Home    Contact

The Porirua Wellington Web Blog - October 2006

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

human rights commission - funny ideas about what is important

NOTE COMMISSIONER'S REPLY BELOW

ROBERT COMMENTS

The Human Rights Commission circulates an email that sets out the good things that are happening in the area of human rights. It is easy to understand their logic - reward good behaviour and hope for a sea change. Yet this is hardly credible. Consider this example from their email - it relates to Porirua City.

"Capital and Coast District Health Board

For Shake It, Beat It, Learn It, 2006. Pacific communities in the Capital and Coast DHB district have really taken to a pilot programme that aims to improve the level of physical activity in their daily lives. Launched in July, the number of participants in some areas has almost tripled in just a few months in these exercise groups run by young Pacific students. The scheme came about after Pacific community groups asked the DHB for help running exercise-based activities. The programme aims to inspire people and to show them how they can easily fit exercise into their lives. The ‘Shake It’ initiative is just one of several to be established across the Pacific community in the past year, where the aim has been to improve the health of Pacific people in the district. Further information about the Shake It programme can be obtained by emailing Capital and Coast DHB at info@ccdhb.org.nz ."

Now a few facts. The health needs of Pacific Islanders are not being realistically addressed. We live with the impact of this every day. The Pacific Island peoples in Porirua City were the strongest supporters of Kenepuru Hospital. Every local government entity, including Wellington City and the Regional Council, supported them in their bid to have Kenepuru made into a secondary level hospital, something like the Hutt Hospital. Well I remember all the meetings with PI communities on this matter. The CCDHB ignored everyone and set out to re-build on the remote Newtown site that happens to be an earthquake fault line.

Consideration was given to the Porirua City Pacific Islanders however. When the Kenepuru Hospital was downgraded to a community facility and the Accident and Emergency facility removed (replaced by a pay-as-you-go GP clinic called an Accident and Medical Service), the entrance way was decorated in Pacific Island style. An insult to the needs of people if ever there was one.

The rather obvious fact is that our Pacific Island people will not travel to Newtown. Their health status in the latest investigations has actually deteriorated. This is the Health Board's policy in action. Unrealistic and totally against the stated preference of everyone. The number of ambulance trips from Porirua to Newtown each day continues to increase. Various things have been tried to help Pacific Islanders access health services but all have had minimal effect because they are imposed solutions not deemed of significance by most of the people. Of course if all the health needs of Pacific Islanders in Porirua City were identified and scheduled for treatment the health service would collapse under the strain.

To return to the Human Rights Commission - you can see why their rewarding a very minor programme with PI students (a captured audience) with great fanfare is rather insulting, in my humble opinion. How about an investigation into the health needs of Pacific Islanders? The last full report was that done by the Public Health Commission, just before they were disestablished. Perhaps the Human Rights Commission knows it is best to reward good behaviour.
r
Tuesday, October 31, 2006

COMMENT FROM THE RACE RELATIONS COMMISSIONER

Thanks Robert, for your comments on the Commission's monthly On The Bright Side.  If all we did each month was send out acknowledgments for positive initiatives that have been brought to our attention, your criticism would have more force.  We do see a place (and an important place) for encouraging people and organisations to undertake positive initiatives, however small - as a means not only of recognising them but also of spreading their ideas.  You have picked one out a dozen or so listed this month, but you will know that the others range from a research report on the experience of racism by Koreans in Christchurch to the organisation of major cultural festivals like Diwali.  In other programmes, the Commission advocates for the need to address issues of social and economic inequality.  For example, in the annual review of race relations published earlier this year I commented:

"As the snapshot of economic and social statistics in this report shows, the challenge to reduce the serious inequalities between Maori and Pacific New Zealanders on the one hand, and most of the other populations groups on the other, remains urgent. There is a greater need than ever to implement policies and programmes that will address these disparities. The percentage of the population who are Maori and Pacific continues to grow. More than a third of all children born in New Zealand in 2005 were of Maori and Pacific descent. These children currently face the prospect of an avoidable mortality rate over their lifetime that is three times as high for Maori, and twice as high for Pacific people as it is for other New Zealanders. Some social and economic indicators have improved or continued to improve in the past year. These positive trends are important and welcome. The data however confirm that at this stage the gaps remain unacceptably wide, especially in health, economic standard of living and education. While any strategy to eliminate the disparities will be long term and multi-faceted, there must be no let-up in targeted government and community action."

Joris de Bres
Race Relations Commissioner

the famous three - problems real and imaginary

Robert

You have rightly argued against the exclusion of public from Council meetings, most recently at the SFR Committee meeting a couple of weeks ago when Council even went to the extent of calling the Police to throw out members of the public.

Since the public were unable to attend that committee meeting it is hardly surprising that a request was made of the Mayor (politely, in writing) for a public statement to be made at the start of the full Council meeting this week which will be deciding on the matter discussed by the committee. It would seem a shame if this were to be denied.

I assure you it’s not just a matter of the Whitby Residents’ Assn being concerned at the costs of the new Sports & Events Centre. The issue is much broader than that and the delegation coming to Council represents joint residents associations from Pukerua Bay to Titahi Bay to Pauatahanui, and including Whitby, Plimmerton and Paremata. This is a widely representative delegation from all over Porirua City and surely Council owes them the courtesy of listening to what they have to say. I know that they are coming not to whine about the past, but are seeking to work more closely with Council in the future. Why would Council want to reject them?

I recall in the past you have asked the question how Council can engage more with local residents’ associations. Well, here’s your chance.

Tim Sheppard

ROBERT COMMENTS

There are several different issues here. First, the tossing out of three people from the Council Chamber. Second, public concern over the cost of the sports facility and a lack of confidence or trust in the council's ability to stick to a budget. Third, how the public brings its concerns to the attention of the councillors. Let me deal with them in that order.

A few weeks ago there was a motion to exclude the public from a meeting to discuss the financial aspects of the project and to review the justification for the project in light of developments in Wellington and Kapiti. I voted against that motion as did two other councillors. My view was that more harm would come by keeping people out than by letting them in. That is usually my view in such situations. I had read the paper and I did not think there was much to discuss's that needed to be kept from the public. However, the major of councillors followed the advice of the chief executive and the motion to exclude the public was carried in a proper way. That having happened three people refused to leave. The chairperson at that point either closed the meeting, adjourned the meeting, or asked the chief executive to deal with the situation. He opted to ask the chief executive to arrange for the removal of the three, the Police were called, and the three went when asked by the Police. They had made their point. So far as I could see everything went in accordance with the proper procedures. Our three veteran protesters played their part with style and grace and left their mark. It is possible to seek a review of the councillors vote to exclude the public but it is highly unlikely it would be successful. Indeed, in the past when I have asked the Ombudsman to review decisions of council he has refused because they are the decisions of elected persons and hold a special status as such in our system. That does not mean they are right, just that they have the power of decisions made by those elected to make them. If someone wanted to take up this aspect of concern, I would say work could usefully be done on the Standing Orders, regarding the decision of officers to place papers in the line for public exclusion in the first place. There is a tendency in our council to err on the side of caution. With discussion that could be adjusted. A very similar matter is the openness of workshops for councillors. This is the same issue in a different form. We need greater openness all round in my opinion. That will come with greater confidence and some clear thinking. It is unlikely to come because of legal action. Public pressure however seems to be positive in my view because it says there is an issue and helps to define that issue.

The second issue is the really driven by the lack of trust the public has in the council at this moment. Council could not manage the inflation of a brown paper bag they say, let alone a $17 million project. On the Council's side this message has been heard by some (well, me anyway) and everything needs to be done to keep the project within budget. Because the decision to spend the $17 was such a close one, and keenly fought in the community and at council, it is particularly important that the cost to ratepayers does not escalate. That would be to add "insult to injury" or should that be "injury to insult". The challenge for the council is to manage the project within the budget. A majority of councillors have expressed a firm view on this, although some think that further investment to ensure we get the quality of facility we all want may be a good idea. This latter group are wiling to see the price increase. It is true that public organisations are not too good at sticking to budgets for projects. Look at the Wellington hospital budget if you want a current example. There are forces beyond us that move and force cost increases. In the present case, inflation is a major factor. However, at this moment, the councillors 'decision is clear and firm. "No cost increases". I will not change my mind on this point. Reality is that there is not much that can be done about inflation. However, new projects or facilities within the structure are a different matter. It has been discovered that the entrance to Titahi Bay road needs much more money. Well, in my view, that project just has to wait for another year and it will be considered along with other roading projects. If it is necessary to move the main sewer line however, we might be stuck with that extra cost. The earlier advice was it would not be necessary, then the advice changed, and it may well change again. Needless to say the sewer will not be altered if it is not necessary.

I wanted the whole project at this level of management to be put under the control of the chief executive. His brief being to live within the $17M and to consult the public on everything. However, that approach was not taken and the result is that we have papers coming to the council table (in publicly excluded business) for decisions to be made. This generates risk and public concern. There is a real risk the councillors could jump to support an new bright idea. Remember this whole thing is going to be spread over years, and the councillors can drift if they keep getting the same decisions dished up to them in new packages. Look at the way the town centre keeps opening and closing roads and shifting streets, and utility sites. Now we have a little committee of four councillors to advise the chief executive. I am on that group but, as I keep saying, "I am not an engineer". It is difficult to see what I can say to the chief executive that will assist him. Unless it is that the budget can blow out and I will support that view at the council table with my vote. The presence of this group, confuses the accountability mechanism.

Finally, there is the recent issue about access to the councillors right now. Meaning before Wednesday's council meeting. Because the public was excluded from the earlier deliberations (the rethink in light of the Wellington and Kapiti developments, and officer recommendations on budget increases) the public wants to get in on the action now. That is understandable. They did not see the debate and they know that all that will happen is that council will confirm its committees decision. This decision is actually exactly what those involved (the public group) want, but because they did not see the process of decision-making they still worry. Now they have asked to speak at a full council meeting and the answer to that request has to be "no". This is complicated by the mayor agreeing to other groups having a special privilege here. I support the rules of the Council and not Jenny's rules. Frankly, people, we need a mayor who knows what they are doing. All this confusion and emotion is disastrous for everyone. The real problem is the committee stage cut out the public and now they feel cut out. We create our own problems. If someone wants to say something they ca write to the chief executive and he may or may not table it at the meeting. "Table" here means "put on the councillors' desks". Usually the chief will provide anything that comes to him. Finally here, there is now raised the issue of whether Standing Orders should be amended to allow the public to speak at full council meetings. This is part of a wider issue of the publics' access to the council. I have for over three years at least wanted to see a review of Standing Orders, and this is but an example of what is on that list. To date we have made no progress on that issue, and it is vital if we are to interact with the public in a proper way and save ourselves much grief.
r
Tuesday, October 31, 2006

mob rule

According to Cr Litea Ah Hoy we have a major problem with youth gangs. This is a major story in today's DomPost. Personally, I have never seen them in action.
r
Monday, October 30, 2006

council retreat

I will provide more on the council retreat shortly, but for the moment let me say that I survived the weekend. It was actually hard work. Three councillors quit half way through. I am not sure why. A great deal of useful work was done bringing everyone to a common understanding of how we are to operate, budget, and perform. Those who have heard me talk about the reform of the budget process can note that we are about to give it a go. That is a remarkable development. I am not concerned to review current spending and clip the budget at this moment. I am concerned to put in place a mechanism that will each year improve the overall discipline of the council when it budgets.
r
Monday October 30, 2006

rec centre worries

The Whitby Res Association is worried about the budget for the rec centre. I also worry about the budget for the rec centre. They have asked the mayor to alter the Standing Orders of Council to enable them to speak at a full council meeting. They can of right address a committee. Also, they can send things to the ceo to have them tabled at the full council meeting. He will decide what is actually tabled. There is no provision for groups to address the full council.

In the past, the mayor has broken with the Standing Orders to let a group speak to the full council. There was not motion to supspend Standing Orders, it just happend, regardless of the rules. Once the mayor decided to abandon the Standing Orders and run things according to her own rules she opened the way for confusion and strife. I spoke against the abandoning of the rules immediately after it happend. Now the mayor faces the inevitable consequence of her earlier decision. If one group can speak, why not another?
r
Monday October 30, 2006

meeting access

-----Original Message-----
From: Graeme Ebbett [mailto:ebbett.automation@clear.net.nz] 
Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:44 p.m.
To: Jenny Brash - PCC; 'Maureen Gillon'; murrells@xtra.co.nz;
john.green@paradise.net.nz; robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz;
suedow@paradise.net.nz; trevor.roberts@clear.net.nz; caroy@paradise.net.nz;
rdf@slingshot.co.nz; pippiper@paradise.net.nz; judid@paradise.net.nz;
j.mlambie@paradise.net.nz; janita@clear.net.nz; moanalodge@clear.net.nz;
dlove@paradise.net.nz; alangray88@hotmail.com; joe.mcgregor@xtra.co.nz;
lwharfe@actrix.co.nz; robing@busdevclub.co.nz; russellmorrison@xtra.co.nz;
timandlana@xtra.co.nz; wiggins.cccj@xtra.co.nz;
trevor.roberts@kielywgtn.co.nz; mgeorge@clear.net.nz
Cc: Liz Kelly; Ken Douglas; Tracey Waters; David Stanley; Litea Ah Hoi; Rob
Rangi; Taima Fagaloa; Roger Blakeley; Gary Simpson; Kris Dande
Subject: Re: PCC Secret Meeting - Sports Centre

HWTM
Jenny Brash

Dear Jenny

There is no provision in law for exclusion of any member of the public from
a council meeting because an agenda item may be "commercially sensitive".

Under the LGOIMA  the principle applied is that all information is available
(ie all meetings are public) unless there is good reason for witholding it.

The only relevant legal reason for exclusion is the one quoted on the Order
Paper of 11 October..
LGOIMA s7(2)(i) - "to enable any local authority holding the information to
carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including
commercial and industrial negotiations)".

That is a much higher threshold than you suggest.

To be able to claim prejudice of a commercial negotiation there obviously
has to be evidence that:-
1  A third party exists
2  That party has a definite commercial interest in the information being
disclosed
3  Negotiations are in progress
4  Public disclosure is likely to prejudice that negotiation.

When challenged, chairman Douglas was unable to produce any such evidence.

Council has slipped into a bad habit of routinely trotting out "commercial
sensitivity" as a blanket excuse to exclude the public (illegally) at the
drop of a hat.

As Mayor you would be well advised to remain on the moral (and legal) high
ground, stick to your election pledge over transparency, and leave chairman
Douglas to fight his own battles.

Yours sincerely

Graeme E

Graeme Ebbett
Chairman
Titahi Bay Residents Assn Inc
C/- 37 Terrace Rd, Titahi Bay, Porirua.
Work Ph 568 6377, Fx 568 2374
Home Ph 236 8574, Fx 236 8591
Email ebbett.automation@clear.net.nz

how to turn success into disaster

The Council's media release on the Annual Plan appears below. It displays all that I, as your representative, oppose. You might have seen the blog statement on the Annual Report yesterday (see below if you have not).

Let me give some of the reasons why the media statement ultimately hurts the Council:

1. The Council sings its own praises. "I am the greatest" it screams to the world. There are aspects to this:
   1. First, the Council is rather average and the Annual Report is also rather average. The up-beat style of the media release makes us laugh, because we all know this.
   2. Second, none of those who take a close interest in the council, the residents associations, think the council is the greatest. In fact they seek dramatic change. The audience for a media statement on the Annual Plan is our residents and particularly our ratepayers (whose money it is about). The statement should be written for them.
   3. When you spend other people's money you should adopt a modest stance. Council works on behalf of the community, and it should not see itself as an independent business which happens to use ratepayers' money.
2. The statement says all is well at Council, when it patently is not. There are real challenges around rates, increasing costs, reduced capacity. The whole place has been treading water and increasing costs since Mayor Brash became mayor. Again, people know this and the statement has no credibility.
3. The Council has been late in its recent budget processes and unable to keep to the legal timeframe. Now is not a good time to emphasise the process.
4. The statement does not say the truths that are in the Annual Plan. Some examples:
1. Rates have gone up.
2. Fees and charges have gone up
3. Achievements are rather thin in comparison with other years at PCC and in comparison with many other councils.
4. The level of reserve funds is still quite low.
5. The old NRB survey is given another run to say how pleased the residents are. These are the real residents, not those who actually come to Council to complain and grumpy chaps who are tossed out in protest. The problems with the survey have been set out for at least the last 10 years and they all remain. When will the Council officers learn that the public understands the survey better than they do, and will not be fooled? For example, I have always been very happy with the sewerage system. Indeed, it has never let me down. I rate the Council as "excellent" in the provision of this service - but the whole idea of saying this is absurd. How do I rate investment in the system? Now that is a different matter. How does a qualified engineer rate the system? - we do not know because we only ask the unqualified public. The NRB survey probably measures the overall "feel-good" of people at the time of asking. It is a bit like the old School Certificate examination, which was just an elaborate IQ test.

I am being a little hard on the Council in this because they have improved in this area. Well I remember the year that in the Annual Report they claimed credit for bringing unemployment down. Fact was the unemployment rate in the whole country had fallen and the Porirua result was behind other places. Yet they claimed it as their success that year.

This year we have seen three exceptional successes. One: some development in how the councillors function together and a resulting improvement in the quality of decisions (eg just last week a m. Two: success in the Transmission Gully campaign (cost, $200,000, chief executive can take the credit). Three: input to the decisions on regionalism (Cr Douglas can take the credit.).There has also been success in ongoing (ordinary) things: eg policy work in the area of heritage, tip management, walkway development. Council also did well in key areas where it can take no credit: asset valuations up, debt down.

So now wait and see that there will be three kinds of response the the media release:

1. "More council propaganda- we shall ignore it" - the most common response.
2. Sycophants who will pick on something and congratulate whoever they want to promote.
3. The grumpy's who will quickly show that some aspect of the media statement is wrong or misleading and fire away in the media and in letter to the council. This is where the success turns to disaster. For the number of statements that develop in response far outweighs the single "feel good" statement issued this morning.
   

How should the media statement have been written:

1. Modest.
2. Factual.
3. On the issues that concern people (rates, financial reserve levels, the cost of doing business in the City).
4. Honest about the challenges and problems.

r
Thursday, October 26, 2006

MEDIA RELEASE

 

For immediate use

 

Date: 25 October 2006

 

Fax: (04) 237 1405

Tel:  (04) 237 5089

 

 

PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL COMES OUT AHEAD IN 2005/06

 

Porirua City Council came out ahead in its 2005/06 budget after rapid
development in the city significantly increased the value of its assets.

 

The Council stuck very close to its budget in 2005/06, and prudent financial
management meant that day to day expenses were kept under budget despite a
number of unbudgeted costs during the year.

 

Mayor Jenny Brash said the year was important for planning the city's
future, with the Council developing its first full 10-year Long Term Council
Community Plan, and assisting communities developing their village plans.

 

"Transport issues were important for the city and the Council also took the
lead in the campaign against upgrading the coastal route, and gaining
support for Transmission Gully.

"Other major activities during the year included the refurbishment of the
Trust Porirua Aquatic Centre, the purchase of around 50 hectares of land
next to the Belmont Regional Park, a review of the Council's Economic
Development Strategy and involvement in the development of the Wellington
Regional Strategy, and major art exhibitions, such as Eternal Threads,
mounted by Pataka during the year," Mayor Brash said.

Rapid development in the city meant that the new assets vested in the
Council from subdivisions-new roads, reticulation systems and parks-were
valued at just over $18 million, $17 million more than budgeted.
Revaluation of investment properties also added another $1.3 million to the
Council's income.

Council's General Manager of Support Services, Keith Miller, says the result
was an operating surplus of over $17 million.

"However, this isn't a cash surplus," Mr Miller says.  "It's like an
unrealised capital gain on the house that increases in value-you can't spend
it.  These assets will, in fact, cost the Council money because it has to
maintain them.
 
"The extra $18 million in assets, new assets purchased or constructed during
the year, and revaluation of existing physical assets mean the Council's
physical assets increased in value by $264 million to $796 million.  By
contrast, this is more than double the value of the physical assets of a
major listed company like Fisher and Paykel, which illustrates the
importance of the stewardship role of the Council in managing and
maintaining those assets."

The high scores the Council got once again in a regular survey of residents'
satisfaction with council services is a credit to the skill of the Council's
staff, according to Chief Executive Roger Blakeley.
 
"At least 90 per cent of residents are pleased with important services such
as the water supply, city centre parking, parks, public gardens and the
sewage system, and 80 per cent of residents thought the quality of life and
Porirua's community spirit was good or very good," Dr Blakeley said.

"Council continued to make significant investments in infrastructure and the
environment, including a major upgrade of the waste water treatment plant,
improvements to the public areas along the edge of the Porirua Stream and a
significant revamp of the garden areas and the opening up of Lyttelton
Avenue and the bus transport centre."

Council approved the Annual Report at a meeting tonight (Wednesday 25
October).  The report will be printed and will also be available on the
Council's website.  A summary will be published in Kapi-Mana News on 7
November.

 
Media inquiries initially to Iain MacLean 237 3555

whitby vodafone tower

Well it is funny how things work out. The meeting with residents and Vodafone was held yesterday in the Council building. Turns out the residents followed the report in the newspaper that indicated the placement of the tower. The newspaper had made a mistake. The tower is actually somewhere else. The petition from 80 people did have the effect of our all finding out the right information. Vodafone have undertaken to provide measurements on radiation levels, which is helpful.
r
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

annual report

Today we signed off on the Annual Report. An unqualified audit report. Your council is in a very sound financial position, with low levels of borrowing. I noticed that we budged for income of $1 million in "vested assets" and received $18 million. That relates to the development of new subdivisions. An extra $17 million makes it easy to balance the books.

Rates income last year was $31.458 million. Equity has gone up to $802.019 million (from $519 million) because of re-valuations. We charged you a little less for water and sewerage last year, yet the valuations for these assets went up quite a bit. The library books are still worth $3.2 million.
r
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

political team - election news

A group has been formed to field candidates in the local government election next October. They are going to stand as a team with the intention of gaining control of the council. The basic stance appears to be that we are all incompetent and rates are too high. They must have been reading the blog. They are on the look out for candidates so if you know anyone who would like to be supported in a bid for a council seat, let me know and I will pass on the name. In the meantime the Kapi Mana News is asking councillors if we are going to stand again. Perhaps the new team has announced their intention.
r
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

end of an era

Keith Miller, General Manager Support Services, which means "finance", has left our council after 10 years in the job. He has gone on to the Department of Internal Affairs. John Seddon, former ceo of the council, came and spoke at the farewell function. Many useful insights were given in the speeches. Keith is known for his straight talking advice. I have appreciated it over the years.
r
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

sports and events centre - concern from pauatahanui residents' association

Dear Jenny,
Thanks for yours & Maureen's e-mails. However, rightly or wrongly, there is a perception at large of problems with this project, & Council will have to work hard to address that.

In a recent letter to the Pauatahanui Residents Association you mentioned that by the time the LTCCP plan was adopted the Wellington project had already been increased to 12 Courts at Kilbirnie. But of course when the issue was discussed at a public forum in Porirua, the number of Courts stood at 8, & this was eloquently used by the speaker from Wellington to support the Porirua facility in its entirety & cost. Maybe we are being pedantic, but Council is in the drivers seat here, & it needs to be careful over what it has consulted on with the public & what  stacks up with subsequent decisions by Council.

One issue which also arose from that public forum was that sponsorship money would be actively sought, & used to reduce the financial burden on ratepayers. We take this to mean that sponsorship monery will not be used to fund any future costs over $17.5 Million. We trust Council will remember & honour this commitment when it next has to consider  funding any further escalation in costs.

Good luck.

Alan Gray
Secretary
Pauatahanui Residents Association
October 22, 2006

three regional parks - good news for us

Porirua City is very fortunate - it has three regional parks within its city boundry. Wellington City has none.

When I was on the Porirua Council many years ago I was very pleased to move the motion that said Whitireia Park should be a regional park. Then, when I was on Greater Wellington, the Regional Council, I moved the motion to accept that Whitireia Park should be a regional park. And now, after waiting for the budget priority to arrive it is all under way. In GW's words they are right now "integrating Whitreia park into the regional park network".

Everything is a "network" today. We do not have groups or collections or lists or clasifications.

There are some things to check out. First, the plan was to have a ranger for Whitireia Park. This would be someone living on the site. Second, the management plan needs to basically maintain the present character of the Park but bring it up to the same high standards as the other regional parks. The budget from memory was $310,000 per year for this ongoing work. Parks do not come cheap!
r
Saturday, October 21, 2006

plimmerton residents association on st andrews road

From: Tim & Lana Sheppard [mailto:timandlana@xtra.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2006 8:02 a.m. To: ' stanley.chesterfield@transit.govt.nz ' Subject: Softly, softly approach reduces speed - why not St Andrew's Rd ?

Shortcut to: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10406246

Hi Stanley

We've got a Residents' Assn meeting coming up and I'd like to report on progress being made with the continuous speeding and trucks using the kerbside lane in St Andrew's Rd - contrary to the conditions set on Transit by the Environment Court .

You recently sent us the results of the Police speed analysis tubes which confirmed our view that speeding through Plimmerton is prevalent and dangerous. What is being done to enforce the 50kph residential limit? And what is being done to discourage trucks from using the kerbside lane between the Plimmerton and Paremata roundabouts? Yes, most trucks use the centre lane along Mana Esplanade, but practically never on St Andrew’s Rd. At any time you can see northbound trucks moving to the left lane as soon as they reach the Shell station – and similarly with southbound trucks changing lanes only after Goat Point. Transit has clearly never advised truckies the new lane rules apply the whole way between the roundabouts. Six months ago you met with residents and proposed various measures, including VMS to cover the full stretch between the roundabouts (not just the T2 lanes) and driver feedback signs (as have been so successful in Mt Albert Rd and elsewhere). Fixed speed cameras were also proposed.

We understand there was a delay in sourcing the VMS, but please could we have a detailed update on exactly what is being done - and when we can expect to see effective constraints? We're also conscious of the 12-month review of Transit's Mana upgrade. Please can you assure us that there will be local consultation on this? I'm sorry to say that many local residents feel that Transit has done very little to try and comply with the Court conditions and our community has been endangered because of that. We look forward to your timely response please.

Regards
Tim Sheppard
For Plimmerton Residents' Assn

mayor on the sports and events centre

I agree with and support all of Cr Gillon's messages to you all over the last week. Council, after a lengthy period of consultation (over some years) has made the decision to go ahead with building the Sports & Events Centre; the budget is capped at $17.5M (Cr Gillon' amendment that was supported at last week meeting) and there is a small working group of Councillors and myself overseeing the process to ensure that the developed design and working drawings for the Centre regarding seating, 4-court configuration etc continue in line with the adopted concept as outlined in the LTCCP. We are also working hard on getting funding from non-rating sources to reduce the $11M loan figure in the LTCCP eg grants etc to reduce the impacts on rates in future years. I hope this clarifies and addresses some of your concerns. The reason last weeks meeting was in non- public business is that we were discussing commercially sensitive issues with the Centre's appointed Project Manager which couldn't have been discussed in public. The recommendation (as summarised above) however was made public.
Mayor Jenny Brash

OTHERS

Maureen

Thank you for your reply. No body had fed any "propaganda". In fact the concern was the complete absence of any information about the meeting. I asked the chairman for any evidence that the presence of the public would "prejudice" commercial dealings (the legal reason given). He declined. If he had produced that evidence I would have complied with a legitimate resolution and left. The illegal, secret session coupled with "extraordinary meeting" circumstances and an information black-out have served only to heighten suspicions of council under-performance and made reporters dig for the real facts hidden by the official PR. I think approval of the LTCCP simply set the budget and a project brief. Officers now need to come back to council committee (publicly) with a construction proposal. Then public consultation, committee recommendation to council, resolution, instruction to officers. This NORMAL PROCESS is essential to provide all the checks and balances all the way through. Apart from funding there is going to be a whole host of major issues... such as: Downsizing? no regional appeal any more? Location, encroachment on Te Rap.... Park, loss of city centre green space. Loss of Road Reserve along TB Rd?! (Requires Minister of Conservation approval) More intersections on TB Rd, more obstruction to Bay traffic flow?! Parking area changes? District Plan changes of arterial route? (Semple St to Wi Neera Dr waterfront? ) If there is integrity in the process then council has nothing to hide and we can trust our future in your hands.

Graeme Ebbett Chairman Titahi Bay Residents Assn Inc C/- 37 Terrace Rd, Titahi Bay, Porirua. Work Ph 568 6377, Fx 568 2374 Home Ph 236 8574, Fx 236 8591 Email ebbett.automation@clear.net.nz

From: Maureen Gillon <mgillon@rnzcgp.org.nz> > Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:48:10 +1300 > To: ebbett.automation@clear.net.nz > Cc: mayor@pcc.govt.nz, murrells@xtra.co.nz, john.green@paradise.net.nz, > robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz, suedow@paradise.net.nz, > kellyhygene.co.nz@clear.net.nz, marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz, > twaters@paradise.net.nz, davidstanley3@hotmail.com, litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz, > rob.rangi@xtra.co.nz, fagaloavaili@xtra.co.nz >

Subject: Re: The Recreation Centre - Secret Meeting of 11-10-06 and aftermath > > Hi Graeme > I'm not sure who is feeding you the propoganda but things are on track and > the PCC team have been given clear instructions from Council about how to > proceed within the agreed budget. > Regards > Maureen Gillon

Meeting round

Yesterday in a full day of work the Council held its committee meetings. The major decision related to access to green areas in Whitby and the hearing of objections to the Council's proposal under the Reserves Act. Former Councillor Charlie Ford led a strong delegation from the community. I believe they were very satisfied with the result. The councillors worked very hard in a situation where the officers' advice was complicated.

Also, there was good resolution regarding the Wellington Regional Strategy. I am pleased the regional council is to be responsible for the funding of this and can live with all residents in the region paying an extra $10 per year in their regional rates for this activity. It is likely that there will be good people leading the enterprise shortly.

Wit is important at the council table. "Lighten up" needs to be our call for a while. The whole thing can become too tense. Better decisions are made by those who are alert and happy. Yesterday's meeting was a step in the right direction on that front. The councillors worked well as a team - diverse opionons and a good respect for each other.
r
Friday, October 20, 2006

Mana Esplanade and St andrews road

The the request of the Paremata Residents' Assocation and the Plimmerton Residents' Assocation, and via the chairperson of the City Services Committee, the council officers' will produce an account of the current situtation on Mana Esplanade and St Andrews Road. This will explore the past issues and their resolution, the current practical situation on the road, and the arrangements that were entered into with the community by both the Council and Transit New Zealand. If there is action needed from the Council (in the opinion of the councillors) then the matter will be brought back to the Committee. I intend to collect the opinions of the residents' associations on the paper and we will work from there.
r
Friday, October 20, 2006

vodafone at whitby

Robert

I confirm that the meeting with Vodafone and petitioner's representatives - re site in Whitby will take place at 5:30 pm in Porirua City Council building in the 2 floor Meeting Room on Tuesday 24th October.

Regards,

Peter Bailey General Manager Utilities Policy, Porirua City Council

here is a chance to save money - save a forest

Hi there

As you will be aware, Plan Change 1 and designation changes adopted by Council on 20 September became operative today.  I have update packs for your copy of the Porirua City District Plan.  This pack contains a replacement Plan Update Schedule, and relevant replacement pages for Section C14, D1, D2, D3, K, F, and M.

I am happy to replace the relevant sections of your District Plan for you, or you can choose to have the update pack sent to you and do this yourself.  

If you would like me to update your copy of the District Plan, please drop your copy of the District Plan off to me in the Democratic Services Unit, Level 1 of the Admin Building. 

Otherwise if you'd prefer to do the updates yourself, please let me know and I will send you the update pack.

Regards

Allie J

ROBERT COMMENTS

The councillors are all given a copy of the District Plan, and then provided with updates. One current copy on the internet is all is required and sometimes a copy available at the council table during hearings. Of course, I also think that the councillors should be given a $2,000 contribution towards computer equipment and access to the same help desk that the staff use.
r
Wednesday, October 18, 2006

more on the rec centre decisions - follows from the officer's comment below

Dear Robert,

It seems to me that the management have already gone back to Council to seek additional funding or a reduction in scope. That is what is reported from some source or other in this weeks KapiMana. This is the meeting that the public was excluded from last week so we don't actually know.   It seems that options were discussed such as cutting out the separate "warm-up" court or other facilities or reducing seating. By the sound of it Gary Simpson was sent back to sharpen his pencil and somehow make it all work. That may not be realistically possible if costs have actually escalated. In the end  those choices may have to be addressed and no amount of council bluster can make it otherwise. The problem may have been deliberate under estimation to prevent the cost killing the project from the outset in the hope that cost creep (gallop) will be pushed through without the public noticing (some hope).   I agree with you, that council having agreed the LTCCP, it is up to management to implement. Where changes are deemed necessary, these should be endorsed as amendments by council (I really don't mind too much what sub-committee it goes through first as it seems everyone is on these committees anyway). However, I assume that is exactly what the acting CEO (Simpson) did.   The question I want answered is - If the cost escalates or the specification touted in the LTCCP is reduced, at what stage will the residents and ratepayers be consulted. It will not be satisfactory if the council finds a donor with, say, $2,000,000. to claim the project can now be completed in budget when it was promised that such donations would offset the budgeted cost to the community. That would clearly be seen as creative accounting as indeed was the application of general funds to this project to make it look better from the cost point of view.   I'm not sure if I answered you question but these points may be relevant to the discussion  

Regards
Jim

AND ANOTHER

Robert

I think approval of the LTCCP simply set the budget and a project brief. Officers now need to come back to council committee (publicly) with a construction proposal. Then public consultation, committee recommendation to council, resolution, instruction to officers. This NORMAL PROCESS is essential to provide all the checks and balances all the way through. Apart from funding there is going to be a whole host of  major issues... such as Downsizing? no regional appeal any more? Location, encroachment on Te Rap.... Park, loss of city centre green space. Loss of Road Reserve along TB Rd????!!! (Requires Minister of Conservation approval) More intersections on TB Rd, more obstruction to Bay traffic flow???!!! Parking area changes? District Plan changes of arterial route? (Semple St to Wi Nera Dr waterfront? ) THESE ARE MAJOR LONG TERM PLANNING ISSUES which Titahi Bay people will want to be involved in all the way. I will talk to others tonight over suggestion as to how council may get out of its predicament with this committee of 4. (Seems to me the 4 are being used as a public front for officers to ram plans directly through full council).
Graeme

REPLY FROM CR GILLON

Hi Graeme

I'm not sure who is feeding you the propoganda but things are on track and the PCC team have been given clear instructions from Council about how to proceed within the agreed budget. Regards Maureen Gillon

cr tracey waters on robert's vote

It's amazing what giving someone a Chair can do (Robert). In such a position it can be just as easily taken away as it was given, if you do not tow the line. Unfortnately, the majority on Council seems to operate on personal agendas and deals, all at the beak and call of Ken, whose experience means he fully understands how to use human weaknesses. Regards Tracey BLOG THAT!

ROBERT COMMENTS

Tracey's view is based on the idea that Cr Douglas controls the Council by having a majority of councillors in his "team". If I vote against the team, then I will be tossed out of my chairpersons position. The vote in question was my vote to keep the meeting on the recreation centre open to the public. Cr Waters and Cr Ah Hoy voted as I voted. Readers of the blog will know I generally oppose secrecy. They will also know that Cr Douglas and I are often vote differently, and he sometimes appears in this blog in opposition to my views. r Wednesday, October 18, 2006

THEN, A COMMENT FROM CR LITEA AH HOY

good on ya Tracey, yeah blog that you whimp!!! litea

paremata residents association last night

The Paremata Association is a happy bunch. They have a good level of humour. I always enjoy their meetings. They also have major concerns about the roads issue, and feel acutely the impact of this issue on the public-at-large. The fact is there has been important inconsistency in the work of agencies, and the Association seeks a means to have this recognised and corrected. The two long conflicts over Transmission Gully and the Mana Esplanade have resulted in the Association taking plenty of abuse - there is division within the community and that needs to be eased. We aspire to build better communities and a part of this is to enable people to feel comfortable with the decisions that are taken. It is not enough just to be right, people have to feel happy with the outcome. Being happy follows acceptance, and acceptance follows understanding and the honest belief that your views have been heard and considered fully. Instead, we all too often have aggressive, confrontation, divisive politics. That takes its toll on everyone and defeats the purpose of community building.
r
Wednesday, October 18, 2006

rec centre - now with officer's comment below

Robert

Your blog, like the council press release gives an impression of all being well with Porirua City Council and its proposed new Recreation Centre now that contingency plans are in the hands of a new council sub-committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The next problem is that this new committee reports directly to council (instead of a normal committee) as a fait au compli and without any opportunity for public input. PCC meeting rules provide for Public Forum or Deputations only at committee meetings, not full council meetings, so the whole deal is now to be sown up with the rate-payer completely excluded. We get what's given with the cost diversions, site alterations and cut-down job-specification to accommodate the cost escalation and there is absolutely no "consultation". The end result is then something completely different from that sold to the public during the LTCCP "consultation" process. Are you satisfied to be one of the councillors who met in secret to decide that this situation is somehow OK?
Graeme Ebbett
Chair TBRA Ph 236 8574 Fx 236 8591

ROBERT COMMENTS

The approach I proposed for this project was as follows:

1. All the governance decisions were to be cleared in the LTCCP. This in practice produced the brief for the project.
2. The implementation of those decisions would be the responsibility of the chief executive.
3. The chief executive would manage a committee, advisory to himself, to bring in the issues that all people wished to have considered.
4. The only time the councillors would be involved would be if the chief executive needed to come back to the Council for more money or a variation to the brief agreed in the LTCCP. In this event the correct committee would be that which I chair, the City Services Committee. There would be a paper to the Committee in the normal way and the public would have the normal access to the Committee.

This approach is an attempt to separate out the governance and management level issues. It seeks to involve everyone with an interest in the project and to provide practical momentum.

The model of decision-making now adopted has a close relationship between management and governance which already has people upset. It appears the responsibility for the project has been handed by the officers to the councillors. I will do my best on the supervisory committee, but my main association with recreation facilities has been as an occasional spectator of my own children. Perhaps the first step is to seek terms of reference for the supervisory committee. Is it a committee of the Council? I have not looked at it from this structural perspective, and will seek to do so.
r
Tuesday, October 17, 2006

OFFICER'S COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONS

The four elected members are assisting the Chief Executive in the preparatory work necessary to develop the facility through the design stages and there is no absence of accountability to Council - if Governance decisions are required they will go through the Committees and not normally directly to Council.  There will be no shortcuts or change from what the public were consulted on without going through the process described above occurring.  The project has moved into the management area so TOR for an advisory group (it is not a committee and if necessary the Chief Executive will report to a committee) is not warranted.  Our commitment on this project to the community remains unaltered:

1. Budget $17.5m
2. Building size - 4 (3/1) courts
3. Spectator capacity 2000 seats
4. Service facilities of sufficient size and quality and balancing initial (capital) cost against operating utility (long term usability).

That is what was consulted on (not the standard of door knobs or paint finishes for which we take specialist advice).  To make the sort of detail decisions now required it is necessary to have some technical knowledge of the purpose and use of the centre and recreation in general.   There is no suggestion that responsibility to deliver the project on time and on budget has moved from the management (Chief Executive) to the governance section of Council.  It hasn't.

Gary Simpson

General Manager, Leisure & Recreation Porirua City Council

MINUTES  OF  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  MEETING HELD ON Tuesday  1 August 2006 AT THE PAREMATA BOATING CLUB STARTING AT 8 PM

APOLOGIES:  Francesse Middleton, Pat Brocklebank, Crs Maureen Gill, John Green, Robert Shaw

PRESENT: Richard Chelley (chair), Derek Robinson, Lynne Harding, Geoff Neill, Russell Morrison, Paul Crisp, Grace Osvald, Judi Doornbos, Crs Sue Dow and Euon Murrell.

MINUTES LAST MEETING: Minutes of the last meeting, as circulated were accepted as a true and correct record. Richard Chelley/Grace Osvald MATTERS ARISING: Representation Review. Council is presently considering a different proposal i.e. to reduce the number of Councillors to 10.  Suggestion are: either ward representation on a 4-4-2 basis, or alternatively ward representation on a 2-2-1 basis with 5 councillors at large. A show of hands showed 6 committee members to be in favour of 4-4-2 ward representation , 1 in favour of 5 at large and 1 neutral.

FINANCIAL REPORT: The treasurer advised that a $250 grant was received from PCC which brings the total of our funds to $1260.99.  There were no bills.

Arising from correspondence: The letter from Minister of Transport (Annette King) was the usual non committal piffle obviously written by Transit. The secretary to remind Peter Bailey we have had no reply to request for safety reports.

WESTERN CORRIDOR There was a brief discussion of suggestions by Graham Taylor, Regional Manager Transit, to drop all interchanges from Transmission Gully. 

MANA ESPLANADE: The Mayor and Roger Blakeley are about to meet with Wayne Donelly CEO of Land Transport NZ on the suggestion of the Minister of Transport to make him aware of the safety aspect of the present situation on the Mana Esplanade.  Russell to draw up some notes for their use pointing out the extent to which the road is substandard and how it does not comply with LTSA regulations.  That legal or physical measures are required to stop the use of T2 lanes outside clearway hours.  If nothing comes from this meeting we need to go back to the Minister of Transport and look at our remedies.

UPDATE LIGHTS/CROSSING MARINA VIEW As yet no further news.  Except that the Bridge Point shops are emptying out one after the other.

CHANGED REPRESENTATION See matters arising from minutes.

SPORTS/EVENTS CENTRE AND RATES The Councillors present advised that there is a commitment within the Council to raise money for this project and that ways to share the rate burden are being looked at, a uniform rate may be considered.

NEWSLETTER Still in the ‘to do’ list.

GENERAL BUSINESS; It ewas reported that Keep Porirua Beautiful’s proposal for a Koru in the harbour Was not favoured by the Guardians of the Inlet or PICT.

THE MEETING CLSOED AT 9.15 PM

it can be a struggle to spend the ratepayers' money

We are actively following up with the distribution company contracted to deliver the Wellington Regional Strategy consultation document to ensure full coverage of the region has been achieved.

To date the distribution to 180,000 properties has resulted in around a dozen calls from people who have not seen the document come through their mailbox.  This level of enquiry is consistent with other mass distribution processes of this nature (in some cases it has transpired that other family members have got to the mailbox first).  A specific gap in distribution has been identified in parts of Kapiti and this is being tackled as a matter of urgency with the distribution company to rectify the situation. 

Should you become aware of anyone who has not received the consultation material please get them to contact us on 0800 496 734 or 04 384 5708.  A street number as well as address is most helpful to us in chasing it up with the distribution company.

Graham Spargo Project Director Wellington Regional Strategy

The first McDonald's restaurant in New Zealand was at Porirua, in 1976. Now with its Deli Choices, fruit, vegetables, and modern approach, it is well on its way to becoming a health store. I met a chap in Illinois and together we commiserated on the poor food in the USA. He mentioned that you can compare countries by comparing the food in McDonald's. "Which is the best" asks I. "Australia and New Zealand" was the answer. r Sunday, October 15, 2006

Dear Mayor Jenny and N. Ward Councillors,

We have heard so many times from council how it operates an open and communicative governance policy but the reality seems to be quite different. We hear of sub-groups in council meeting in private with other outsiders to develop policy that they push through by block voting. That is not democracy. We see the council meeting in camera using commercial confidentiality as an excuse when there were no commercial issues involved merely increasing cost to the ratepayer. What was the problem with ratepayers listening to the discussion? They could have been better informed of the issues and councillor opinions had they been allowed to listen. The fact that the cost of this controversial expenditure had apparently risen by something like 10% before the ink was dry on the LTCCP may have been embarrassing to council but that is no reason to exclude the public.  

Some questions spring to mind:

SPORTS AND EVENTS CENTRE STEP CLOSER

Councillors have reaffirmed their commitment to building the city's new sports and events centre based on the adopted concept and within the $17.5 million budget. An extraordinary meeting of the Strategy, Finance and Regulatory Committee was held last night (11 October) to review the costs of the adopted design concept. Councillors also had to decide whether this design was still appropriate in light of recent publicity around new sports centres being built in Wellington and Paraparaumu. Council budgeted $17.5 million in the city's 10 year plan to build the centre, which will include four full-size courts, spectator seating, a fitness gymnasium, dance studio, lecture theatre, multi-purpose meeting rooms and support spaces. An additional 50 car parks are also included in the plans. Committee chairperson Councillor Ken Douglas said the outcome of the meeting has enabled Councillors to reassure themselves and ratepayers that costs to ratepayers will not go up and that there is still sufficient demand for the planned facility. "Council had been advised by our consultants that there were some potential cost increases associated with the centre. After thoughtful discussion we concluded that these would not affect the budget for the facility itself and that the proposed concept design could go ahead within budget. "We also had to consider the potential effects of the other new sporting facilities being mooted in the region. The sporting groups we talked to have told us that there is strong demand for our facility, particularly with its added attraction of having an aquatic centre as part of the complex. "However, a priority for our Council is the focus of the event centre's capability for our own city's needs. Not having spectator seating has been a major drawback for us. "Based on submissions received during the 10 year planning process and these more recent letters from regional sporting groups, we have been given a clear message that this centre is needed. "At this crucial stage, Councillors did not want to start compromising on the facility which the public has said will be well used and of huge benefit to our city and region. But they also felt strongly that the costs to ratepayers should not increase." The committee also decided that a group comprising Mayor Jenny Brash, Deputy Mayor Euon Murrell and Council Committee chairs Ken Douglas and Robert Shaw would assist Chief Executive Roger Blakeley in working through the design issues in order to ensure that the project remains within budget and retains full functionality. The committee's recommendations will go to full Council on 1 November for final approval.

Well someone is going to be rich, according to Murray McGaw. The chairperson of the regional forum is off again with his extravagant nonsense. Even if the billion dollars promised to us in the next 10 years comes to pass, it is difficult to see how much of it you and I will receive.

What will happen is what an Upper Hutt councillor said: over the next 3 years, regional rates up 25% and the city council ratepayers (several councils together) have to find an extra $3.5 million. This is an estimated average $3 per year rates rise per household.

It is always the way. We pay up front for a promise that never comes to pass. If you do not support their nonsense you are abused for your "lack of vision". To quote Mr McGaw "what sort of place will we leave for our children". Mr McGaw should know that this is insulting and directed at many people who have dedicated their whole lives to the service of their community and future generations.

Let me be very clear. The Porirua City Council policy is that ALL the money for the regional marketing strategy comes from Greater Wellington, the Regional Council. I support the notion that the regional council funds the marketing of our city and the others in the region. Hence, Porirua City ratepayers now no longer have to pay for this function.

As usual there are allegations of secret workshops - behind the scenes, closed room decisions. It is true the Porirua Council did hold its meeting on this very matter in secret. When will they ever learn. Watch now how the decisions are eroded way. The public's opposition is going to win out in the end. Projects continue as they begin.

Robert Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The Staithes Drive Subdivision involves large scale earthworks - all completely on private land and which has obtained resource consent.  The area concerned runs between Makora Grove and Staithes Drive and covers most of a hill covered in mature regenerating kanuka. There is no Council owned land involved, and no reserve involved. EMAIL ME IF YOU WANT A COPY OF THE MAPS THAT SHOW THE RESERVE BOUNDARIES IN THE AREA.
r
Tuesday, October 3, 2006

Hi Robert

In response to your enquiry on what's happening with the Muri Station, I can advse as follows:

• The Western Corridor Plan (April 2006) makes no mention of changes at Muri Station.
• The plan does note that GWRC is undertaking detailed investigations to implement the objective of providing a 15 minute peak train service frequency on the Paraparaumu Line.  This may mean rail service provision may change at some stops, but it is too early to tell which stops, if any, will be effected and to what extent that effect might be.  Our studies have been delayed due to staff changes, but we currently expect to be developing an implementation plan for the rail elements of the Western Corridor Plan in 2007.  Progress will be reported to the Passenger Transport Committee in due course and the Regional Land Transport Committee will continue to be update via the quarterly agency report.
• Officers have also discussed this matter with Graham Taylor and we agree that appropriate pedestrian access should be provided to Muri Station as the pedestrian route provides a valuable connection through the area.  Graham indicated that he is keen to continue working with the community to develop appropriate solutions to the State Highway issues in the area.

Hope this is sufficient. Best wishes

Wayne

Wayne Hastie Divisional Manager, Public Transport Greater Wellington Regional Council Phone (04) 8020306 mailto:wayne.hastie@gw.govt.nz