard
at one meeting."

ROBERT COMMENTS

For my part, I want to do everything possible to encourage people to participate in decision-making. Anyone who wants to be heard on any issue should approach the meeting chairperson, their ward councillor, or the chief executive. I think this Standing Order is okay as written. There is an automatic right if you notify three days in advance of the meeting, otherwise the chairperson has to fit you in, as appropriate. There is no appeal but the matter is such that it does not really warrent an appeal process. Problems will be deal with by people getting councillors to take up their cause.
r
Sunday, March 19, 2006

SECRET WORKSHOPS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE STANDING ORDERS

Quote from Standing Orders"

"Standing Orders elaborate on the meeting procedures set out in the Local
Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 and the Resource Management Act 1991. They aim to
ensure that basic elements of local democracy work well. These include
elements such as:

1. The right of the public to observe in an open and transparent manner
   the operation of Council’s decision making processes;
2. The provision of effective processes for elected members to carry out
   their governance responsibilities;
3. The opportunities for all views to be heard, but in a way that
   promotes harmonious working relationships among elected
   members and between elected members and officers."

ROBERT COMMENTS

Only when Council opens workshop meetings to the public will Council have satisfied "The right of the public to observe in an open and transparent manner the operation of Council’s decision making processes". Information and debate prior to the making of a decision is a part of the process. To govern responsibly you need to hear the public and how can the public speak if they do not have all the information.

The majority of councillors want the Standing Orders developed, but it needs a three-quarters majority at the full Council (but not at the Committee, because that is advisory).
r
Monday, March 20, 2006

MAYOR'S AGENDA FOR HER MONDAY MEETING

Dear Councillors

This is the proposed format of the meeting tomorrow night.

1 Process and where we are up to.

-           1 st cuts and to formulate proposal on 21 March

-           Times frames from here on

2 Programmes look at

-           Focus areas

-           Issues of affordability, times etc over 10yrs

-           Big challenges ahead eg closure of Landfill

-           S & E Centre looks as though it will be supported

-           Mix of Village development, harbour, city centre S & E centre.

(1and 2 will be covered by a Power point presentation)

1. Questions and comments from Residents Assns.
2. At the end of the meeting we plan to hand out of the Proposed Projects templates - the yellow covered document we worked from at last weeks meetings. If any of you have concerns at handing out this document to Resident Assn members could you please let me know before tomorrow night.

Mayor Jenny Brash
Sunday, March 19, 2006

Questions I am now asked

Is the mayor's Monday meeting with residents' associations open to the media and the public?

That is up to the mayor, it is her private meeting.

How did I know what happened at the second workshop if I was not there?

The material I put on the blog all comes from the material distributed by the chief executive in advance of the Council's special meeting. This is publicly available material. It provides the public with information in case they seek to have a say in advance of the meeting. It makes considerable reference to the workshop.

Did I break the Code of Conduct by putting information on the internet

I do not know. But, I do not feel committed to the Code of Conduct anyway. Every time I have stood for election I have published the same pledge to residents. This says I pledge to: a) inform you, b) listen to you c) work in your interests. This is my code of conduct - it is the arrangement on which people voted for me. The Council's Code of Conduct emerged in a highly political council and is directed more at some alleged interests of the institution itself than anything else.

How did I arrive at the 5% rates increase figure?

It is my estimate, given what I know of the whole situation and what has happened in the previous 12 or so years that I have been on Council.

Do I support the recreation centre project?

Yes at $14.2 million but not a dollar more and with certain key issues resolved.

Is it fair on everyone to put things on the blog?

My pledge as an elected person has been always to inform people. Until the blog was established I have been unable to do this adequately. Many councillors feel the frustration of trying to communicate with the public. Hence, they try special meetings, and clinics, pamphlets and newsletters, media releases, and paid advertisements. All these have the severe limitation of space. Council is complicated and you cannot easily summarise anything much. The blog enables more to be said. It also speeds up the communication. Just a year ago the issues now being raised about the LTCCP would not have been raised until after the final decisions were taken.

Should the blog be balanced and accurate?

A blog is a blog, not a newspaper. I try to be as accurate as possible, but mistakes can happen. It is more like "letters to the editor" - opinion not news reporting. If someone points out something inaccurate I am always willing to alter things. Politics is supposed to be controversial. What counts is that we respect other people and allow their views to be understood and then examined.

What will happen now with the LTCCP?

We might consider putting out two options - but that has considerable implications for the work load of officers. Given the incredibly deadlines it is probably impractical (we already miss the statutory deadline - but personally I am not worried about that) . One option will go out.

This year's decision making is an enormous advance on previous years, because each options being considered a coherent package put together by officers to enhance the city with particular emphases. For the first time in the history of the Porirua Council the process has a mechanism to bring forward a stategy, as opposed to an assortment of projects.
r
Sunday, March 19, 2006

interesting debate: they are all correct, it has and it has not happened, we need to focus on the methods of decision-making for the future, and the first simple step is to open the workshops to the public

  ----- Original Message ----- From: Pip Piper Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:26 AM Subject: Fw: Secret workshops - PCC - March 2006
John - I sent a copy of the BLOG to our committee - it prompted Tim to fire a salvo to Jenny and Roger.           Roger replies in a rather long winded way   (" it is important to get the true facts"!   ) What does he mean by 'hearsay ?   ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim & Lana To: 'Roger Blakeley - PCC' Cc: 'Jenny Brash - PCC' ; 'Euon Murrell' ; bacook@paradise.net.nz ; dfsprowell@xtra.co.nz ; j.mlambie@paradise.net.nz ; janita@clear.net.nz ; mcneillage@paradise.net.nz ; moanalodge@clear.net.nz ; pippiper@paradise.net.nz ; Mescal Bradey ; Claire Toynbee ; 'Meryl Harwood' Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:49 AM Subject: RE: Secret workshops - PCC - March 2006

Many thanks for your advice, Roger, which I certainly take on board. And yes, as you suggested, I’m more than happy to circulate your very helpful response to others who got Pip’s email (+ this acceptance of it!)

As you said, it is always important to get the true facts – which is what I had requested, knowing myself how dangerous blogs can sometimes be (not least that of Cr Shaw). I’m particularly grateful for yr very prompt response – on a Sunday even! Thank you.

While I now accept your explanation, I should point out that our initial, visceral reaction was undoubtedly coloured by other events and concerns – especially the recent aborted workshop on the LTCCP and our ongoing dismay at the proposed Sports Centre (in principle a good thing, but have our strong concerns about funding been taken into account?). And surely it’s a shared concern that a Councillor should be publicising “inaccuracies” based on hearsay and thus misleading the public? What can Council do about that?

Thanks again and regards

Tim

From: Roger Blakeley - PCC [mailto:RBlakeley@pcc.govt.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2006 9:31 a.m.
To: 'Tim & Lana'
Cc: Jenny Brash - PCC; Euon Murrell
Subject: RE: Secret workshops - PCC - March 2006

Tim

The Code of Conduct is on the PCC website www.pcc.govt.nz . On the homepage go to Council, then Local Governance Statements, Members' role and conduct, Code of Conduct.

I am not sure why you are asking for the Code in this instance. The elected members have been elected to carry out a Governance role for he City-see Local Government Act 2002.  They are in the process of that. They had two workshops last week to consider possible options amongst a large number of possible strategic projects-and know that the City cannot afford all of them. No decisions have been made , nor is there an agreed option. Cr Shaw was not even there on the second night Thursday 16 March, so his comments are hearsay.  Crs  have certainly not "selected one" option as Cr Shaw's blog says, nor have they discussed or arrived at a rates increase.

Tim :if you accept Cr Shaw's line, you put your councillors on a hiding to nothing. If they had the workshop with you before they had discussed the options, they would have been roundly criticized by "you"(I mean in the collective sense of the Residents' Associations) because they could not give you any meaningful information about the options.  If they had the workshop with you after the next workshop on Tuesday 21 March, where they will be firming up on a preferred option, you would have accused them of presenting you with a fait accompli. Give them a break!!! There was a window of opportunity between Thursday 16 March workshop when the options for strategic projects were first discussed, and Tuesday 21 March when Crs are likely to firm up on the options-and they are meeting with you on Monday 20 March to listen to your views BEFORE they firm up on an option or options on Tuesday 21 March.  Decisions on what goes into the draft LTCCP will be made on 3 and 5 April 2006.

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out processes for Consultation in s82 to 90 including special consultative procedure which will include submissions being called in mid May and public hearings at the end of June and decisions made following that consultation in  mid July for adoption of the 2006-2016 LTCCP by the end of July. We are at a stage of the process well before that consultation starts. And Crs are meeting with Residents Associations to hear you views BEFORE they have firmed up on strategic project options let alone made decisions on the draft LTCCP.

So please don't talk about  "Clayton's consultation" and please make sure you have accurate facts before you and your colleagues appear to jump to conclusions about process  (I accept that you noted there could be "another side" to this). Please feel free to email this onto other people who received Pip's email and  Cr Shaw's blog item attached.

Regards, Roger

Roger Blakeley
Chief Executive
Porirua City Council
Phone: +64 4 237 1401
Fax: + 64 4 237 1443
Mobile : 0275 324 869
Email: rblakeley@pcc.govt.nz  

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim & Lana [mailto:timandlana@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2006 12:37 p.m.
To: jbrash@pcc.govt.nz; 'Roger Blakeley - PCC'
Subject: FW: Secret workshops - PCC - March 2006

Dear Jenny & Roger

Jenny: You have probably seen this already, but I thought you should know that this shall be raised on Monday evening. I hope there is "another side" to this but, if we're not persuaded by any counter-argument, I think there will be follow-up action taken by certain constituents. You will recall we have often questioned the "Clayton's consultations" which Porirua seems to indulge in and my inclination is for us now to seek advice on remedial action the public can take.

Roger: A propos, please could you email me a copy of the Porirua Councillors' Code of Conduct?

Regards

Tim

From: Pip Piper [mailto:pippiper@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2006 11:28 a.m.
To: Tim Sheppard ; Pip Piper; Mescal Bradey; Meryl Harwood; John/Margaret Lambie; Janita Stuart; Helen Chipper; George McNeillage; Diane Sprowell; Barry Cook; Claire Toynbee
Subject: Secret workshops - PCC - March 2006

Hi all - just picked up from the Porirua Blog.  The Mayor has called a meeting         (RA's and Cr's) for Monday 7pm.  Why do we bother going when things are

" cut and dried" ?  However I'll be there.   Cheers  -  Pip

RATES INCREASE - how it happens, it has happened

Theory and practice. How are they related? Legal process and real life. How are they related?

These questions are actually critical for the budget process of the Porirua City Council.

Last week the councilors, in two secret workshops, considered four options for the future of your city. They have selected one and that will be what is in the draft long term strategic and practical plan that is sent out for "community consultation". Of course they did not really select it (workshops cannot make decisions), but they chose a preference through a process. Theory and practice.

Each of the four options was a bundle of major projects around a theme. The theme "status-quo" or "a-little-of-eveything" was there. It is what the officers must prefer because it keeps things simple. Having worked out what is going to happen for the next 10 years, the legal decision-making process kicks in. Off we go to more meetings to formally resolve things and to formally consult the public.

Change, once the consultation process is launched is quite difficult. Little changes can be made, but the grounding, fundamental, expensive and practical direction is set. This happened last week. There is now an inevitability about the rates increase and the major projects.

Why the mayor would want to call a meeting with residents' associations after last weeks key meeting is beyond me. Either she tells them what is decided and helps them to recover, or she says nothing has been decided and invites everyone to contribute to the process. Both statements are true. One is a practical truth and one is a legal truth.

Is it any wonder people get upset with the Council when it sets its budget, and sets the rates you must pay. The pattern of decision-making itself contains contradictions.
r
Saturday, March 18, 2006

RATES INCREASE - how it happens, it has happened

Theory and practice. How are they related? Legal process and real life. How are they related?

These questions are actually critical for the budget process of the Porirua City Council.

Last week the councilors, in two secret workshops, considered four options for the future of your city. They have selected one and that will be what is in the draft long term strategic and practical plan that is sent out for "community consultation". Of course they did not really select it (workshops cannot make decisions), but they chose a preference through a process. Theory and practice.

Each of the four options was a bundle of major projects around a theme. The theme "status-quo" or "a-little-of-eveything" was there. It is what the officers must prefer because it keeps things simple. Having worked out what is going to happen for the next 10 years (called Option 1 actually, highlights the rec centre and delays some major infrastructure projects), the legal decision-making process kicks in. Off we go to more meetings to formally resolve things and to formally consult the public.

Change, once the consultation process is launched is quite difficult. Little changes can be made, but the grounding, fundamental, expensive and practical direction is set. This happened last week. There is now an inevitability about the rates increase and the major projects.

Why the mayor would want to call a meeting with residents' associations after last weeks key meeting is beyond me. Either she tells them what is decided and helps them to recover, or she says nothing has been decided and invites everyone to contribute to the process. Both statements are true. One is a practical truth and one is a legal truth.

Is it any wonder people get upset with the Council when it sets its budget, and sets the rates you must pay. The pattern of decision-making itself contains contradictions.
r
Saturday, March 18, 2006

PS

Your rates are going up a bit over 5% - you read it first on the blog. And, the recreation centre will be announced at $14.2 million but eventually cost just under $16 million.

Western Corridor Hearings - Wellington City Council

As one who made a submission to the Hearings Panel, I received a letter telling me of the outcome. It mentions the further consultation that is required by law and optimistically says that this will not be a "rerun" of what has been before.

I note the Brent Efford (a genuine land transport expert, who has been consistent on the issue of induced traffic and hates roads) and Mayor Kerry Prendegast were the only two to vote at the Regional Land Transport Committee meeting against the adoption of the Hearings Panel report, which entails the Transmission Gully decision. The Region must unite behind that report or the Government will have an excuse for not funding Wellington (now where have I heard that before??).

It has been a lesson, or reminder perhaps, to me: the drive of self interest dominates the actions of some: those who used to speak in loud voices and moral authority on the need for the region to stand united behind our transport plan, seem to have totally forgotten their high ideals. Fact is, some people will say anything at all, and simply try to bully the rest. I refer to some assocated with the Wellington City Council.
r, Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Hastings District Council

The Hastings District Council has brought the whole of the local government sector into disrepute. You do not make contracts with developers behind closed doors. Close Up on TV1 exposed the whole sorry mess.

Compare the situation at the Porirua City Council where there has been a discussion regarding a Plan Change to extend the Elsdon Industrial Estate. That was reported to the Council in open session, and thus it was reported to the public. Simple. The sky did not fall in. But the Hastings District Council will probably end up having to pay a developer compensation because the public will now never accept the project proposed. Local government must learn to trust the public. Secret deals never work
r
Monday, March 13, 2006

We are leaders

I notice Alan Milne, Mayor of Kapiti, has been on a trip paid for by central government. It was to the Municipal Leaders Conference. We are even planning to have him visit Porirua as an "expert".

Back comes poor Alan from the conference, and under the heading "Mayors lead the way" he is quoted as saying "Local Authorities are leaders and have a vital role to play in this initiative".

He should have said "Ratepayers are to become the leaders in the battle with climate change". We cannot blame central government for loading costs onto local government and at the same time bask in the leadership glory.

Evidently Japan has initiated some of the international local government action. Pity they have not attended to the problems of international whaling, or the reconciliation regarding the war in the Pacific and Asia. It appears Japan itself is impacted on by climate change.
r
Sunday, March 12, 2006

If the plan is to debate projects and the budget then ...

If the plan is to debate projects and the budget as set out in the draft workshop papers for 15 and 16 March, then we are making a mistake. The public will not be there, and they are entitled to know what their representatives are up to on such serious matters.

Why is it being run that way? The theory behind it is that you get some level of agreement from the councillors behind closed doors and then the formal meetings of the council will proceed without any problems. This never works. but still the officers push towards that model of harmony. It is based around another assumption: that it is not possible to have a meaningful, reasonable, and definitive debate in public. A variation of the "not possible" reason is that real political debates look awful in the press and lower the reputation of our City. In fact with proper Standing Orders it is possible to have meaningful engagement on issues and have things resolved. What is more, such debates have many positive benefits. The idea that the public wants to see us all peaceful and together is naive. Political vibrancy is the sign of a "going-places" community.
r
Sunday, March 12, 2006

POSTSCRIPT

Still it is intended we decide first the "minimum basic costs" without actually considering each item in that list. That is of course most of our budget and about $40 million worth of largely ongoing activities. Then, we add the strategic projects $3 million, and last the Sports and Event Centre and Skatepark. If you must have an order, this is pretty much the reverse of what should happen.

The proper way right now is:

1. Decide the level of rates and other income.
2. Decide on the major projects
3. Have the officers produce a budget to fit 1 and 2
4. Review that budget in its entirety.
5. Consult the public on the draft and include a specific set of options regarding rates - increase 3%, hold, decrease 3%

r
Sunday March 12, 2006

The challenge of being a councillor - this weekend's reading

This week we have 112 pages of new projects to consider. They are all tabulated nicely. All the information is there, except the cost (with some exceptions). There is a note about how the costs will be provided next week. Presumably they are the detail that was on the list of new project costs issued a week or so ago. Unfortunately for me I cannot find my list of numbers.

The projects themselves includes money to:

1. Help businesses minimise waste
2. Add a research centre to the library
3. Study the sewer system model
4. Upgrade Pukerua Bay beach (the current bollards are "old" and "look tired"
5. Run a "pro-city campaign"
6. Provide town water to Pauatahanui Village
7. Construct a pedestrian access from Jillet St to Morere St
8. Manage heritage sites
9. Provide a city centre playground and 4 destination playgrounds
10. Put lights in Bullock Street
11. Provide a pest free wetland in Ulric St
12. Produce a synthetic hockey turf
13. Make East Porirua streets look better
14. Pedestrian access round the Pauatahanui
15. Paremata board ramp
16. Pauatahanui sewer reticulation
17. Papakowhai / Whitford Brown roundabout project
18. Ngatitoa Domain foreshore upgrade
19. New sports and recreation centre
20. New reservoir at Porirua High
21. Cemetery extension
22. Increase trunk sewer capacity
23. Eskdale to Whitford Brown Link Road
24. Omapere Link Road
25. District Plan rolling review
26. Cycleway strategy
27. Cycleway and Walkingway strategy (different from above)
28. Cannons Creek Library internet connection
29. Relocate City Centre Skate Park
30. City Centre District Plan Review
31. Aotea Block southern connection
32. City Centre paving
33. Porirrua Stream development of landscape
34. City Centre Promenades
35. Bothamley Park Development
36. Airlie Road bridge
37. Youth development project
38. Visitor strategy
39. Valuations -water supply system
40. Extra toilet maintenance
41. Strengthening Road Reserves
42. Online community project - develop online communities for emergency management (you read it first on the Porirua Wellingtion Web Blog!!)
43. Fesitivals - including Rugby 10s $25,000
44. Extra computer capacity MIS
45. Civil Defence Training
46. Drainage for rural roads
47. Catchment studies
48. Additonal biodiversity costs, Pauatahanui

Demand driven budgeting is alive and well. Do not expect us to control rates so long as we operate this sytem. Our rates might now be the highest in New Zealand. Someone needs to do the research.

On the positive side: the amount of reading this weekend is down somewhat on that before a major set of meetings. Spent only two hours on it in total, and I read the papers for the Plimmerton house/boatshed judicial hearing. Normally, I would not read judicial hearing material. My interest relates to the changes we might consider in the District Plan.
r
Saturday, March 11, 2006

Hearing about a plimmerton coastal development

A judicial hearing will be held at 9am on 16 March 2006 regarding earthworks for a dwelling/boatshed on the coast at the end of Moana Road. This is on the seaward side of the formed accessway to Hongoeka. The committee consists of Crs Dow, Murrell, and Palmer. The report of the Planning Officers is available to the public. It should be on the PCC website.
r
Saturday, March 11, 2006

What are we doing? I wonder

Thursday morning and I meet with the chief executive and the general manager of utilities policy to consider several issues. With my chairperson's hat on we discuss the Council's strategy regarding Transmission Gully - the decision is taken to keep a dignifed silence, not to precipiate a debate, and to await events. Thursday afternoon, a crowing, and issue ridden, media statement by the mayor appears on Council letterhead. Why do we all waste our time!

Councillors held a first rate debate on the one contested clause in the "pooper scooper" bylaw. The issue was so tiny as to be microscopic, but I am interested in the quality of debate and that was fine. Then, suddenly, there appears a press statement about it. This plays up one side of the argument and quotes one councillor (Cr Dow). But, it totally ignores the other side of the debate that was equally sincerely held, for example by Cr Ah Hoy. Why should the ratepayers pay to advance the interests of one group of councillors against another group? If we want the councillors to respect the views of their colleagues we must ensure all councillors are treated equally. Media statements from meetings need to be signed off by the chairperson - presumably the Mayor approved this. On the positive side, I have been asking that our media people highlight the debates of Council more and the contribution of all councillors and this statement does represent an effort like that.
r
Saturday, March 11, 2006

dumb and dumber

Extract from Dom Post:

"No legal reason exists to stop Wellington's proposed $955 million Transmission Gully motorway being funded over 20 years, Government road funder Land Transport New Zealand says. Its comments follow claims by Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast yesterday that a law change would be needed before a new plan could go ahead that "could have the route substantially built within eight years."

ROBERT COMMENTS

LTNZ talks about 20 years when asked about 8 years. But, legality is not a real issue. The project can be funded in one year if the money is allocated.
r
Saturday, March 11, 2006

"Standing Orders" need a tweak

The new approach to committees has generated a need to revise the Standing Orders. There are also some other reasons why we might want to revise the Standing Orders. As a first list of possible revisions, I suggest:

1. Tighten up the speaking order provisions (actually, we do not seem to have the speaking order given any anymore)
2. Sort out the "take separately" provisions which are now totally redundant because we have committees of the whole
3. Make general business a motion driven event at committees (but to preclude motions that ask for reports). Note procedural motions might well be moved by the chair, or anyone, if something dramatic appears, and the chief executive still gets to give advice on motions
4. Make the mayor's report motion driven (and hence allow councillor allocations to conferences to be cleared there, etc etc)
5. Streamline decisions on conflicts of interest(make them a procedural motion).
6. Fix the petition provisions which have become very strange.
7. Make more explicit the relationship between the committees and the full council
8. Tighten up the introduction which says what meetings are for.

Any other suggestions are welcome.

Lawyers often get involved in the revision of Standing Orders. They do a lot of damage. I doubt if they have ever spent any time in real action situations as elected persons. The role of an advisor is so totally different from that to an elected person! This we saw in a workshop recently which was about how to chair and participate in meetings. There is a world of difference between the meetings of the board of companies and the meetings of elected councillors. For all that here was some useful discussion at the workshop.
r
Friday, March 10, 2006

Wandering stage

The stage built for under the canopies in the town centre is sitting unused. It is a wonderful wooden structure with great design features. The motion of council a year ago said that it would "in principle" go to Cannons Creek, but they do not seem to adequately want it! Hence, new sites are being considered and Aotea Lagoon is one of those, as is a marae. The front runner, however, seems to be that the original plan is implemented, and that it goes under the canopies. This would mean that the popular children's play equipment might have to be moved. Ratepayers have plenty of money so this is no worry. Right now the priority is to get the stage settled and in service.
r
Friday, March 10, 2006

COMMENT

Robert  -  Plimmerton school put a bid in for the stage and were told that Cannons were to get it . I am sure they will jump at the chance of getting it now .  Suggest you ring the principal  -  cheers  - Pip

PUKERUA BAY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION - 80 th BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS

On 26 th March 1926 a Ratepayers and Homeowners Association was established in Pukerua Bay. Although there were a couple of name changes along the way, the present Residents Association wish to mark 80 years of continual involvement in Pukerua Bay, with a celebration of our “past, present and future”, and a day of community activity at the School/Community Hall.

Planning is underway to hold a celebration of our community on Saturday, 25 th March. Celebrations will commence around 2:00pm and proceed into the evening. Plans include an exhibition of Pukerua Bay artists, story telling, a photo display showing the changes which have occurred in the Bay, and food stalls.

Bert D’Ath, who was living in Pukerua Bay in 1926 and was a first day pupil at the school, has been invited to cut a commemorative cake at the afternoon tea.   At this time we will also acknowledge previous Resident Association Committee Members and Ward Councillors who have represented our interests with local government over the years.

In the evening we will have performances by several Pukerua Bay bands and we also hope to have a re-union of the Plimmerton Bush Band.   During the evening we would also like to acknowledge the achievements of several well-known Pukerua Bay people, including Peter Jackson and Alistair Te Ariki Campbell.

Present Committee Members believe that while the community is focused on the Western Corridor issues, it will be the perfect occasion to launch a community planning process in conjunction with Porirua City Council. The highway debate has been the catalyst for a lot of discussion about the future of our community. Now is the time to plan for the changes and challenges we face in the future ready for when the decision making process for the State Highway has been finalised. Throughout the day, we will give people the opportunity to learn about community planning and how they can be involved.

Anyone with a story to tell about Pukerua Bay or experiences on the Residents Association should contact Margaret Blair, 239 9642. Anyone with information on past Councillors and Committee Members should contact June Penhey on 239 9547.

We are seeking the support of community organisations and are happy for them to use this occasion for self-promotion as well as fund raising.   If you would like to be involved please contact Brian Mosen 239 9672. brianmosen@xtra.co.nz

Our Region must NOW speak with one UNITED voice - this does not help

Statement by tyhe Coastal Highway Group

The Coastal Highway Group is disappointed that the Hearings Committee has been influenced by the quantity rather than the quality of the submissions on the Western Corridor study.

There are many more important projects than Transmission Gully in the Wellington region on which to spend scarce roading funds. All that TGM will do for morning commuters from Kapiti is save them a few minutes which will then be added to the time spent in the traffic jam tailing back from Ngauranga Gorge.

We hope that the Regional Land Transport Committee and the Regional Council will see sense and in particular restore the Pukerua Bay bypass and a proper interchange at Paekakariki to the priority list. If these two projects are built and the barrier separating the two lanes along Centennial Highway is completed we will have a road which is safe, scenic and of reasonable capacity from Kapiti to Wellington.

These improvements can be made at moderate cost and reasonably quickly. It will take years to arrange funding for TGM and get through the consent and other processes. There will be no benefit until the lengthy job of designing and building the massive mountain highway is completed. If the focus is entirely on TGM travellers from Kapiti to Wellington will have to wait for many years before they see any appreciable improvements.

For the Coastal Highway Group

Dick Jessup

9 March 2006

Who takes the credit for the Transmission Gully decision?

It is already incredible to hear people taking credit for the Transmission Gully Panel decision.

The Panel that was chaired by Councillor Terry McDavit needs to be first acknowledged. The report is technically very sound - comprehensive, logical, strategic (high level), absolutely clear.

Second in line for the credit? It is the ratepayers of Porirua City. The success of Porirua City advocacy is instructive. We were successful because:

• There was a clear objective.
• Our advocacy was backed by significant money ($200,000)
• The chief executive was put in charge of the exercise and the elected people kept out of it.

The Porirua advocacy was managed by Roger Blakeley and Peter Bailey. They hired experts over a range of areas.

This is a model for future council projects. We need to be clear about our objectives,we need to resource our decisions (which means not trying to do everything at once), and we need to delegate.
r
Thursday, March 9, 2006

COMMENT

Robert,  
Who takes credit for the Transmission Gully result ?   How come your blog item left out mention of the 6,000 submissions, most of which came from Porirua citizens, and above all else the Transmission Gully Action Group (TGAG) and its many financial supporters?  
Regards - John Watson

Mana Esplanade- traffic problems

The decision of Council tonight was to maintain its current policy which is to urge Transit NZ to fully implement the Environment Court decision. If that approach does not satisfy the residents the Council will take up the cause again. My concern is that the Environment Court's decision is not sound. Time will tell.
r
Wednesday, March 8, 2006

Fantastic Wellington - the strategic transport decision

A long, reasoned, and fantastic report from the Hearings Panel. I see what I said to them reflected in a couple of places! That is nice. But, what is more important by far is that they have set out a practical prescription for the future. They supported Transmission Gully. They listed practical projects in an order. There can be no further debate now. The Wellington Land Transport Committee, and Greater Wellington must simply agree.
r
Wednesday, March 8, 2006

Public Meeting: Community Boards, 22 February 2006

Present

Ngaire Best, Don Borrie, Ruth Cater, Mike Chapman, Andrew Chick, Graeme Ebbett, Louella Jensen, Gael McRoberts, Sara Murray, Claire Oram, Pat Piper, Pip Piper, Mike Reid, Jack Underhill, John Watson

Apologies: Gwyn Skinner

Graeme Ebbett

Welcomed everyone. Thank you to Don Borrie for organising this meeting.

Mike Reid, Local Government New Zealand .

1. 40 out of 70 councils have a community board.
2. Community boards were established in 1988-1989 due to a large reform of local government.
3. They were elected at the same time as councillors, are part of the local authority and are paid.
4. Why have them? Some cities are so large individual voices can be lost so there needed to be elected bodies at a neighbourhood level, it was a way of dealing with the opposition to the amalgamation of councils and it is good for tiny communities within a large council.
5. What they do? Community boards act as an advocate, speak on behalf of residents, maintain overview of council services e.g. halls being rundown, prepare reports to councils, liaison with councils, undertake other responsibilities (except manage loans, hire staff or set rates.)
6. The Local Government Act 2002 is their reference book. It spells out the rules as to how local authorities & community boards operate.

1. Represents views of its member community boards back to the local government which can then be fed to the government.
2. Some community boards hold budgets but success does not rely on budgetary control.
3. Tawa community board has a wide responsibility, is given $10 000 per annum, have advocated successfully for new projects, have lobbied council for a change to bylaws and an information website has been created called tawalink.com. They also participate in resource consents and contentious issues. To relay information back to residents they use public meetings, get accosted when out, and send information out.
4. Each community board operates differently.
5. It is difficult to achieve some projects if there is no community board as there can be strong officer opposition to projects.
6. Can work on joint projects with residents associations
7. In Tawa there are 6 elected members and 2 appointed. The appointed council members should not necessarily get voting rights and you do not have to have ward councillors. Not all boards are the same.
8. Regional community board distribution: Wellington City : 2, Hutt City : 2, Upper Hutt : 0, Kapiti: 4, Wairarapa: 3.
9. The highest number of houses serviced through a community board is 90 000 in Auckland , the lowest 200 in Southland. More information is available on the local government commission website.
10. The key is working in partnership with, for example, the regional & district councils, government departments, transit and police.
11. You can also be a resource consent commissioner but not when participating in submissions.
12. The community boards work feeds into the LTCCP, are resourced by the local government act.
13. The council provide some resources but is not bottomless.
14. There are 3 ward councillors on the Tawa community board.
15. A ward councillor is not responsible for their ward but the city at large.
16. Community board members are parochial. They have an open relationship with ward councillors who don't always take an interest in the community board.
17. The appointed ward councillor turns up to 1 in 3 meetings; sometimes they are at odds with the community.
18. Community boards are a good mechanisim for giving credibility to a community's voice. They are like a committee but don't have voting rights at council. Councils are now moving away from a committee structure which was duplicative and fragmented.
19. Councillors are appointed to community boards to strengthen communication.
20. Councillors should be at board meetings and given speaking but not voting rights.
21. In Porirua if you did away with ward councillors then you would need a community board.

1. Has been on the Paraparaumu/Raumati community board for 2 years.
2. It is up to the individual as to the time they can commit to the job.
3. There is no job description, no one to tell you what to do and a lot of reading prior to meetings.
4. It's important to attend all council & committee meetings, where you can speak but not vote and are encouraged to ask questions & fully participate.
5. The Paraparaumu/Raumati Community Board has 4 members and ward councillors appointed by the council with full voting rights. They have a regular radio show and have been involved in naming streets, lowering speeds and with submissions on the western corridor.
6. They get administration support through a senior manager from council.

Graeme Ebbett replies to former Councillor Nick Leggett

Dear Robert

This is the response of Titahi Bay Residents' Association to recent comments on your blog.

The councillors-know-best dissertation by Nick Leggett, the self-appointed expert on Local Body representation, is a compelling reason for a change to the system of local democracy. With ignorance of circumstances in the Bay he levels criticism at the Titahi Bay Residences¹ Association for concluding that the community wants to be represented by an elected Community Board. Leggett suggests that the TBRA attempts to represent the Bay without first seeking a mandate from "the community". He is wrong.

The motion supporting a community board was moved and seconded by members other than myself as chairperson. It was passed unanimously. TBRA, along with some other associations, has developed a long-term community plan through an exhaustive consultation process over the past year. It involved a series of seven advertised public meetings, plus a questionnaire hand delivered to every household which listed the consultation results.

The whole village plan process was run by a "nucleus group" elected by the first public meeting. All meetings were organised by people independent of the TBRA committee. Without any urging, a majority of respondents wanted a community board. Leggett fails to mention that ward councillors, once elected are sworn to act for the city as a whole. This means they cease to be primary advocates for any particular ward.

The community has recognised this problem and decided that its interests will be better served by a locally elected community board which can promote its village plan, decide on the priority of local issues, and advocate those matters through the council process. If PCC decides it is more effective to abolish wards in favour of an "at large" election of councillors, then the Titahi Bay wish would be all the more necessary to carry out the democratic process. And Nick Leggett would still gain satisfaction from a step forward in "electoral reform in Porirua" with his continued advocacy of STV.
Graeme Ebbett
Chairman
Titahi Bay Residents Assn Inc
C/- 37 Terrace Rd, Titahi Bay, Porirua. Work Ph 568 6377, Fx 568 2374 Home Ph 236 8574, Fx 236 8591 Email ebbett.automation@clear.net.nz

LAMENT TO TE RAUPARAHA

Te Rauparaha was captured at Taupo Pa.

HAERE RA E RAHA
Na Te Rangihaeata

Taku waka whakairo, e!
Taka waka whakateretere,
Ki runga i te ngaru na, i,
Tena ka pakaru, e!
Kei te Manuao e pukai ana
Nga marama na, i!

Haere re, e Raha e,
I te aroaro o Tumatauenga na, i!
Te mana o te Kawana, e!
Te inati o Ngati Raukawa na, i.

Haere ra, e Raha e,
I te aroaro o Ihu Karaiti! Na, i!
Te Mana o te Kawana, e!
Te inati o Ngati Toa na, i.

Ki atu ana au, 'e koro haehae matariki na, e!'
Kai mai ana koe, 'waiho i Porirua
I te kainga ururua.'

K kore au e tangi i enei nga raro, na,e,
Tukua atu ki tua ki nga ra o te waru, e, i.

Ka kohi au i aku tini mahara na, i.

FAREWELL FOR TE RAUPARAHA
By Te Rangihaeata

My carved canoe
My canoe that leapt the wave is shattered
Thrown in a heap on the deck
Of a man-of-war
Only the splinters remain.

Journey on, o Raha,
Stand before Tumatauenga.
The power of the Governor
Has divided Ngati Raukawa.

Journey on, O Raha,
Stand before Jesus Christ.
The power of the Governor
Has divided Ngati Toa

I call, are we to be cut
Into small pieces and you reply
'Remain at Porirua, in your neglected home.'

I will not weep now but later
In the lean time yet to come.

I must gather my thoughts.

FURTHER COMMENT ON THE LYTELTON AVENUE PROJECT BUDGET

Robert,   Reference minutes Plimmerton Residents' Association on your Blog:  

4. Matters Arising:

Euon Murrell gave an update on 16. Lyttelton Avenue – Contract Tenders from the previous minutes.

Peter Bailey advised Euon that the figures quoted were incorrect and that there has been no cost overrun. Peter Bailey was asked to provide details. The successful tenderer had made it a condition of tender that the prices should not be made public. Euon Murrell to follow up further.

John Watson comments:

The Draft Annual Plan 2005/06 budget for the reopening of Lyttelton Avenue was $735,000 (see page 52). The Annual Plan budget was raised to $907,000 by resolution of 25 May 2005.  The chief executive advised Euon Murrell 24 February 2006 that the total budget is now $1,057,000.

Will the Council now add to the Glossary (pages 78/9) of Annual Plan a definition of "Cost overrun"?

Sunday, March 5, 2006

FORMER COUNCILLOR NICK LEGGETT SAYS ...

Dear Robert  

Your blog has been very interesting lately - thank you. There are many things I would like to discuss but I will pick one to save time.  

Can we please end this notion that residents associations represent 'the community' and that every time the council wants to cough, they have to ask them if it's OK. Councillors are NOT answerable to residents associations, they are answerable to the community that elects them. Two different things!  

I want to propose that if councillors are going to have a workshop just to talk to residents associations that they also invite representatives of youth, ngati toa, maraeroa, the pacific community, sports clubs and local political parties. Let's get truly representative. These groups are often brought in haphazardly to dialogue on issues. It should be made more formal.

There is nothing worse than a whole lot of frustrated politicians (because that is what the leading lights of some associations are...) sitting round in a room thinking they represent what the public want and having a go at councillors. I applaud some of the work residents groups do (Plimmerton and Pukerua Bay are fine examples) and the hours all members give up. But at the end of the day they are just another group interested in the future shape of the city. The Porirua Community Arts Council are a similar such group - why should they not be given the same attention by PCC?

At the end of the day, Councillors are delegated responsibility by their community to make decisions for three years. And love them or hate them, I think the voters generally get it right. Graham Ebbett of the Titahi Bay Resident's group in his press statement calls for electoral reform in Porirua - it happened last election Graham in the form of STV! He also calls for a new community board to be set up in that ward.  

Porirua City is already over represented in comparison to the number of councillors per head of population (something that is likely to be dealt with) in other cities. I don't believe there is a genuine public outcry for more politicians in the form a community board for Titahi Bay. I haven't seen one good reason to add to the democracy bill of PCC by installing some sort of 'upper house' in ONE WARD to scrutinise council decisions and interpret community feeling. A very odd suggestion in a ward that is the smallest in the city and the most over represented in terms of councillors.  

My point is that resident's groups shouldn't get ahead of themselves. They represent a section of community views - but I would argue in many cases and issues it's quite a small section. The best work they can do is to follow Plimmerton's lead and co-ordinate meetings in the community and generate discussion amongst residents rather than beat their chests and attack council for being out of touch with 'their' residents.   
Cheers Nick

ROBERT COMMENTS

Jenny Brash has called a private meeting for the residents' associations and she has invited councillors to attend if they wish (letter to councillors 3 March). She wrote to the Residents Associations (also letter 3 March) saying she invited them to an informal meeting "with elected members of the Council". I do not know which members of the Council she refers to. It will be held at Pataka. Presumably, everyone will say what we hear in the association meetings themselves.

This would have been better had the residents' associations decided they wanted to call a meeting and then invited the councillors. (As happened in Plimmerton recently.) Every so often councillors get a "summons" from a residents' association, and for my part I am happy to attend. I have not seen any request from an association for a further meeting beyond those planned and run by the chief executive. Of course, the mayor is quite within her rights to call any private meetings she wishes at any time, and with whomever she wishes.
r
Sunday, March 5, 2006

COUNCIL WORKLOAD, SALARIES, AND EMPLOYMENT

At the moment the Council struggles to do the work required of it by various Acts of Parliament.

Steps are being taken (by chairpersons Douglas and Shaw) to reduce the workload of officers (and hence address the employment and salary problem). There is a re-structure in the works area (by the chief executive and consultants). There is also a call (Green, Shaw, et al) for a total re-establishment of budget mechanisms. We tried for this last year and ended up with the the chief executives review of the works area.
r

Two items FROM THE PLIMMERTON RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION MEETING MINUTES

4. Matters Arising:

Euon Murrell gave an update on 16. Lyttelton Avenue – Contract Tenders from the previous minutes.

Peter Bailey advised Euon that the figures quoted were incorrect and that there has been no cost overrun. Peter Bailey was asked to provide details. The successful tenderer had made it a condition of tender that the prices should not be made public. Euon Murrell to follow up further.

ROBERT COMMENTS

It is not clear to me what this is all about. Twice the Council officers presented revised cost estimates for this project, and the full Council approved the extra funding requested. Within those increases, there has not been a cost blow out. What is meant by "cost overrun" in the minutes is ambiguous. The project has certainly cost much more than we initially planned. However, once a project is begun the Council cannot stop it because the funding is insufficient, and I for one voted for the increase in money.

Regarding the release of tender prices, this has been discussed earlier on this blog and the practice throughout New Zealand is that the information is publicly available, and that is now to be the practice of the Porirua City Council. We have moved beyond the previous confusion. It could not be any other way, having regard to official information legislation.

7. District Plan

  EM & JG asked for guidance.

The two parts of the plan to be put out to public consultation within the next three months are Rural and Suburban. There needs to be good dialogue with PCC re what the Community wants, e.g. no high rise buildings, infills etc. Individual communities will be considered, rather than taking a blanket approach. Rollout plans will be made public.

ROBERT COMMENTS

What the community wants needs to be handled by the Council in a practical way. The key issue right now with the District Plan is the internal structure of the document. I would like to see the suburban rules set out in a generic section which would be followed by the special rules that apply to each of the the suburbs (villages). This would be a good way to ensure that each suburb is identified and thus has the opportunity to be separately legislated.

The alternative approach is to continue with the rules that we have now and throughout them to pepper around special rules for particular suburbs. This, I believe, will not give the suburbs sufficient identity in the document.

The other major concern that I have at the moment is that the consultation will be about abstract ideas. What is needed is a consultation that says what the proposed new wording is in the plan. Some will say this will come at a later stage, and it will, but I want to move to that level of specificity so that the discussion is not around some vague notions (eg, protect vew shafts, develop the character of Plimmerton, stop high rise buildings in Titahi Bay). The Council needs to show strong leadership and bold insight at this moment.
r
Saturday, March 4, 2006

CENTENIAL HIGHWAY

Transit New Zealand wants the Porirua City Council to agree that State Highway One between Fishermans' Table and Pukerua Bay can be widened. They say they need to do this to install median safety barriers (an extension of the existing scheme that works well).

Why is this motion coming to the full Council meeting and not to the Committee?? It is hard to say it is urgent, because the plan has been under discussion for about 6 months. I might well move that it be referred to the Committee for proper consideration.
r
Saturday March 4, 2006

How to get your own way at meetings

The councillors are all to attend a workshop on meeting procedures on 7 March, 2006. It is probably a good investment of the ratepayers' money, for meeting are about decisions and the quality of decisions impacts on us all.

I wonder if the leader of this hui plans to tell us a few of the tricks of the trade. Myself and another councillor know full well what to do when it looks as if the vote will not go your way - delay things to another day. This other councillor used that tactic against me as I advanced something about three months ago.

My version of the tactic is like this. When you, speak talk about complications and risks, and say that it possibly, stress possibly, needs another meeting. Then suggest a couple of dates and times. Stand back and watch the confusion develop. Most councillor will feel obliged to say if they can or cannot make either of those meeting times. There forms a debate about the time for the next meeting and the points about the original issue are left un addressed. This method is reliable, unless the chairperson says "we will deal with the motion before us and then subsequent motions will be considered if need be".
r
Saturday, March 4, 2006

Report on a better workshop

Tonight's workshop was much better than that last night. We were directed to real budget issues. The focus was on Harbour and Catchment Management, Community (Village) Planning, and City Centre Development. We now need to look at the new work proposed within and by each activity area. That means we would see new work in the context of the programme that pertains, and not in the context of a long list of bright ideas. The just printed list of new rates funded strategic projects is a list of bright ideas over every area of council. Looking at such a list puts every item out of context and encourages the councillors to push their pet little projects.

There is a major challenge for the Council in how it relates its small activities to the broad strategy for the City. Several mechanisms are available and at the moment the councillors seem to be be clear about none of them.
March 2, 2006

COUNCIL DEBT

Regarding the Porirua City Council's borrowing: at present Council pays back $2 million a year. Our level of debt is now relatively low.

If we want to keep our current level of loan use we can borrow $20 million over the next 10 years - that would not increase the rates. But, we could probably go up to about $35 million and this would increase the rates.

One thing to be aware of when Council borrows money for development is that developments require upkeep and thus produce substantial ongoing operating costs that hit rates.

There will be a strong lobby within Council to increase the debt level and undertake works of several kinds.
r
Friday, March 3, 2006

Report on a secret workshop

Last night's workshop for councillors was a disaster.

All but one person (Cr Ah Hoy) was there, and I await the Dom-Post headline to record the event. It is the usual situation that the majority attend. In the one instance when we did not have good numbers the mayor became emotional and precipitated an issue. The media coverage was totally unnecessary. The emotion was totally unnecessary. Life goes on.

But last night was a disaster of another kind.

The first 35 minutes was spent talking about meetings that had to be rescheduled and trying to sort out when we would like to attend further meetings. The chief executive is a kind and generous man. The last thing we need is a kind and generous man calling meetings. As the official responsible for calling meetings he should just call them. Trying to get people to agree to them all in advance is absurd. More important, it develops into a debate about the councillors personal business, saps our energy, and takes time.

Then, we have the mayor in her role as moral policeman. She thinks that it is her job to "get people to meetings". The busybody industry is a growing one. The mayor is not responsible for the councillors. The relationship between elected people has to remain at a level of formality. Council meetings are not family gatherings. They are mechanisms to make decisions. The mayor must let the mechanisms work.

There was to be an extra urgent workshop added to the schedule that was earlier debated, announced, debated again and altered. This was to involve the residents' associations. All councillors had been sent a message about it by the mayor. Dates and times were discussed. Then, we discovered that the extra LTCCP workshop was not a real workshop. Nor was it to be organised by the chief executive. Nor would the Standing Orders apply. Nor would the chief executive be giving advice there. It was called by the mayor because she was asked by Graeme Ebbett to have a workshop with the councillors and the residents' associations. Graeme is a great participator in the community and he has plenty of good ides. That does not mean the council should run round after him. Hence, that "workshop" is in fact an informal chat to be run by the mayor. It should be a great event. The whole system is being warped by the mayor calling meetings on a whim. It is the chief executive who runs the LTCCP meetings.

We also discovered that the meeting at Elsdon Camp was not an official council workshop either. That was called by the mayor because Don Borrie thought it would be nice for the council to pay more attention to the camp. Now we are all being drafted to pay the place an official visit. There are no decisions to be made, it is just an addition to the councillors workload because Don asked. Again, Don is a great participant in our community but he should not be allowed to warp our proceedings. The chief executive calls meetings - we are a Council not a group of friends. We are busy people. The councillors are all part-time. Only the mayor is full-time and paid a full-time salary.

The next part of the disastrous workshop consists of a run through material that we had read before. Indeed, blog readers will have seen the key points on this blog: the efficiency savings, the pressure on salaries, and our inability to find staff. Most of this we agreed was management and not governance. It could have been reduced to one slide and a 2 minute summary.

There was virtually nothing relevant to the LTCCP decision making debated by the councillors at all. I talked too much because I was bored. But there was no debate as such.

We should have taken the groups of activities and debated which ones we want to increase and which ones should decrease in percentage terms - that would be strategic thinking at the right level.

We should have spent about half an hour with each activity: what is its purpose, what is the asset base, what it the provision for maintaining these assets, what functions are planned as possible expansions, what can be cut. Specific concrete talk about real issues.

We still plan to use the idiosyncratic categories of basic ($37.5 million), strategic ($3.5 million), and discretionary ($0.5 million). Basic has now been divided up into basic-basic and new-basic of two kinds. Basic is that area that the councillors cannot debate or cut. The bit the councillors have to decide is discretionary (if there is indeed any money left over).

The restructure of the budget mechanisms is long long overdue. I am tired of having to face the same absurdities every year, the same complaints, the same lack of initiative. I have been saying this stuff for over a decade now. Still we operate mechanisms that of themselves generate rates increases and upward pressures. Still we operate mechanisms that fail to have us engage in the real issues, frustrate the hell out of the community, tarnish the reputation of the Council, and keep us in a dance of irrelevance.

It might be the only sensible one was Cr Ah Hoy, who had the good sense to stay away.
r
Thursday, March 2, 2006

REPLY FROM JOHN WATSON

Robert,

Phew !!!  You have set out a problem - as you see it; but only the councillors can resolve the matter.

Bringing the matter before the public just muddies already turgid waters. Your job is to help sort it out WITHIN Council - the public are not the ultimate decision makers - you were all elected to do that job. If that is not the case and it's too much for the present councillors let them tell us and we will know what to do next time. But should we wait till then?

Hot air alone will not keep the PCC balloon above the mountain the councillors are making for themselves.

The LTCCP is supposed to be a meeting of minds - Council and Community - as a basis of producing the other component - a Long Term Plan. Is all that too difficult, or simple, for the Council to come to grips with?

I liken a meeting between councillors and the various residents' associations as an opportunity for the buyers of PCC services to view the goods on offer. How else can the vendor understand, among other things, what the prospective buyers can afford given possibly agreed priorities?  It's the open long-term determination of priorities that bedevils this Council of generally disparate individuals. Should we expect anything better under the circumstances?

Where should the Council look for leadership to sort this lot out?

If you think you can handle the challenge, it's high-time you got cracking with a firm hand inside Council so as to stop-the-rot - and don't bother us on the blog until you have succeeded!

Regards - John W

Final note:

A blog is a blog not a newspaper. It is opinion, and ideas, about Porirua City and the Wellington Region. I hope that debate develops and in that way our region becomes smarter and the councils make better decisions. The letters copied here are in their original form, and not the way they were published by the newspaper. Most of the letters were sent to the Kapi Mana News, The Porirua News, The Dominion-Post, the Whitby NewsBrief, or the Northerner. The statements from others are not edited or sanitised. Remember - no attempt is made to ensure there is balanced opinion.

Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor