The Porirua Wellington Web Blog - May 2006
Porirua
City Councillor Robert Shaw 
I asked an officer for information other council's that have moved towards
non-ward councillors and the result is below. Incidentally, it is not uncommon
in Australia for their to be no wards at all in local government units.
r
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
"Kapiti Coast District Council has a mixed system of 5 from 4 wards, 5 at large (plus the mayor). Details are in the determination of the Local Government Commission which can be viewed on this link
http://www.lgc.govt.nz/lgcwebsite.nsf/Files/KapitiCoastDC2004/$file/KapitiCoastDC.PDF
Tauranga City Council also has a mixed system with 3 from 3 wards, and 7 at large (plus the mayor). Details are in the determination of the Local Government Commission which can be viewed on this link
http://www.lgc.govt.nz/lgcwebsite.nsf/Files/TaurangaCC2004/$file/TaurangaCC . PDF
I have checked the other determinations for both 2004 and 2007 elections that have been made by the Local Government Commission so far - none of these have a mix of at large and from ward.
I have also checked the final representation arrangements of the four Councils that did not have any appeals to their proposals. All of these have ward based systems with no Councillors being elected at large. There are many other Councils that are in the early stages of making their initial proposals, or have made their initial proposals but have not reached the stage of having a final proposal so have not checked them."
Hi Robert
The ward debate is certainly interesting. You will of course be aware that whatever
decision council finally makes could be changed by the representation commission.
On the at-large issue you said that Labour is likely to win all three seats.
This is highly unlikely. In fact I would think they would probably only win one.
A way to check this is to see how many 1st preference votes Labour got across
the city last election and work those out as a percentage of the total vote.
From memory (I don't have the results in front of me) it's probably around 38%.
In a three member ward the quota for election is about 26%. So they get one and
a bit. They would need a much higher first preference vote to even look like
getting a second seat. A third is a total impossibility. Remember in the strongest
ward for Labour (Eastern), the won four out of five seats - their fourth by only
80 votes.
Cheers
Nick
PS. A sensible decision on the Mungavin garden.
COUNCIL'S MEDIA STATEMENT ON THIS MATTER
Date: 30 May 2006 Fax: (04) 237 1405 Tel: (04) 237 5089 PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL TO INTRODUCE NON-WARD COUNCILLORS Porirua City Council plans to change the representation by councillors at the 2007 election, with the introduction of three councillors who will not represent particular wards. Council last night decided to stay with the current number of 13 councillors at the next election, but will reduce the number of councillors representing each of the city's three wards by one, and have three councillors who are elected by the city at large. The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires local authorities to review their representation every six years. This is the first time Porirua City Council has reviewed its arrangements under this law. There was significant debate amongst councillors about the proposal to replace some ward councillors with 'at-large' councillors, and the motion to do so was carried by nine votes to four. However, councillors believed that there should not be too many 'at-large' councillors, and voted for three in order to maintain the connections with the people they represent from their wards. The existing ward boundaries will not change. There was some debate about whether to split the Northern Ward in two, but Council decided to keep the area in one ward. No councillors supported making any changes to the boundary between the Eastern and Western Wards. Council also decided not to introduce community boards.
MR WATSON COMMENTS ON THE MEDIA STATEMENT
Robert, The media statement from Council on representation by councillors included - "There was some debate about whether to split the Northern Ward in two, but Council decided to keep the area in one ward." That statement is incorrect. There was no debate as the proposer David Stanley, Eastern Ward councillor who lives in Titahi Bay, didn't get a seconder. Idle discussion yes; but no debate. Cheers - John W
Few noticed the superb political effort by the Labour Party to regain control of the Porirua City Council. You have to admire their determination, sense of purpose, and strategic approach.
Every time the Council has to consider the number of councillors, wards, and boundaries, the political people come to the fore. It happens every three years. This time the possibility of having councillors elected at-large heightened their interest.
The first step in their process was to call an emergency meeting of the Porirua Local Government Labour Caucus. This is normally chaired by the MP's husband (in Council premises), but this meet was chaired by David Stanley. It is sometimes thought that Ken Douglas is the Labour Leader in Council. This is not so. Cr Stanley has that position.
So the meeting was called and they decided that the goal was to establish the election of councillors at large, and the more the better. Three seemed like a number that could be achieved. This was a specific goal they all signed up to.
At the Council table last night they played a great game. They gave on the things that did not matter, and they took the unsuspecting councillors along with them. At a critical point in the meeting Cr Douglas left his seat and walked around to Cr David Stanley and whispered in his ear. David then set out on diversionary tactics and took an extreme position. David lost, but Labour won.
I spoke about what would be the effect of the decision to have councillors at large, but no one noticed. The media were not there. The audience consisted of John Watson and former councillor the Reverand Don Borrie. They in their submsisions beat the drum of community boards - a lost cause, beat as they will.
It is not hard to see why Labour wants the election of councillors at large. They are highly likely to win all the seats. Then with seats from Eastern Porirua and Western Porirua they will again control the council. When Labour lost control of the Porirua Council some years ago it was the last council in New Zealand to shed both Labour control and control by a political group.
Why will Labour win the three at-large seats? Because they are organised in the campaign. Each Labour candidate has to pay about $2,000 into a fund for their election expenses. This is why they like to run a full ticket which includes the Licensing Trust, Regional, and City Council. Not only do the candidates provide money, but they provide the workers on the ground to support the whole team. Remember it is very expensive running a campaign over the whole city - most people cannot afford to do so. It is also exhausting and requires a wide range of skills. Ask anyone who has been a mayoral candidate.
So the next Council will be managed by the Labour Party. Just like the good-old-days.
And, now you know how Labour won. It was in May 2006 and virtually no-one
noticed them do it!
r
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
A new census result: As per previous census takes, the population of Porirua City stays very much the same. This time we go up about 830 people overall in five years. We are rushing forward at 66 people a year.
In the past the main things driving the overall population has been the development of infill housing and more white people, and the departure of brown people from the eastern suburbs. I will provide an analysis of the figures when more data arrives.
Clever business people suck the Council into the idea that population growth is some kind of wonderful fortune. It might be good for certain kinds of business. It certainly is not for a City like ours. That the ratepayers should pay to help increase the population is a very odd idea but it has taken hold throughout the country and we just go along with the redistribution of weath to those who aspire to become wealthy through business. If you want to profit from this buy shares in Bunnings or Harvey Norman or the ANZ.
We
must accept that the growth in population will take place in its own time,
and that the goal for the moment is to provide for the people that are
here and get their rates down. Silly plans that are around the notion of
great population growth are bound to do us harm. Look at the cost, both past
and pending, to ratepayers of the Aotea block. Be grateful that sections
are not selling. If they were we would have to find money for at least three
significant road projects.
r
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Jenny Brash says that the idea of a regional petrol tax to fund Transmission Gully is “way out”.
It is time that she and other local politicians realised that the whole idea of a monstrous new highway out of Wellington is “way out”. Dr Cullen has clearly indicated that there is no more money from central Government. The only way to fill the $450 million funding gap is a petrol tax and an even more “way out” increase in rates over the region. And all that to fund a very costly road which brings little benefit.
It is preposterous to suggest spending $80 million on the geotechnical investigations required to finalise the design and cost of the hugely expensive project when there is no hope of raising the necessary funds.
The $80 million should be applied towards a bypass at Pukerua Bay and an interchange at Paekakariki. Those two relatively modest projects would improve the capacity and reliability of the road between Wellington and Kapiti and would also improve access for residents in the seaside communities..
30/5/06
Enquiries to Dick Jessup
ROBERT COMMENTS
Dick has a point in this statement. There always has been, and there is
now, a funding gap that the region must fill. The willingness-to-pay survey
was about this and showed the region was magnificently willing to pay. Reality
will of course be a bit tougher. The regional petrol tax is a good idea.
We need to compare the Wellington situation with the current situation elsewhere
in the country. A toll is also an important part of the package. However,
the first step is to ask those who might build the road, or the infrastructure
finance companies (eg Macquarie Bank) to make suggestions. Others have a
vested interest in being involved because the returns are certain, if somewhat
delayed, and use must be made of this fact.
r
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Robert, can you remember who might have said:
"Infrastructure is Council’s core business. Porirua is in a fortunate position but still must invest more underground. The decision to scrap suburban recycle stations must be reversed and our horrendously expensive approach to rubbish collection must be addressed."
"Porirua’s rates must come down! We are seriously out-of-step with other places and Council’s credibility is now at stake. Our rates force elderly people out of our City, and disadvantage businesses."
"We need a mayor who is credible with the business community and assertive. I propose a Council Committee on economic development with members from Business Porirua. This committee would have delegated responsibility for a budget and certain decisions in the commercial zones of the city."
"We must train youth in democratic processes – both decision-making and political skills. The exercise of democracy is a major justification for local government."
"As Field Marshall Montgomery said leadership involves intellect, concern about people, and the sense to only move when you have overwhelming odds on your side. This approach works in war, business, and local government. It is the mayor’s job to put the councillors to work and to ensure their skills are used."
Hope you can assist.
Cheers - John Watson
Applications are called for the Community Outcomes Fund 2006/2007. Formally known as the Strategic Goal Fund, it has been re-named to align it with the Porirua City Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP).
The Fund is distributed to community organisations working towards the seven Community Outcomes of the LTCCP. These are
1. Health & Housing
2. Education & Training
3. Natural and Physical Environment
4. Young People
5. Economic Growth and Sustainable Employment
6. Transport
7. Welcoming, Creative and Safe City
The fund assists established groups, legally constituted, with an existing track record to build the capacity of their organisation, or to assist with the long term development of the community sector in Porirua. Applications from sports and arts groups will not be considered.
Closing date for applications is 5pm Friday 21 July 2006
For further information and/or an application form, please contact the Community Development Officer, Porirua City Council, on phone (04) 237-1426 or email jcarlyle@pcc.govt.nz . Information about the Fund and application forms are also available online at www.pcc.govt.nz
Hi Maureen
I noticed in your reply to Jim Dearsley that you said: “for the last 8 years, Council has successfully managed to keep the rates around the rate of inflation and still make positive investments in the city”. There is so much “hot air” about Porirua rates that I was surprised to learn this from you and wondered whether you could help by elaborating on this please?
I guess it’s inevitable that everyone moans about their rates and taxes, so it’s important to get the real facts and I’d be happy to circulate to others any clear proof that our rates haven’t been growing faster than general inflation.
Some folk here started an exercise to verify just how much their rates had grown over the last 10 years. The CPI had grown by a compounded 22% from 1995 to 2005 and some Plimmerton residents’ rates had increased in the same period by approx 100%. In my own case the figure was approx 50% - not as bad, but still far higher than general inflation. Presumably this sort of example indicates we’re far from average, but I don’t know who it is that is paying so much less to balance us out!
If you can help advise us on this please, I’d be very grateful.
Another related issue on which you might be able to shed the light of truth is the general claim that Porirua’s rate levels are the highest in the country (or second-highest, after Napier?). Is this just an urban myth? What is the real truth?
And what about the level of our municipal debt? Is Porirua really the most indebted city (perhaps on a per cap basis)? Or is that too quite untrue? How do we rank?
It would be good to know the real facts and, since you tell us that rates have in fact been kept around the rate of inflation, I think you’d be in the best position to advise us correctly please.
Many thanks and regards
Tim Sheppard
Tim & Lana Sheppard
78 Cluny Road
Plimmerton 6006
New Zealand
Dear Robert
Battle Hill Management Plan Review
Thank you for your submission and the interest you have shown in the Battle Hill Management Plan Review. We were pleased to have such a positive response with over 25 people and organisations taking the time to give us their comments.
We are now in the process of collating the submissions and analysing them. Once we have completed this we will send out a newsletter detailing the process and major issues raised during the initial consultation phase. When the draft plan has been prepared we will be advertising in the local newspapers, council offices and libraries that it is available for viewing and invite a second round of submissions.
Please feel free to contact me on (04) 381 7784 if you have any questions or you would like more information.
Kind Regards
Fiona Shaw
Advisor – Policy and Planning
Parks and Forests
Hi Robert
I guess by now you will have heard of iworldpeople and the fact that we are active in Porirua City. You will see below that your son Andrew has had contact in Auckland with Karen Bridgman, one of the directors of iworldpeople. I am leading and promoting the three Porirua City sites. My other hat is I am minister of the St Mary's Anglican Church at Whitby.
I have been more than pleasantly surprised by the response of Porirua people to iworldpeople's arrival. There are registrations coming in daily and I am working with a number of people and organisations who are pursuing having an active presence on the site. These include Parents Inc., Kiwi Hockey, Habitat for Humanity, Cannons Creek Opportunity Centre, local counsellors etc. Media reporting and comment has also been supportive and favourable.
My BIG GOAL is for iworldpeople to be a major influence in promoting community across the city. My attendance at Tuesday night's meeting which discussed the Sports and Events Centre again reminded me that we are a somewhat divided city. As a minister of religion and now as iworldpeople leader in Porirua City, I am absolutely committed to bringing the people of Porirua together by encouraging good and positive communication and a greater appreciation amongst them of the desires and aspirations of all sectors.
In that regard, whether or not the Sports and Events Centre is built in its proposed ($17.5m) form is not the main issue. I believe the main issue is that we have a community building process around the decision so what evolves has maximum buy-in and creates a "win-win" for the citizens of Porirua City. To achieve this we will need to do more listening and less talking, refuse to be disrespectful of others in our discussions face to face, online, in the media and otherwise. We will need to listen to the hearts as well as to the minds of one another.
Robert, perhaps you might be so kind
as to post some or all of the above in your blog. Beyond that I would be
most appreciative of a face to face meeting with you, if you have time, to
explore ways in which iworldpeople Porirua City might work alongside the
Council and Councillors to further promote our wonderful city.
Terry
Alve iworldpeople Porirua City Sites Leader
Email: terry.alve@iworldpeople.com Cell:
027 600 1926 Home : 04 232 2583 P.O. Box 58-103, Whitby, Porirua City 6250 http://www.iworldpeople.co.nz
ROBERT COMMENTS
I met with Terry and we had a good discussion about Porirua City and its
issues. St Mary's at Whitby appears to be going very well. If you have a
moment, check out his new website.
r
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Dear Roger,
I would like to thank you and the officers for the briefing last evening. It involved a lot of out of hours time and that is appreciated. I was a little disappointed in the process you adopted for the meeting. You disallowed clarification during the presentation and then conducted a random question and answer approach that failed to bring structure into the process
It created a conflict 'for or against' situation and polarised positions on emotional grounds. I believe this was regrettable as those I talked to afterwards left feeling we had not gained as much as we could from the effort. Constructive dialogue might have come up with some good ideas and points of agreement. The argument degenerated into "You mean ratepayers. It's just a few dollars a week to save our children from crime and obesity" against "But we are the one's paying and we can't afford these rate hikes". It is not as clear cut as that. Even ratepayers care for their children and grandchildren and there are as many good parents in the North and East as there are in the West.
We are not selfish or uncaring about our city as some of the long statements in support of the S&E Centre suggested. But it is too easy to demand that the Ratepayers pay with a generous smile. What will the sporting bodies or players contribute to the facility they want? They seem to take the attitude that they deserve by divine right to have a top class facility given to them.
Of course it would be a good facility to have but the council must be mindful of those paying the bills. In our own lives we cannot have all we want and have to compromise. I believe the Council needs to think this through again. I would like to suggest a different approach where we focus on our own residents (like Wellinton is doing) rather than seek to have a sporting event centre for regional and national competition.
My plan would be: Stage 1 - Fix up our current facility- new roof and refurbished changing rooms but no extra seating. ($2M). We have a three court facility and why just destroy it to build another. It means that for 12 months we have no facility at all and that questions the need for an even bigger one if it so important. Stage 2 - Find a new site with room for expansion to build a new facility designed to be built in stages perhaps starting with a two court facility with limited seating ($6M guess). Like Wellington this should focus on local needs not Rep events. Every time we host a rep event (or use it for any other purpose) we will deny the use to our own young people. The room for expansion will allow more courts to be built as required by need. The problem with the current proposal is - what happens in ten years time when the four court facility is no longer big enough? there is no room to expand the proposed new facility. Stage 3 Progressive expansion to meet local needs. I have some questions that I wasn't allowed to ask due to the format you chose. I will be sending them to you shortly so I can get answers for distribution locally. Regards Jim
CHIEF EXECUTIVE COMMENTS
Jim
Thanks for your comments.
I understand what you are saying about the process last night but I don't agree with you. What I understand you are suggesting is that I should have allowed back and forth argument or debate between members of the audience. Both you and I know that what happens then in a large meeting is that a vocal few dominate the air time and many people do not have a chance to have their say. The process I followed last night was to try to be rigorously fair in allowing everyone who wanted to have a say, to have their chance to ask a question or make a statement .
The result I suggest was that we heard a large number of members of the audience have a chance to express their views, and Councillors were able to hear a wide diversity of opinions. Those views covered the range of issues that Councillors need to address in making their decision on whether to include the Sports and Events Centre in the LTCCP. I suggest you underrate the intelligence of the audience when you characterise it as an argument that "degenerated" (your word) into "save our children from crime and obesity " versus "we can't afford these rate hikes". I thought the audience had a much more sophisticated appreciation of the tension between the benefits that a Sports and Events Centre could bring to the City and the impacts of that on rates that people face.
I can assure you (from listening to much debate on this in Council) that Council is absolutely mindful of those paying the bills, as well as having a desire to take this City forward and meet the needs of its residents. I have noted your proposed different approach based on a two court facility with limited seating ($6m guess), and you may well want to put that forward for consideration by Council in your submission on the draft LTCCP. It may be helpful for you to know that Council at an earlier stage in this process did consider whether there could be some middle option between the current proposal and a minimum of "fix the leaking roof and do up the toilets".
Council chose to focus on
the 4 court, 2000 seats proposal. It did so because it saw that as best meeting
its vision for what the centre could do for meeting the leisure and recreational
needs of our residents as well as attracting people into the City to add
to economic development of the City. As we stressed last night, Council
is now wanting to listen to the views of the residents of the City and encourage
them to make submissions on the draft LTCCP. I will be pleased to
answer any further questions from you for circulation to your members. I
hope this is a helpful response to your comments.
Regards, Roger
Roger Blakeley
Chief Executive
COUNCILLOR MAUREEN GILLON COMMENTS
Roger & Jim
Roger thank you for your comments. Your approach to ensuring a large attendance were given the opportunity to have a say was appreciated.
Jim - There were a range of views and it was useful to hear the point of view from all sides. The meeting did not deterioriate, it was well chaired by Roger who kept things on track and this allowed all participants who wanted to state their point of view, to have the opportunity to do so.
One point that you seem to have missed is that Councillors are committed to finding extra funding through a range of other sources, including central government. Over one third of the total amount can already be found from the sale of the Aotea block - this is a major achievement and would have an immediate impact on the LTCCP.
Rates - Jims comments at the meeting about Council were unwarranted. for the last 8 years, Council has successfully managed to keep the rates around the rate of inflation and still make positive investments in the city. I was heartened by the comments of one participant at the meeting who noted the improvements and congratulated Porirua as being a "city on the move". The spinoffs associated with "positive perceptions" of the City are priceless and enduring. Business investment in Porirua is improving and that brings people and services. I note that the stats already show this improvement.
While the $17 million dollar price
tag sits in the LTCCP, no member of Council ever envisaged that rates
would ever fund the total amount. As far as I know we are all committed
to ensuring extra funding sources are found.We may be successful in finding 50%,
or more, of the funding and that is a real achievement. Local organisations
such as Rotary could identify ways to get behind the centre - it will benefit
all ages and is a positive investment in the intergenerational equity of
our City.
Maureen Gillon ----- Original Message -----
Front page of the Kapi Mana News - "PCC's secret broadband deal".
The Council constructed the headline by their own actions. And they deserve
it. On 8 May Council made a decision in secret and then decided to keep
it secret. The need for secrecy expired on 16 May (if not in fact before)
- but still the Council kept its secret. The result being that the Kapi Mana
story does not give the vital information about the "investment". What is
more I cannot give it to you here, because it is still a secret.
r
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Hi Roger
I received a call from Tim Manu late last night at home. He was concerned with some issues relating to the above.
1. Entitled members. Tim is concerned that there are a couple of non youth council members who will be attending the forum. He has spoken to Janet about this. He also would like ex members of the Youth Council to be invited. Can we clarify our position on this. My view is that if non youth council members are able to attend then this opens the door for other interested stakeholders, eg youth network forum. Are our workshops open to the public, if so then non youth council members should be entitled to attend as observers. My view is that we are as inclusive as possible, but the roles are well defined.
2. Youth
Council meeting. There was a youth council meeting held last night in preparation
for the workshop however Tim informs me that he either didn't get an invitation
or he received it very late - I think he received it yesterday. Would
appreciate some clarification on the above.
Thank you Taima
Taima
Fagaloa
Bachelor in Social Work
Pacific Community Liaison
Whitireia Community Polytechnic
Telephone 2373103 extention 3930/3817
Telephone 021-127-3251
Facsimile: 04-2373112 / 2370992 hm
Be aware that Council prosecutes people who do work without the necessary
permits. A Titahi Bay resident has just been fined $5,000 for building a
fence and excavating under a deck without the necessary permits.
r
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
EQM Farming Limited seeks a change in the District Plan to enable them to
develop 40 rural/residential lots around Belmont Road. Council will contract
out the processing work for this application to Connell Wagner Limited. In
due course the Strategy Committee will have to decide if the change should
be publicly notified. There is no cost to ratepayers in all of this. Of course,
councillors cannot discuss this matter with anyone. Anyone seeking more information
should approach the PCC.
r
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Hello Mr. Shaw
Porirua City : cemetery charges
I recognise ratepayers are too willing to seek new Council initiatives at no personal cost. I propose an opportunity for reduced costs and would like to think you would support such a change. In the past Councillors have proclaimed support for lowering rates in this over rated city, in 8 years I have seen none.
City cemetery charges
Cemeteries, especially new ones, primarily service individuals’ personal needs; require large new areas of land over time; stop other uses for the land in perpetuity; impose maintenance costs and incur opportunity costs. They are an inefficient use of land and other resources, being an activity of low sustainability in an age when communities are moving towards sustainability. Further they have a very limited ‘public good’ component. Thus Councils should very actively encourage multiple interments in a plot, and cremation for example, together with a high emphasis on a full user pays system.
The PCC cemetery charges appear very low [e.g. under $1,315 for an adult plot and burial, excluding GST] for preventing all other uses of the land ‘for ever’. A charge for say 99 years use [a common term in long land leases] and one that also reflects the cost of land purchase and development, maintenance and the opportunity cost over that period would be realistic. A new area at Whenua Tapu is committed to development expenditure as the next area of cemetery plots. Its inauguration would be an ideal time to introduce a new improved approach to cemetery use and charges. You are about to foist a $1m cost on ratepayers for the extension, no small sum for the benefit particularly of the few who demand land hungry practices.
It is not my desire to prevent full burials. However where the considered family view requires one then the true long-term cost of the land area must be met by the family, and similarly for other forms of interment. In the matter of burials and burial grounds Council should not act as some sort of social welfare agency meeting personal costs and private cultural interests where there is no substantial community or business benefit from the service.
My questions are:
· The present cemetery burial charge covers the actual plot costs for what period of time?
· What is the present ratio of public to private good attributed to the cemetery by PCC and used to justify the present level of subsidy to users, and what is the basis of calculating that ratio?
· Are you prepared to promote a full review of the basis of cemetery charges in Porirua, including recognition of the points outlined here? If not, why not? I suggest one should not take public silence on the current cost structure as acquiescence with policy, which may itself be outdated.
Mana Highway
My second brief comment is to note my bemusement and despair at aspects of the new Mana highway. I always thought roads were mainly conduits along which people and goods were moved, but it seems it is only partially true here! After the delays and expenditure on building a new road authorities now ensure 50% of its width is closed to traffic 21 hours a day with these transit lanes. It may meet a Court decision but seems odd that residents have, for most of the day, been given a free car park at their door with a newly sealed surface and security night lighting – while drivers are discouraged from using their road. Council should move to have it accepted as a 4-lane road in the interest of the wider public good. Such a move I believe is not included in the draft 10-year plan.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. G. S. Lawes
5 Glengavel Grove
Porirua
23 May 2006
The Dominion Post, 4 May, reported Transit's advice that $80 million of spending on geological and preparatory work would be required before construction could commence on the Gully motorway. This is the same order of cost as the estimates for the combined bypasses at Paekakariki and Pukerua Bay . It highlights the cost extravagance of the monstrous Gully proposal, for which the regional public is being expected to finance some $500 million.
Regional ratepayers show great antipathy to funding minor facilities of the order of a few tens of millions of dollars. They obviously are unaware of the cost obligations they face with respect to the route they, apparently, enthusiastically support. There must be an ineptness of local authority organisation, process, or representation, for the mis-information that has led to this situation having occurred.
The scene is set for no positive outcome being achieved for road users across the entire region. Local authority players need a major shake-up to resolve the situation.
Yours sincerely,
M J Williams ph: 232 3312
ROBERT COMMENTS
The Minister of Finance said a construction start for TGM before 2010-11
- notice the word BEFORE. Most people seem to be thinking it means IN.
r
Monday, May 22, 2006
Below is the extract of Dr Cullen's budget speech relevant to Transmission Gully Motorway.
This includes: " The Government funding includes provision for the following projects, subject to the local share of funding also being made available: * The investigation and preliminary design work for Transmission Gully to enable a construction start by 2011/12 " ; Also note: " In addition, the Government believes it is necessary to secure some cushion both to bring forward other key projects and to ensure the programme is not subject to any further uncertainties. Therefore, I am announcing that over this period the Government will be prepared to issue up to $1.0 billion in infrastructure bonds " .
The important points here are:
1 the investigation, preliminary design and consent preparation work for TGM is funded, ie the 3 preparatory stages, estimated cost $ 80M (geotechnical investigation is only the first third of this) , by 2011 - as in the recently approved Western Corridor plan (WCP) ;
2 the TGM timetable as in WCP is accepted, and we expect preparation to be done ( that is, consent in place funding confirmed, and out for tender) by 2011 and TGM to be ready for construction 2011-2016.
3 Taking the preparatory work as done, the two main hurdles remaining to clear are 1) the nature of the contract, ie ordinary Transit (unlikely) or design-build or BOT or PPP - the latter two will mean some tolling; and 2) agreeing how the funding is to be paid off, ie who pays for the loan eg interest costs ;
4 The Crown loan mechanism to cover the balance of construction cost is confirmed as at least available - as in the RLTC paper following the WCP, ie Government policy on transport funding has been radically changed ;
5 The loan mechanism (infrastructure bonds) is available for a range of named "national strategic projects" and TGM is one of them;
6 There are two asterisks in the detailed budget text alongside TGM, with the note "subject to local contribution being agreed". I am meeting tomorrow with two LG CE colleagues and CEs of Government Transport agencies to discuss these issues.
7 The Regional Land Transport Committee agreed on 11 April that a deputation led by the Chair of the Regional Council, Chair of Regional Land Transport Committee, and the region's Mayors would discuss with Ministers resolution of uncertainties in funding the Western Corridor Plan including TGM. Work is being done on a special case for funding of TGM for that deputation. This is another very positive step on the road to TGM!
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
Dr Cullen said:
"A similar balance needs to underpin the other major area of infrastructure improvements: roading, rail and land transport. The publication of Transit's draft ten year programme earlier this year caused some consternation by implying that a number of projects that had previously been included were going to be dropped. That created both uncertainty and disappointment.
Since the draft programme, which posted a $642 million gap in funding for state highway construction over ten years, more complete analysis has been done which indicates that over the next five years the shortfall over the whole National Land Transport Programme is $862 million. This would lead to even more delays in key roading projects unless there were also cutbacks in public transport funding which, along with maintenance, comes out of Land Transport New Zealand's allocation before new roading projects are funded. Such a situation is unacceptable to the Government.
There is a need for certainty in the forward programme over a credible time horizon. In Budget 2006 the Government is therefore committing to meet the funding shortfall over the coming five years which will allow the programme of activity as set out in August 2005 to proceed. This programme will be updated periodically to allow greater certainty going forward. The funding to enable the Government to pick up the slack and reinstate all the projects for the next five years which were previously in Transit's ten year programme will mainly come from a special dividend of $800 million from Meridian.
This will occur in large part because of the very successful sale of Meridian's Australian Southern Hydro assets. The payment is due on 30 May 2006, subject to appropriate solvency tests. A separate announcement will be made on the key deliverables that Transit expects can be made with this commitment to funding. In addition, the Government believes it is necessary to secure some cushion both to bring forward other key projects and to ensure the programme is not subject to any further uncertainties. Therefore, I am announcing that over this period the Government will be prepared to issue up to $1.0 billion in infrastructure bonds.
Of that, Budget 2006 commits $425 million over the next five years to enable the following projects amongst others to be brought forward:
* Advancement of the Manukau Harbour Crossing by one year to enable substantial completion by 2011;
* Advancement by four or more years of the four-laning of Longswamp to Rangariri and the Rangariri and Huntly bypasses;
* Regional projects such as the Christchurch Southern Motorway, Christchurch Western Corridor, Awakino Gorge, and Kopu Bridge;
* Road safety projects, reduced environmental impacts on sensitive areas, and increased walking and cycling contribution to local authority strategies; and
* A range of investigation projects to improve state highway access to high growth economic development areas such as
* State Highway 1 north and south of Auckland;
* Hamilton southern links;
* Kaimai ranges;
* Ngauranga to Wellington Airport; and
* Projects in Nelson and Queenstown.
The Government funding includes provision for the following projects, subject to the local share of funding also being made available:
* The investigation and preliminary design work for Transmission Gully to enable a construction start by 2011/12;
* A construction start on the Tauranga Eastern Corridor; and
* Caversham four-laning.
A further announcement will be made tomorrow on a multi-million dollar funding package for the Waikato region following a report on Waikato's transport needs from central and local government officials. This is in addition to today's announcement of $1.3 billion in new transport funding. In Budget 2006 the Government is also delivering on its commitment to remove the tolling on the Tauranga Harbourlink Bridge under its confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First.
Madam Speaker, This Government has nearly already doubled spending on land transport. These announcements mean both greater certainty and significant acceleration in addressing this fundamental area of infrastructure need. Even without levying a capital charge to reflect the true cost of the roading system, this means that the days of retaining any petrol excise duties in the Crown Account are over.
Between 2006/07 and 2010/11 the total revenue collected from road user charges, petrol excise duty, and motor vehicle registration is estimated to be $13.1 billion. Total land transport funding, including the special packages for various regions, is estimated to be $13.4 billion, $300 million more than total revenue. Meanwhile, the Government will continue to work with Auckland and other local authorities on efficient and effective improvements to the public transport system. This will include how best to enable local authorities to meet their contributions to local land transport costs. At the same time, it is likely that further investment into the rail system will be required to ensure the maintenance of a national network."
Dear Councillors
There is a line missing in the LTCCP on page 50 ie projects included -- namely the split of the table resulted in the line with the Community (village) development being dropped. An erratum will go out immediately to rectify this. We will notify Residents' Associations immediately. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.
Sue Veart General Manager, Strategic Policy Porirua City Council sveart@pcc.govt.nz Ph 2371422 Fax 2371445
COUNCILLOR GILLON COMMENTS
Of all the lines that could have been dropped!! - this is the one that will cause most anxiety for Residents Assns and communities. They have worked hard to develop their plans and the ongoing development is a key focus! Maureen
Total Income:
DHB Budget for the year ended 30 June 06: $ 591,747,000
Provider Arm Budget for the year ended 30 June 06: $ 374,208,000
Total Expenditure:
DHB Budget for the year ended 30 June 06: $ 582,868,000
Provider Arm Budget for the year ended 30 June 06: $ 364,437,000 Editor
Dr Welch suggests we follow the British approach to waiting
lists for scans, and good on him (Letters 18 May 2006). But, his system
may not work in our region because we are still waiting for a CT scanner
to be installed at Kenepuru. That particular wait has been since July
2003 and just this week our Health Board admitted they will complete
their planning for it in March 2007. Using Dr Welch's scheme this would
be the wait before the wait before the wait.
Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Question: Is the Board committed to the long term retention of medical beds at Kenepuru (ward 5) |
Answer: The C&C DHB commitment to medical beds at Kenepuru is outlined in the Business Case- redevelopments for the Capital and Coast Communities 2001 . This commitment was further reinforced by the Board in November 2002 when it agreed to the allocation of overnight services as follows:
In July 2003 the Board agreed that the unallocated beds will be used predominantly for adult medical needs and some surgical needs.
|
|||||||||||||||
Question: To support both the medical beds and elective surgery at Kenepuru a High Dependency Unit is needed. What plans are there to develop such a unit at Kenepuru? What are the arguments around this concept?
|
Answer: There are no plans to have a High Dependency Unit at Kenepuru. |
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Question: When is the CT scan to be installed at Kenepuru as per the original plan? Why is it not there now? When is the Ultrasound diagnostic facility to be established at Kenepuru as per the original plan and why is it not there now? |
Answer: Planning in relation to diagnostic services is still progressing. It is expected that this planning will be completed by March 2007.
|
Is it correct that the required lead was not installed in the walls of a room at Kenepuru in the redevelopment and if so why not? |
Correct. The lead was not installed as its placement will be undertaken as part of the equipment installation. When the equipment is known the various services will be installed. Not yet decided whether to install lead or GIB -X. The interior of the room has been lined so it can be used in the mean time. |
What is the status and future of the hydrotherapy pool on the Kenepuru site? How do the usage figures there compare with your other Hydrotherapy facilities? Do you keep any breakdown on where people come from that use that facility? |
The current situation is that C&C DHB operates one hydrotherapy pool for therapeutic use in the region. The Porirua C&C DHB pool was recently upgraded and has a limited life of 3 to 5 years. It will continue to use the Porirua pool for the foreseeable future while further work on partnership options with other local agencies are undertaken, with a final decision on future options to be make by June 2006. There is only one pool operated by C&C DHB. The Current utilisation of Porirua pool is :
Kapiti Seven Oakes pool - The DHB has an agreement with Seven Oakes to use the pool for DHB patients. This is an allows the DHB two regular one hour afternoons sessions a week for Therapies service and in addition sessions for ATR services on an adhoc basis as required . The following data analysis is based on data extracted for full year 2004/2005 Total individual patient contacts:
|
May 17, 2006
The ASB / Main Report Regional Economic Scoreboard collates and compares
regional economic statistics and events.
Common themes for the latest quarter include:
The place to be ...
COUNCIL MUST CHANGE THE WAY IT BUDGETS
By Councillor Robert Shaw
Every year we see the same confusion, anger, frustration, and disheartenment. This is of course what we expect when the Porirua City Council does its budget. Everyone pitches in, ideas abound, and then the frustration begins
Over the last few years the anger has been directed between sectors of the City. The business people say the household rates are too low, and rural sector says they are disadvantaged in comparison with other groups. The residential sector points to the business rates. This wrench to community coherence should concern us all. Fortunately, we do not have to look far to see the reason for the problem. It is simply that the overall level of rates in Porirua City is far too high. Everyone is suffering. I will not here rehearse all the negative effects on residents and businesses of our high rates regime.
Excuses can be made; we have heard them all. Fact is, the Council takes too much money in rates. Part of the reason is the dependence of the local government sector on property taxes, but the other part is that our councillors consistently vote for rates increases.
Why do the councillors do this? Looked at a little simplistically, it is
because of the method we adopt for budgeting. We decide what we want to buy
and then add up the cost.The power of taxation is an horrendous power and
so easy to wield.
A strategic plan (known in local government as the Long Term Council Community Plan) is supposed to assist us here by putting limits on rate increases and other parameters. It works to some extent – but we still have the basic problem. What is more we have the same old mechanism in play when we do the LTCCP.
Apart from the issues of the moment, I want to see the Council focus on how it does the budgeting. This may sound like a dull topic, but it has its attraction for all who want to see our rates come done. It has its attraction for all who want to see the Council become strategic in its spending of your money. It has its attractions for all who are frustrated in the process, year after year.
The councillors decided last year - unfortunately rather informally - that
they wanted a different process. For me the first challenge is to convince
people that the process can be different and to get the reforms underway.
This year we face the usual raft of problems. We have run beyond our timeframe (as required by the law) and hence the whole process is pressured. It is as if we have just suddenly discovered that we must produce a plan. Is it not possible to plan our planning ahead a little? The computer broke down.
We use an absurd, historical, complex, irrational, and officer-driven approach to the actual decision-making. The heart of it is the categories we use. The most exciting being the "basic" category which the officers’ control with virtually no reference to the elected people, let along the public. This item is about $37 million in a total budget of about $41 million. We do not actually have a process to look at the $37 million.
The first part of the process is the long gestation that takes place with the public excluded. It is designed to build trust, understanding, and community cohesion. I jest! This year we had a new twist - mayor Bash called meetings of her own in the middle of the sequence not evidently aware that we were locked into a process.
The next part of the confusing process is that we follow the statute. We are driven by the law as if everything is mandatory. We may produce a disaster but it is a legally-sound disaster. This year we take this to new heights with on-site auditors watching every move. Blame central government for this - until they trust local government we are going to be bound by petty rules, inappropriate emphasis, and stupid outcomes.
However, the Act is not as strict as we are led to believe. Much of it is optional and open to interpretation. When lawyers are involved, mere mortals turn from what is reasonable.
Finally, I here set out the problems and not the answers. My task is to convince people that we have a systemic problem around budgeting. If you want to see some of the answers they are on www.porirua.net
Why are councillors never invited to this type of exercise? It would seem important to know the procedure so that we do not get in the way if there is a disaster. Surely local leaders do have a role, even if it is being informed about progress? Maureen DKOHA@pcc.govt.nz writes: >
MEDIA RELEASE > > > > For immediate use > > > > Date: 15 May 2006 > > > > Fax: (04) 237 1405 > > Tel: (04) 237 5089 > > > > > > >
PORIRUA TO PARTICIPATE IN PACIFIC-WIDE TSUNAMI EXERCISE > > > > > New Zealand joins 28 countries from around the Pacific this Wednesday 17 > May, in the first international exercise to test warning procedures for a > distant-source tsunami. > > > > Porirua's Emergency Operations Centre will take part in Exercise Pacific > Wave which has been designed to increase preparedness, exercise warning > arrangements and improve co-ordination throughout the Pacific and locally. > > > > The exercise will be simulated at the National Crisis Management Centre at > Parliament and our EOC will be activated in the afternoon from 1.30pm to > 6pm. > > It will not involve actual public warnings or evacuations.
This is by Peter McCardle. A former Associate Health Minister, Peter is a now an elected member of the Hutt District Health Board. This article was originally published in The Dominion Post.
A year ago my Doctor rang. ‘Your blood tests show you have had a heart attack. We are admitting you to the Emergency Department now’.
A quintuple bypass later, fit and dangerous, I am one of many wonderfully looked after by our public health system.
Today there are around 31,000 New Zealanders in our top surgical waiting list group called “Booked/Certainty”. Mostly they are in near acute need, but while many will have to wait some months, they will get the surgery they need.
My concern is the second tier waiting list group, called “Active Review”, 24,000 people who will not get the elective surgery they need-unless they get more seriously ill.
Active Review is the waiting list for the waiting list. People in it need an operation, but they are not quite seriously enough ill to join the top “Booked/Certainty” group. Our Hospitals simply don’t have the capacity or resources to provide their operation.
These people must wait until either their condition deteriorates enough so they go up into the “Booked/Certainty” category- or if they don’t deteriorate enough- after eighteen months the Ministry of Health now says they are supposed to be removed from the Active Review list.
Now here’s the very serious problem.
The number of people needing to see a Specialist, and then needing an operation, is growing strongly every year. For simplicities sake, we could say that the numbers wanting surgery grew from 100,000 cases one year, to 110,000 the next.
But our public capacity to do these operations is growing more slowly-- in this example year say to 105,000 operations- in part because the complexity of the surgery needed by those in the top “Booked/Certainty “group is intensifying each year.
Our population is aging and growing, as are our treatment options. Each year, several thousand more people need a Specialist assessment or elective surgery than can be delivered, than the previous year.
Health Boards are instructed to try and ensure no one waits for over six months. To achieve this and to control the three lists-First Specialist Assessment, Booked/Certainty and Active Review- while facing greater numbers each year, there are three measures Boards usually have to implement.
Firstly, they lift the points threshold at which a patient gets into the “Booked/Certainty” category. Instead of needing 70 points out of 100, it may be lifted to 72. This is needed not because the hard working surgeons, nurses and staff are doing less-it’s because more and more people need operations-and more serious operations on average. So each few years you effectively have to be sicker to qualify to get into the “Booked/Certainty” category.
Secondly, the Ministry now says patients should only remain in “Active Review” if they are likely to deteriorate enough within eighteen months to qualify to go into “Booked/Certainty”. Many Health Boards have not been applying this guideline, and so there are some thousands in Active Review for over eighteen months. But that will change as Boards are pressured to meet the Ministry’s and Governments goals.
The third strategy to reduce waiting is to narrow down entry into the waiting lists system in the first place-where the GP refers the patient to the Hospital specialist- called the First Specialist Assessment list. Hospitals are increasingly having to limit the number of GP referrals, because Hospitals cannot meet all GP requests for Specialist Assessments, and are now limiting inflows onto the list to the number it can see within six months. Hospital staff work with GPs to limit referrals. Failure to do this led to the Hawkes Bay situation, where the numbers waiting to see the Specialist got so large the hospital carried out a huge one off removal of 1,800 low priority patients from its FSA list.
So what to conclude.
Firstly; because we are living longer and new procedures are available- every year the number of people wanting a place on elective waiting lists grows faster than capacity.
Even with the increasing exclusions and removals outlined, there are around 120,000 waiting for a Specialist Assessment, and over 55,000 needing surgery.
Secondly, the public system is at full capacity. Let no-one tell you otherwise-the Doctors and Nurses we have are part not just of a profession-but a vocation. They are great. And Government has poured hundreds of extra millions-actually billions- into the health system. To meet all waiting list demand however would require not just hundreds more millions, but billions more to build extra theatres, hire staff, and create extra capacity. We are already over taxed-it is just not a practical option.
We must come up with new ways to help the 24,000 plus patients in Active Review or who have been sent back to their GP, who need surgery.
Our hospitals generally deliver well surgically for those who are acute or very sick. But they cannot for all those needing elective surgery, including those in Active Review.
We must find new ways to help these people, for each year it will only get worse. The status quo is not a long term option. Let’s give elective patients greater hope by giving Health Boards freedom to try initiatives, such as subsidies to go private.
The Whitby Residents' Association is holding a public meeting as an open forum on the LTCCP at the Anchor Church Whitby on 7 June starting at 7.30pm.
Councillor John Green has been asked to open the discussion on the draft plan including the Sports and Event Centre. Councillors attending are welcome to contribute.
The aim is to help the community understand the plan so they can contribute to the decision process by submission as informed citizens. It will also assist you gauge public opinion.
Best regards
Jim
Friday, May 12, 2006
Kia ora
The Police report was not able to be opened by most of the computers I forwarded it to so I have typed the report details below.
Total Vehicles Monitored 169,245
Total Vehicles exceeding 50km 80,407
Total Violations (60km +) 10,617
Percentage over 50 km/h 47.51%
Percentage over 60 km/h 6.27% This seem slow, can't wait for St Andrews Road figures
Average Speed 49
Km/h This figure seems low
Percentage speeders ticketed 13.20%
As at date 8.5.06
Ka kite
Mescal
a North Tees NHS Trust, Stockton, Cleveland TS19 8PE , b Health Centre, Spennymoor, County Durham DL16 6ED , c Department of General Practice, Medical School, Sheffield S10 2RX
The wizards and the gatekeepers were unhappy. There were many reasons for their unhappiness. They worked hard but felt that too much was being demanded of them. The poorly people's charter was resulting in unrealistic expectations, and changes in the apprenticeship for wizards were putting great strain on their mentors. The wizards enjoyed their work less and less, and it was getting difficult to find new gatekeepers. On the other hand, the way the system worked meant that there had to be plenty of goblins and the number of scrolls that had to be filled in was rising sharply. The wizards and gatekeepers tried to point out ways to improve things that would ensure that poorly people were better treated, but there was no easy solution. With the ominous sign that the recruitment of wizards and gatekeepers was becoming more difficult, an answer was needed--and soon.
The wizards and the gatekeepers were very unhappy. 1 2 Once upon a time they had enjoyed their work of looking after the poorly people of the kingdom and had felt appreciated. They had always worked hard and done their best, and even when their magic potions hadn't worked (which sometimes happened) the poorly people and their families knew that they had done their best and were grateful.
Things had changed. Although there were lots more wizards and gatekeepers, with better spells and magic potions, all was not well in the kingdom. The king was worried that he was not very popular and needed more support from his people. "Sire," whispered his chancellor, "you need a big idea if you want to stay king."
The king thought very hard about this. "Surely the charters 3 were a big idea?" he asked.
"Why not make them bigger and better?" suggested the chancellor. "The goblins can produce lots more charter proclamations telling everyone how much better things are getting."
"Gosh, what a splendid idea," said the king, and he summoned all his ministers to tell them the good news.
Keeping up with the charters
The wizards and gatekeepers read the new charters; they tried to keep up with them, but pretty soon they were besieged by the people. "We want to see a wizard now," the people cried to the gatekeeper. "You must make us better more quickly," they demanded of the wizard. All the wizards and gatekeepers got more and more tired as they worked harder and harder. They complained to the goblins, but the goblins said that it was difficult enough managing the contracts--seeing all the poorly people was the wizards' problem. The goblins maintained that the wizards could work much harder if they really had to. The wizards did work harder, because they worried about the fate of the poorly people if they didn't. With more and more poorly people being seen, the wizards had to work later and later each day, and they got tired and sometimes they weren't very cheerful."
This is continued at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/310/6986/1042The councillors are actively developing improved Standing Orders. More discussion on this at a meeting yesterday.
Cr Douglas had the bright idea of separating out the two kinds of events where the public can address committees.
Hence, would have:
The same set of rules would apply to both. These would be simplifed to say that everyone (or a group) gets 10 minutes, unless extended by the chairperson in the chairperson's absolute discretion. People would have a very strong right to address the councillors before decisions are made, but the new items might have to take their turn. The overall effect of this would be to increase the access of the public to the decison-making committees of the council.
Also, there is a desire with the councillors to re-work the provisions regarding
the councillors asking questions. Perhaps a time limit has to be put on them
or a question is to be but one sentence. Also, the idea that one councillor
can ask and infinite number of questions needs to be fixed.
r
Friday, May 12, 2006
"Seaside Village" plan for the the future of the Bay Saturday 13 May 2006 1.00 pm The Village Centre Whitehouse Rd, Titahi Bay. Join other residents for your free full colour copy at the launch. All Welcome Ph Claire 236 5476 Gail 236 7112 Ruth 236 7381 Graeme 236 8574 Titahi Bay Residents Assn Inc
At a Council function last night I happened to be sitting next to David Graham the chairperson of Business Porirua. That reminded me, the councillors have requested a workshop on the purpose, goals and objectives for our spending your money on business and business development. We know all about the three groups that seek your money, but not much about why we give it to them.
A meeting, open to the public, for advice and discussion on this topic, must occur in advance of the LTCCP decision-making.
If the Council can specify the goals sufficiently, they can delegate the purchase of services to the chief executive. This will stop the current situation where groups come to the councillors for grants and contracts. We need to sort out the governance-management divide in this area before we settle the LTCCP.
r
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Dear Robert,
The reason the collective Northern Ward resident associations requested a full briefing on the R&E Centre was because we considered we had not been given sufficient information to make balanced or sensible submissions on the LTCCP. The information in the LTCCP is more a sales job than material that would allow the community to make a balanced judgment. We hope Councillors had more to go on.
We are not looking for debate or setting up Councillors but finding out about the business and social benefits etc of the proposal set out in the LTCCP and looking at alternative means of achieving the desires aims. We also want to find out the impact on other current and future plans should this investment take place. We requested a specific briefing on the R&E Centre because it was of such significance that it would dominate later meetings on the LTCCP as a whole
We specifically
asked that the briefing (and discussion) should be open to any interested
person or body in Porirua and should not only be for resident associations.
It looks as if Councillor Douglas sees an informed community as a threat.
That is regrettable. But we should remember that knowledge is power and an
ignorant populace is more easily manipulated.
Regards Jim
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
ROBERT COMMENTS
This makes the purpose of the meeting clear. It is to provide information
pending submissions. It is not for the councillors - we shall hear the community
subsequently.
r
Editor
In your rush to tell the public about the passion and commitment of
councillors regarding the drains at Takapuwahia (page 2, 9 May 2006), you
neglected to fully set out what was the actual issue to be decided. It was
that the ratepayers' money should be spent on private land. This issue was
developed in the officers' advice and in my introduction to the motions that
I moved. It is a serious issue that deserves discussion. It is not usual
for Council's to pay for works on private land, but in this particular case,
on balance, there is an adequate justification. This decision must be established
before Council spends the $20,000 proposed in the present financial year,
or subsequent larger amounts.
Robert Shaw
Chairperson City Services Committee
Porirua City Council
HWTM and Councillors
At the Strategy Finance and Regulatory Committee on
Thursday 4 May 2006, I was requested to organise a workshop on the Wellington
Regional Strategy. This was particularly requested since the Wellington
Regional Strategy process is now approaching conclusions on the draft strategy
to go out for public consultation, and PCC needs to consider its priorities
for input into that finalisation process. There is a workshop for the Wellington
Regional Strategy Forum on 25 May 2006. Hence I have looked for a suitable
slot for a workshop before that date. This is so that your representatives
the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and alternate Councillor Douglas can argue for
PCC priorities in that workshop. The only possible date before that workshop
is Thursday 16 May 2006, 4.30pm to 6.30pm. I am sorry that this is short
notice. Officers will give a presentation to the workshop. I have also
invited Graham Spargo, Director of the Wellington Regional Strategy Forum
staff group to participate. I am sure that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and
Councillor Douglas will also want to pass on the important issues as they
see them.
Regards Roger
ROBERT COMMENTS
This workshop should have been called as an Extra-Ordinary Meeting of the Council. Then we could have managed a "workshop style" deliberation, followed by decision-making.
Had this been done the public would automatically have been invited. As
it is currently proposed, this is a secret workshop and then subsequent provision
needs to be made for decisision-making. This should mean the Strategy Committee
and then full Council. However, given the nature of the topic and its relative
importance, it would be more sensible to clear it in one go, as an Extra-Ordinary
Meeting. Council loves doing things the hard way.
r
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
ROBERT COMMENTS
In the exchanges below, note the confusion of roles and process. Note the historical situation - every year the process is a shambles and the outcome a somewhat random mix of projects.
Every year we see the same confusion, anger, frustration, and disheartenment. We decided, unfortunately rather informally, as a group of councillors that we wanted a different process. That has not happened. That new process for budget decision-making must be a major part of the discussion at the councillors retreat (at the moment planned for mid-July). Unfortunately, the changes needed are hard to debate and envisage. This is the sort of change that must be brought about by leadership with insight. A tough call in our Council.
When the committee structures were decided - just after we were last elected - it was a very conscious decision to put the whole of the budget planning process under the control of the Strategy Committee. This was decided for three reasons. First, to ensure there was the Committee Recommendation - Council Decision pattern. Second, to put the whole process under the chairpersonship of Ken Douglas, as it was obvious every year that the mayor could not do the job. Third, to begin the development of a new approach to the work. Unfortunately, the officers of the Council have taken it upon themselves to undercut this. We have workshops in secret and we have Extraordinary Meetings called by the officers. The result is the mayor has been chairing and we have the same problems as in the past (essentially no process insight).
We also have run beyond our timeframe (as required by the law) and hence the whole process is yet again pressured. It is as if we have just suddenly discovered that we must produce a LTCCP. Is it not possible to plan our planning ahead a little?
Then, we use this absurd, historical, complex, irrational, and officer-driven approach to the actual decision-making. The heart of it is the categories we use. The most exciting being the "basic" category which the officers control with virtually no reference to the elected people let along the public. To see the importance of this check an earlier blog where I provide a list the items in the basic category - all of which just flash into the budget without much councillor scrutiny. You may recall I made a special point of reading some of them out in the councillors 4-hour debate (in public) that was held on the total $41 million budget.
The next part of the confusing process is that we follow what is set out in the statute as if everything is mandatory and we must follow the law even if the process is absurd in management terms and the result a disaster. At least we are assured we produce a legally-sound disaster. This year this is take to new heights with on-site auditors watching every move and checking it against the list of rules. Blame central government for this - until they trust local government we are going to be bound by petty rules, inappropriate emphasis, and stupid outcomes.
Now to return to the current meeting:
When Jenny Brash was asked to convene a meeting on the recreation centre she said "yes". She should have said "why?". Because there are two distinct kinds of meeting possible. The first is one that provides information to assist people to make submissions. The second is the presentation of those submissions. What Jenny and the chief executive have done is confused the two.
Hence, the public expects to address the councillors and put them on the spot. They expect a separate and special opportunity to influence the decisions. This is what the mayor and chief executive agreed to without any discussion or decision by the councillors. The councillors however, point to the process that is already extant. They point to what they had already agreed on the advice of the same chief executive. There is a Hearings Committee that will consider written and oral submissions. They will weigh the various arguments against each other, trying to keep an open mind.
At the mayor's meeting, people will want to move motions: "That the recreation centre be patched at minimal cost" would seem likely to carry. The meeting is going to be be packed and will be a great expression of anger and frustration. The media should get some good material.
I am very happy to attend residents' associations meetings and debate with them my views. It is part of my responsibility as an elected person to give people access to my thinking and to be open to ideas. This is quite different from a public debate chaired by the mayor and convened by the mayor. This latter also stands in sharp contrast to my responsibility to attend to the decision-making as an elected person in the Hearings Committee.
For several years, I and others, have been saying that we need a new approach to the consultation part of decision-making. We seem collectively to be totally unable to get any significant movment from the old methods. Scorn is tossed upon new ideas. Yet, here again, we face the anger of the public, and rightly, for they are unable to engage with the Council in a convincing way. Nor are they able to be satisfied that their veiws will be adequately taken into account when decisions are finally made.
With regards to the above paragraph and specifically on the recreation centre:
the Council's mistake was to produce a one-option, take-it-or-leave-it, plan.
Now this is at $17 million and not well supported in a high-rates environment
with so many other important projects left unaddressed. What is needed is
a cheaper rec centre plan, something that is more of an acceptable compromise.
Presumably, the chief executive, with his ear to the ground, is working on
such an option at high speed.
r
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
COUNCILLOR DOUGLAS
Kia ora Roger,
I feel quite strongly about this activity and oppose the change to the agreed consultation process that underlies the acquiescence by the Mayor in agreeing to recognise the demand of the Rate Payer Organisations to have the Council give particular recognition to their demand for the Council to meet with them to justify a specific and particular proposal i.e. the Sports and Events Centre which is one component of the LTCCP which is about to be released for Public Consultation.
I question where the Mayor
or yourself derives the authority to vary the decided policy of
the consultation process. The fact that you are now inviting any one
who wants to attend to do so is not the point. It is not even important
to speculate that the activity is simply a particular stunt to garner cheap
political support to establish a media speculation that there is little popular
support fro this project. In my opinion you have both jeopodised the
integrity and purpose of the required and agreed consultation process and
have set an extremely dangerous precedent. Contrary to your advice
i would counsell elected members Not to engage in any way shape or form in
the meeting as this will be used to justify subsequent claims of a lack of
objectivity in taking seriously all and every submission reieved. Please
be advised that I will not be attending this or any other 3 ringed circus
that has as its intention to usurp the proper and legitimate process of required
consultation.
Kia Kaha.
Ken Douglas
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Ken
I would like to make the following points in response to your email:
1. This meeting is not contrary to the policy that has been established in relation to consultation on this draft LTCCP as you suggest. On the contrary, the process we discussed with Council is that we would have the launch and display with elected members in attendance at North City Shopping Centre on Thursday 18 May 2006, but not organise any other public meeting, unless we were asked to by any groups in the City. This could include meeting with local groups to give presentations on the draft LTCCP if they asked.
2. In this case, there was a specific request from Residents' Associations for a meeting on the Sports and Events Centre. They suggested that the Sports and Events Centre was such a significant issue in its own right that it would be valuable to have a comprehensive briefing from officers on the Centre, including the details of the proposal, users, benefits to local residents and economic benefits of visitor attraction, business case, funding etc. Rather than just providing a briefing to Residents' Associations, we have made this a general public meeting and will be advertising it. I believe this is consistent with the approach we discussed with Council, of responding to requests.
3. It is clearly important that we are able to meet with and explain important subjects and issues in the draft LTCCP to our community. I would have thought that a refusal to hold such a public meeting on an issue of widespread interest in the draft LTCCP would have created a very negative environment for our consultation. 4. I agree with your point that Councillors and staff have an obligation to listen to the community during the consultation process. However, all I was suggesting is that elected members may wish to explain to the public the reasons why they put the Sports and Events Centre into the draft LTCCP. That seems to me to be an entirely legitimate role for governance members. Having said that, I would expect that elected members and staff alike will be listening carefully to what the members of the public present say. It did not seem to me to be appropriate that this be simply a briefing from officers. The community is clearly wanting to hear from elected members and not just officers. So, what I am suggesting is an explanation from any elected members present ( who wish to ) on the reasons for putting the Sports and Events Centre into the draft LTCCP. I do not see it as a process of advocacy, which as you say would be contrary to the principles of consultation. But that was not what I was suggesting. We will be there to provide information as requested and listen to the community. I hope this clarifies the issues for you and other members of Council.
COUNCILLOR AH HOY
Talofa
This public meeting being held on the 23rd is no different from having to appear at the North City Plaza on the 18th where councillors have been asked to front the public regarding the draft LTCCP. I'm not sure which decided policy you are referring to with a variance of the consultation process? It is abundantly clear in the LGA sec 82 as well as sec 78. The public have every right to seek answers and request a meeting, especially when the proposal is as huge as this. I would be extremely disappointed if councillors did not attend this meeting. You were elected as a public representative and you owe it to front up whether you agree or not. In my opinion you will jeopardise your own integrity and purpose by not appearing. Stop blaming others because you don't agree. litea
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
SUBMISSION TO COUNCIL
1. The proposal for a Sports and Events Centre has been predetermined in terms of site, design, and function prior to consultation which should have taken place first. Such a major community facility needs to be part of a proper plan for Porirua which would pull together the other ad hoc pieces of development, and include other major community facilities such as the proposed Performance Centre. It would also highlight Porirua city's special features, and include walkways, parking, traffic flow etc.
2. On the chosen site the proposed centre is massive and dominates everything around and near it. It intrudes on to Te Rauparaha Park and crowds Pataka. Hence the proposed design does not suit the site, and is not in sympathy with the Aquatic Centre or Pataka.
3 . We acknowledge that a new or extended Recreation Centre is needed for Porirua, but to have it so large in order to host regional and national sporting events needs considerable further analysis e.g. what other facilities are already available or planned for the region, and to what extent are existing facilities used?
4. Does the need for such a centre justify the cost to the people of Porirua? No decision should be made to proceed unless and until the costs and sources of funding are firmly established and the precise effects on rates are identified and accepted. Other options also need to be considered in terms of design, function and site before acceptance and before inclusion in the Long Term Council Community Plan.
For The Titahi Bay Residents Assn. Inc.
Ruth Cater, Deputy Chair
Kia ora tatau.
As all Councillors are aware I am Director of Air NZ Ltd in which the NZ Govt has a significant shareholding.
Due to a variety of reasons the profitability of the Airline whilst restoredunder extremely difficult trading conditions remans at risk. The Board and Management have worked in a strategic and focussed way to ;
1 Reduce all costs and to examine different sources of supply or re-organisation of existing practices and services to improve profitbility
2. Carried out extensive route reviews
3.. Examined every aspect of Co activity from the point of revenue enhancement and cost minimisation. Councillors will be aware of the responsibilities of Directors to at all times act in prudent and responsible manner in protecting and enhancing shareholder interests I can assure Councillors that this has been the case of the Board as and of the Co as a whole with the overwhelming support of the staff and workforce.
In
respect to the Wellington services and the communication received from Wellington
Airport as part of its "political beat up " which when examined is
disingenuous to say the least and blatantly self serving given Wellington
Airports preditory pricing that has itself driven other Airline servicees
out of Wellington.. . I welcome our Council distributing such material
to elected members and will arrange for Air NZ CEO Rob Fyfe to distribute
the FACTUAL reasons for the Code Share agreement to our Council for like
distribution.
Kia Kaha
Ken Douglas
STATEMENT BY WELLINGTON AIRPORT
Qantas - Air New Zealand Code Share
On 12 April 2006, Qantas and Air NZ announced a plan to "code-share" on the Tasman. This alert explains what the code share is and what the Government should do.
What is a code-share?
Usually a code-share is an arrangement to allow one airline to show its code
or flight number on another airline's flight, on a route where they do not
compete. For example, Air New Zealand code shares with United Airlines on some
trans Tasman flights where they are never likely to compete. The proposed code-share
is for routes where Qantas and Air NZ are by far the dominant competitors.
That is not normal at all.
What are Air NZ and Qantas proposing?
Air NZ and Qantas want to create a cartel. That is, they want to collude on
prices and services for all routes between Australia and New Zealand. They
also want to be able to collude on payments to travel agents and a range of
other matters. They will set up a joint committee between the two airlines
to make decisions on what they will jointly offer customers. They will not
compete and the deliberations of the joint committee will not be scrutinised.
Didn't they try this once before?
In 2003 Qantas and Air NZ proposed an "alliance" that would have allowed extensive
collusion in many markets. It was rejected by the Commerce Commission as highly
detrimental to New Zealand. It was rejected by the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission (ACCC) as detrimental to Australia. On appeal, the High
Court upheld the Commerce Commission's decision.
So what's different this time?
As far as consumers are concerned, not much. The worst elements of the former
proposal remain - collusion on prices and schedules on one of New Zealand's
most important markets. Although the agreement does not allow the cartel committee
to set prices and schedules for other markets, there is nothing to prevent
them from making unilateral decisions not to challenge a 'friendly party' on
domestic routes.
Won't the Commerce Commission put a stop to it?
This time, the Commerce Commission may not get a say. There is an anachronistic
exemption from the Commerce Act to allow the Minister for Transport to approve
code shares. It was never envisaged that this would extend to a highly anti-competitive
cartel, but that exemption exists and it is being used in that way.
There is no such exemption in Australia, so (as in most countries) it will
go to the competition regulator. But the ACCC is under no obligation to take
the interests of Kiwis into account.
Should the Minister of Transport make the decision?
Most developed countries recognise that when influential commercial interests
seek to collude, it is better to have an independent and expert commission
examine the impacts on consumers. When the Government owns the airline, it
is even more difficult for the Minister to be independent and be seen to be
independent.
What should the Government do?
If this code-share really is good for New Zealand as the proponents say, why
not let that point be tested openly and rigorously?
The Government should do two things:
" Refer the current application to the Commerce Commission for a transparent
investigation and advice;
" Enact legislation to get rid of the exemption from the Commerce Act for anti-competitive
code shares.
What can I do?
Write to the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Commerce, and your local
MP, and tell them you want New Zealand's interests examined by the Commerce
Commission. Airlines are making a case to pursue their commercial interests.
Be sceptical of claims about the potential benefits of the cartel and assurances
that all will be well.
COMMENT BY CR WATERS
"It is ingenious to always get both sides of the story and then if people
can (if they have the capacity to) use their brians to come to their own
conclusions.
Tracey"
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
Steering Committee: Sir Roderick Weir (Convenor), Malcolm Faulls BE (Civil)
Dick Jessup BSc FIA, Geoff Thompson LLM
A Message from the Convenor of our Steering Committee
The Regional Council has adopted a regional transport strategy which includes Transmission Gully. However the monstrous project is still a very long way from reality.
There is a shortfall of half a billion dollars in the funds available. The Government has said it will not provide extra funds for the project because it brings very little benefit for a very high cost. Financing will require acceptance of a substantial petrol tax plus a toll plus loans to be repaid by a levy on rates. It is very difficult to see the regions ratepayers and motorists agreeing to pay several hundred dollars extra each year in rates as well as several cents on every litre of petrol to build a superhighway which most of them will use infrequently.
After years of discussion and a series of costly reports and reviews the real position has not changed. The Transmission Gully project achieves too little and costs too much. It is doubtful whether is attainable. It is certainly still many years away.
In the mean time the Coastal Highway Group will continue to press for improvements to the existing road such as sensible arrangements to replace the T2 lanes through Mana. We will continue to advocate building a bypass at Pukerua Bay , an interchange at Paekakariki and widening of Centennial Highway .
We know that we have widespread support and believe it is important for our supporters to be publicly involved and to have a high profile. To that end we intend to establish a website putting our point of view and providing a communication platform for new and present members.
The committee holds $500 from past donations. The cost of a website is likely to be several times that amount. We would welcome further financial support and would be grateful for any help you can give.
Contributions can be sent to Dick Jessup at the address shown below. Cheques should be payable to the Coastal Highway Group.
Sir Roderick Weir
Convenor Coastal Highway Group
9/5/05
Talofa Litea
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner - I got a bit bogged down but to answer your questions:
In the normal course of events there is usually no delay in community groups using their grants as they are so dependant on them to carry out their activities. Council's policy is silent on the issue of timing but does link the grant to a project or activity.
Groups are asked to report to us which most do. We would expect to receive a report from the organisation about the expenditure of the grant within two years of receipt of funding, particularly if the organisation applies for another grant within that time (Whare Manaaki did not apply for funding in the last round). In this case the project was clearly linked to the need to receive other funding from elsewhere so the delay was not untoward. As you no doubt are aware the Council's support is often the catalyst for groups to be successful with other funding providers so we often see the Council approached first for funding for a particular project.
I think that Whare Manaaki formally asking Council if they can use the funds for another purpose is a good example of how groups appreciate and respect the capacity building support the Council provides and how accountable they are for the funding they receive.
Hope this resolves your concerns
Warm regards
Janet
-----Original Message-----
From: Litea.Mufasa [mailto: Litea.Mufasa @xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 24 April 2006 08:25
To: Roger Blakeley - PCC
Cc: Jenny Brash - PCC ; robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz; Sue
Veart - PCC ; Janet Carlyle - PCC
Subject: Re: Whare Manaaki/Porirua Women's Refuge Paper
Thank you Janet, so am i to understand that we give out funding of rates without a time limit and organisations are able to utilise these funds when they're ready for a specific project? How do we feature with the auditors in this regard?
Litea
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Blakeley - PCC
To: Litea Ah Hoi (litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz)
Cc: Jenny Brash - PCC ; Robert Shaw (robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz) ; Sue Veart - PCC ; Janet Carlyle - PCC
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:55 AM
Subject: Whare Manaaki/Porirua Women's Refuge Paper
Talofa Litea
The folowing is a reply from Janet Carlyle, Community Development Officer , to your question in your email of 13 April below. Roger:
Just to clarify previous funding to Whare Manaaki - in the two relevant years that the organisation received funding, it was for specific projects and did not have specific time limits as to when they should be completed. Whare Manaaki, however, required funding from other sources to complete the projects, which they were not able to do.
Hope this helps
Cheers
Janet
-----Original Message-----
From: Litea.Mufasa [mailto:Litea.Mufasa@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 13 April 2006 7:57 a.m.
To: Roger Blakeley - PCC
Cc: Jenny Brash (Jenny Brash - PCC); Sue Veart - PCC;
robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz; Allie Dunn - PCC
Subject: Re: Whare Manaaki/Porirua Women's Refuge Paper
Talofa Roger
Does that mean the funding recieved totalling $13k was given over 2 cycles of funding in 03/04 and 04/05? If that is the case why have they waited until 06 to request a change of purpose and surely with a place like the refuge where funding is scarce the amount may have already been utilised. What is the period of when organisations are suppose to use the funding? It's not a biggie but we need to have consistency throughout with our funding. Thanks for the information.
litea
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Blakeley - PCC
To: Litea Ah Hoi (litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz)
Cc: Jenny Brash (Jenny Brash - PCC) ; Sue Veart - PCC ; Robert Shaw (robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz) ; Allie Dunn - PCC
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: Whare Manaaki/Porirua Women's Refuge Paper
Talofa Litea
Just to clarify the point about the recommendation reference to 2003/05 in the above paper-that was correct because the funding came from years 2003/04 and 2004/05 as stated in the first paragraph. We will make that clear in the minutes.
Soifua, 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
Thanks Robert.
At last someone is calling the tune on graffiti and vandalism in Porirua. We have just had enough. Time to declare war on the perpetrators. Am not impressed by outpourings of Porirua Healthy Safer City Trust which seeks accreditation from WHO about the state of affairs in our otherwise fair city. Never mind about WHO accreditation - pass muster with our citizens first.
How's this for PHSCT's current codswallop;
" Strategic approach to graffiti and vandalism - both the 2004 Porirua
community safety audit and the 2005 Participatory Community Appraisal
of
Cannons Creek and Waitangirua identified this as the single largest area
of
concern to residents, social service groups and retailers. Currently the
Porirua City Council chairs a largely reactive interagency reference group.
The Porirua Community Safety Strategy will enable a more balanced strategy
overview underpinned by problem solving methodologies, which will develop
preventive initiatives to reduce the incidence of intentional damage and
identify and assist problem youth and places. The existing graffiti and
vandalism meetings will continue as a reference group providing information
for monitoring and evaluation."
I ask you !
John Watson
About six months ago Council began a dramatic reformation of its own functioning. This is based around the restructuring of governance functions but has wide implications for the Council officers as well. Elsewhere in the blog are details of why this work is necessary.
So, what is the state of play?
SUCCESSES
PENDING
Thus Spake Zarathustra
One person has done about $15,000 worth of damage to the window of Harvey Norman's shop, and the same person has now hit the glass entrance to Pataka. Cost to ratepayers, unknown at this stage. Council has just agreed that Healthy Safer Cities people can apply to the WHO to have Porirua recognised as a safe place. One wonders what they propose for evidence. Actually, they propose process stuff, the assessment does not seem to be results based
I renew my call for security cameras everywhere. The Council should co-ordinate
the coverage of our City by the Police, Councils (GW and PCC), and the business
sector. With
the right pictures we could find the little sod that is cutting glass. It is
not that difficult to solve actually but we have to invest money and be realistic
(all this talk of their home life and education is a waste of effort).
r
Sunday, May 7, 2006
New policy sets out how the chief executive is to name streets based on
rules. There is a theme for each suburb. Now the hospital land will be
sold next year and turned into houses. What is to be the theme? It has to
be in keeping with the place and its history. I propose "Diseases that kill",
or Psychiatric disorders" and we could have Clamidia Close and Typhoid Way,
Rickets Road, etc.
r
Sunday, May 7, 2006
Media Release from Transmission Gully Action Group Inc
Warm Praise for Transit NZ
The Transmission Gully Action Group Inc. has warmly praised Transit NZ’s announcement late last week that funding for geotechnical and design work for Transmission Gully Motorway has been approved.
Group Chairman Adrian Webster said that Transit was showing the kind of strategic vision not seen for over half a century in recognising the importance of this route for the region and the nation.
“We hope that Transit will set up the kind of integrated planning and technical team which it has used so successfully elsewhere to move the project forward without delay by having on hand the resources to solve problems as they arise.
“For decades our road building agency has been starved of funds which has stopped it undertaking large scale projects. Funding problems have led to competition between the regions over projects and everyone has been the loser,” he said.
Mr Webster said that Wellington Region’s problems were not unique and important projects in Auckland , Hamilton and Tauranga could not be ignored. “We need to join forces to show Government that the present funding rules are inadequate and the kind of problems reported by the Dom. Post weekend news feature on roading demand a fresh and visionary approach.
“The additional $500M funding requirement for the Gully can seem large but to put it in perspective, that’s about three days of Government revenue; a small price for an investment in roading infrastructure which will still be around in a 100 years,” said Mr Webster.
He said a project like TGM was so professionally exciting it would draw back Kiwis from overseas who would want to be part of it.
“Roading and public transport infrastructure projects promote social and economic development as our forefathers knew. They recognised the fact and found the money to go ahead and build them. This is not controversial and our Government must ensure it happens again.”
Adrian Webster Ph Kapiti
04 905 8672 or 025 682 6060
Sunday, May 7, 2006
If you want a clear account of what is happening and what it all means, click to Orcon's page: http://www.orcon.net.nz/images/nzbb/bbinNZ.html
For those confused by recent events I set out the issues and the situation.
First, Takapuwahia marae has a problem with drainage. It is uncertain how that came about but it does relate to earthworks in the early years. It is also not clear who might be considered responsible if you wish to ascribe blame (and hence responsibility) in the distant past. The fact that the land in front of the marae rose in an earthquake may be a factor. The problem is very genuine, private property is flooded and pubic access to private property is flooded. Council has been aware of this for many years an the public is frustrated with the lack of action.
Right now the Council has in its draft budget $1 million to fix the problem. Submissions will be made on this is the LTCCP process. Exactly how that money will be spent is unclear because the situation is complex and the engineering work is not complete.
In the meantime, it was thought desirable to do some work before winter using money in existing budgets. The total cost of the work proposed is under $20,000. There is a problem however. The problem is that the works must be done on private property. The rule is that the ratepayers' money does not get spent on private drains. As the Council has expressed a willingness to solve the problems at Takapuwahia (by putting the funds in the draft LTCCP) a justification must be found for the work on private land. A paper to provide that justification came to the City Services Committee. It is a necessary first step before any work can be done at all (be it the $20,000 project or the $1 million project).
The debate that followed at the Committee was taken into wider issues by an amendment that removed the $20,000 cap and set out an amended set of projects. A project costed very roughly at $150,000 (by officers, without time for thought) was proposed for the present financial year. Debate on this was shown to be impossible as we did not have enough information. H