where do we get the money? let us think ahead

USEFUL THOUGHTS FROM JIM DEARSLY OF WHITBY

Further to my previous email.

Robert asks who will pay for future parking?

Predictions of future population for Porirua do not indicate rapid growth. Is there a great demand for more parking? I have never had a problem with parking. However, if there is growth, then rates will increase and perhaps additional car parking can be funded from that increase in the rating base. Adequate parking will do more for the economic development of the city than the S&EC and would be an appropriate use of some of the money currently raised from the business sector. This would have been a far more appropriate use of the $5M received from the sale of the Aotea Block Parking fees are just another imposition on residents and ratepayers and merely another way of raising money for council to spend. Charging for parking will discourage cars and adversely affect parking - Ask businesses in Wellington. If new parking spaces are required, why wasn't this expenditure shown in the 10 year LTCCP? Was it so we woundn't be frightened off the S&EC???
Regards Jim

ROBERT COMMENTS

This buiding below, just completed, is owned by a council and operated by a private company. Cost: $8 million. In our case the building might provide both commuter parking and shopper parking. Hence, it would be located between the railway station and the shops. The bus terminal would be integrated with it. Let us all plan ahead for once.

one percent

I notice in the report from Transit NZ on progress regarding Transmission Gully that they have completed 1% of the planning and 0% of the construction. I wonder why I read the Land Transport Committee papers sometimes. The mayor is our Porirua City representative there.
r
Saturday, July 28, 2007

whitby village plan

There will be a series of house meetings held in Whitby to advance the village plan.

Lovely picture of the Whitby Lake

From the WRA meeting in May 2007 came the following suggestions for the issues and topics we should concentrate on in the Whitby Village Plan:

* Youth

* Educational facilities

* Recreation, eg Pool and facilities for older people

* Public transport

* Shops/shopping

* Walkways

* Limits on further housing and look at more varied housing types esp high density cheaper types

* Different types of business

* Effects of global warming especially on Inlet

* Self sufficiency in energy- generating our own ?

* Traffic esp SH58 and connections to Transmission Gully

* Traffic management systems in Whitby

* Reserves and play facilities

parking costs - start of debate

climate change - nelson council

titahi bay from papakowhai

The picture above was taken by Paul Moss a Papakowhai resident. It shows the Planet Venus (evidently above John Watson's house) and the tallest tower in New Zealand. For more pictures go to http://www.gadot.wellington.net.nz/sky/skylines.htm

submission on police act

AD/12/5
Stuart Parkinson
sparkinson@pcc.govt.nz
237 1610
27 July 2007
Police Act Review
Police National Headquarters
PO Box 3017
WELLINGTON

Dear Sir/Madam

REVIEW OF POLICE ACT 1958
The Porirua City Council is pleased to have the opportunity to make a submission on the Review of the Police Act 1958 set out in the consultation document Policing Directions in New Zealand for the 21st Century.

Porirua City Council fully supports the review of the Police Act 1958 and this submission covers several basic matters of importance to our City in relation to policing and safety.  We acknowledge that you will receive a range of responses from local government throughout the country and from Local Government New Zealand.

Local government mandate
The purpose of local government as set out in s10 of the Local Government Act 2002 is:
a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and in the future.

In addition, s91 and s92 of the Local Government Act requires the identification of community outcomes for the intermediate and long-term future and to report on progress toward the outcomes.  Community outcomes are the broad aspirational goals the community selects as being important and these can and do span many issues and groups beyond the direct responsibility of local government.

Although community outcomes are inter-related and benefit from being viewed as a whole, the relevant community outcome and associated indicator in relation to law and order in Porirua is:

The broad mandate for local government means there is an opportunity to identify and take up issues of importance to our communities.  Apart from areas of direct responsibility, the most practical response is to advocate on behalf of our community and work collaboratively with other sectors and agencies with specific mandates.  In this case, Council views our relationship with the Police as an essential component of the City’s governance and wellbeing.

Police relationships and priority setting
Council recognises that the Police are an essential part of our community, particularly in ensuring a sense of safety and security.  We also recognise that community safety and the contributing factors and responses to crime rely on a growing network of processes and agencies.  Just like the health sector, safety and crime prevention needs a coordinated, multi-sector/multi-agency response.

Council enjoys a good relationship with local Police.  Kapiti Mana Area Commander Inspector John Spence is a member of several Council and community groups.  We recognise that in the absence of a legislative requirement for Police to consult and collaborate, there is a heavy reliance on goodwill and the strength of personal relationships.

Effective stakeholder communication by the Police, particularly with the public, is essential.  Porirua has a diverse population (especially ethnically diverse) and a variety of communication forms are required.  Apart from appropriate forms of communication, a ‘no surprises’ approach is sought in the event of new Police processes or technologies being introduced.  The recent introduction of tasers in the Police armoury resulted in a deputation of Pacific church ministers to Council concerned with both the implications of taser use and lack of community consultation.

Local government has a legal requirement to plan, set priorities, collaborate and consult as set out in the Local Government Act 2002.  Council supports a similar process for Police being included in the proposed Bill.  This would help to set out core Police responsibilities, identify local priorities supplemented with local and regional data and how these priorities will be responded to, and define boundaries and relationships with other local agencies.  It would also be important for Police to share the relevant community outcomes of the respective local authorities.

Information and boundaries
As described above, local government is also required to report on progress toward community outcomes and we draw on information (statistics and programme descriptions) provided by Police.  One of the challenges of reporting meaningfully on local safety and crime statistics is to obtain accurate and timely data on our City.

Porirua comes within the Kapiti-Mana Police District involving several local authorities and the data does not always lend itself to the crisp level of reporting we require for our City.  A realignment of Police district and local authority boundaries has been suggested previously but does not appear to have been addressed in the consultation document.  A similar approach has been taken with health districts overseen by District Health Boards (DHB) and health information is often reported at local authority level and then aggregated to DHB level.  Whether a similar approach is to be considered for Police districts is not clear and while Council does not have a strong view on this, we are keen to:

World Health Organization Safer City accreditation
One of the key partnerships for safety and injury prevention in Porirua has been formalised through Porirua’s application for Safer City accreditation with the World Health Organization.  The WHO Safe Communities model creates an infrastructure in local communities for addressing safety through building local partnerships.

As part of this process, a multi-agency Memorandum of Understanding was signed in March 2007 setting out the commitments by each agency toward a Safer Porirua.  Kapiti Mana Police are an essential part of the Committee overseeing the accreditation process which also includes: Council, Porirua Community Guardians, Accident Compensation Corporation, Regional Public Health and the Porirua Healthy Safer City Trust.

The Porirua Healthy Safer City Trust is the legal umbrella for the WHO Accreditation Safe Communities process.  The Trust, which has had close links with the Police for many years, aims to provide a safe and healthy environment and on the safety side, facilitates community responses to specific crime concerns such as graffiti and vandalism, car crime, violence and safer streets.  Council also contracts the Trust to undertake crime prevention work funded by the Government Crime Prevention Unit.

Community involvement in policing
Porirua Community Guardians was established in 2003 and funded by Council for the first time in 2004.  They have a strong relationship with Council and, as a distinct community patrolling group, are an invaluable organisation to community crime prevention and safer city activities.  It has strong support from the Police and other key organisations.  The Guardians promote community safety with a highly visible ambassadorial presence throughout the City.  Council supports such organisations being able to continue to have a role in our community.

Porirua City Council’s Strategic Coordination Group
The Strategic Coordination Group is an intersectoral liaison and network group with a specific focus on Porirua and is attended by the Police’s Kapiti-Mana Area Commander.  The Group includes government agencies with a direct funding, policy, planning and programme delivery role and helps to make connections across areas of responsibility.  Youth offending and youth justice issues are current issues being addressed in the Group.

Police Act Review specifics
Council appreciates the opportunity the community had to hear about and discuss the Police Act Review on 3 July 2007.  Council is aware that other groups such as the Porirua Healthy Safer City Trust will make separate submissions.  In response to the review and the Overview of issues for consultation (pgs 74-75 of consultation document), we make the following comments.

Principles – Council supports a new Policing Act establishing principles to help guide how policing is carried out in New Zealand, along the lines of suggested principles set out in the consultation document.

Effective Policing – Council supports the legislative proposals to support effective policing, along the lines set out in the consultation document.

People - Council supports the legislative proposals to modernise Police’s employing environment, along the lines set out in the consultation document.

Platforms - Council supports the legislative proposals for the governance and administration of Police, along the lines set out in the consultation document.

The Future –Council supports the drafting of a new Policing Act.  There is value in the Act being written in a way that allows the use of new technologies to prevent and solve crime but also the ability to respond effectively to new technologies used to commit crime.

Council will consider the opportunity to make a submission on the proposed Bill and looks forward to continuing the co-operative relationship it has enjoyed with the Police in our City.

This submission is lodged under delegation by the Chief Executive and will subsequently be reported to Council.  If you have any queries regarding the submission, please contact Stuart Parkinson, Senior Policy Analyst on 237 1610 (email: sparkinson@pcc.govt.nz).

Yours faithfully
Roger Blakeley
CHIEF EXECUTIVE

parking - an old issue - your thoughts most welcome

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Car parking in Porirua's central business district

The Porirua Council may establish further car parks in the city centre and charge for parking. Officers advice on such issues will be considered at the City Services Committee on 2 August.

Recently completed research suggests decisions are needed to provide for the growth of the city centre and that this should be done now as the Council works on the City Center revitalization plan.

City Services Committee Chairperson Robert Shaw said 94% of shoppers found parking in Porirua convenient. "That is a good situation for retailers and shoppers alike", he said.

However, the survey also indicated the need for better provision for those who work in the area and need long-term car-parking.

Cr Shaw said "It is is the advice of officers that the Council should consider a charge for day-parking. This might be about $5 a day and could be introduced along with better controls on the short-stay car parks."

"Some level of user-pays would assist the Council to raise money for further car park facilities. As far as we can, we wish to avoid car parking being a charge upon the general ratepayer. Porirua's rates are already too high and it looks likely that the Council will sooner or later have to purchase some  floors of parking in a building.

An associated issue is the safety of the car parks. Cr Shaw said he strongly supported the provision of more CCTV cameras along with improved lighting. We need to use the technology to secure the inner city. Already some progress has been made on this, but there is more work to be done.

Cr Shaw said he would move a motion at the Committee to consult the public before any decisions were taken. The work relates to amendments to the District Plan which is a high priority for many people, he added.
ends

red ken - turning blue

Dominion Post report:

Ken Douglas - the unionist once known as "Red Ken" - has abandoned the Labour Party to run as an independent at the upcoming local body elections.

Mr Douglas, a Porirua city councillor, withdrew his request to run on the Labour ticket after being dumped as a party candidate - along with fellow city councillor Litea Ah Hoi and former mayor John Burke - for the Porirua Community Trust.

Mr Douglas has indicated dissatisfaction with some of the candidates selected by Labour as another reason why he will run as an independent. "(But) I am not going to get into reasons, or the details, of the individuals concerned."

The three sitting trustees have been replaced on the Labour ticket for the trust elections by former city councillor Bud Lavery and present councillors David Stanley and Taima Fagaloa.

Mr Douglas will stand as an independent in the western ward at the October 13 elections, where he will face off against Labour candidates Henry Smith and Mr Lavery, a former Porirua Licensing Trust president.

He will also stand as an independent for the Porirua Community Trust.

A life-long unionist, Mr Douglas was founder of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Union Party, a secretary of the Federation of Labour, and foundation president of the Council of Trade Unions. He received the country's highest honour, the Order of New Zealand, in 1998.

He has been a member of Porirua City Council since 1998 - representing Labour after joining the party in time for the 2004 local body elections - and has been on the Porirua Licensing Trust since 2001.

He was elected to the Capital and Coast District Health Board in 2004, and is on numerous other boards, including those of Air New Zealand, New Zealand Post and the New Zealand Rugby Union. "

politics

LITEA TO KEN

How about you concentrate on your conflicts of interest on the ccdhb and other organisations, and leave the mayor to ask questions for the city. litea

----- Original Message ----- From: Marilyn Tucker To: Diane Koha - PCC ; Euon Murrell ; euonm@gilliesandmark.co.nz ; john.green@paradise.net.nz ; litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz ; liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz ; Maureen Gillon (Home) ; Maureen Gillon (Work) ; naureenp@familystart-porirua.org.nz ; Rob Rangi ; robert@porirua.net ; suedow@paradise.net.nz ; t.fagaloa@whitireia.ac.nz ; twaters@paradise.net.nz Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 8:39 PM

Subject: Re: Media Release: PCC Concerned about outsourcing proposals for Ken epuru A&M Kia ora Jenny, You media release is entirely inappropriate especially having been invited to Chair a public meeting organised by the CCDHB for the purpose of reporting on the back ground and process associated with improved community delivery of health across our region. It is clear that you are attempting to grand stand on these extremely important issues. It behoves persons in positions such so having been approached by CCDHB to act as the meeting Chair person . The fact that you did not DESPITE having agreed to be the Chair is reprehensible. That is not acceptable and you do not have my support at all.
Ken Douglas

ROBERT COMMENTS

I have asked the ceo about the mayor's media statement. It is a use of council resources to promote her views and not those of the council itself. The Auditor General has just released a satement about such things in advance of the election. In fact, Jenny has the wrong end of the stick as any Keni watcher knows, and as was set out on this blog earlier.
r

city centre - a serious discussion

ROBERT COMMENTS

Earlier this week I met with Council ceo and Russell Black,

to consider Russell's ideas on the city. His ideas are around the foundational framework for the development of the city centre. This he sees as being based on three key nodes that need high visibility. His ideas reinforce and extend the thinking in the current report and hark back to the previous report. In addition he develops the idea of the underground car park in Cobham Court and the flow up over Titahi Bay Road.

Below are some different ideas from Whitby. These community inputs are important for the current debate is serious. We cannot afford to make mistakes in town planning. They are expensive in many ways and we have some direct experience.
r
Tuesday, July 24, 2007

By Jim Dearsly on behalf of the WRA

The presentation by Kobus last month was more or less the same as the previous one a few months ago. The only difference was that he down played the bleak 14m high featureless exterior of the S&EC. In the previous presentation he had made some proposals for hiding this behind some boutique shops and tree lined outside walkway and paved area. He has obviously been told this is not acceptable by Council. He did mention that this blank wall was a difficult feature to deal with (that is saying the least!). We support the idea of a plan so that some of the absurdities of previous ad hoc developments and consents are not repeated. However some of the detail needs more consideration and rationalisation.The beautification of streets with trees etc would green-up and soften the area. Much of that can be done without major re-planning of the street connections .Opening up the current pedestrian precinct to the traffic, however pedestrian friendly is questioned and should not be encroached on unless it can be shown there is real benefit. Two more vehicle accesses into the central parking square might well lead to vehicle congestion as it turns the central car park into what will become, in effect, a giant roundabout. There are already hold ups as vehicles wait for parks to clear or allow traffic in or out of parking spaces. Parallel parking involving people backing into parks will merely add to the congestion and it is hard to see how it can create more parking spaces.The only areas where parking is required close to shops is in relation to super markets as that is where people regularly purchase heavy (trolley loads) of goods. Most heavy items are purchased from the Plaza or the Mega Centre. Most people, when shopping in the central area, will park under New World, the City Plaza, in front of the Stationery Warehouse area, or in the square. I could argue that park and walk are good for us all. Having moving traffic in what is currently a pedestrian domain would not be a benefit and would in fact be an inconvenience and a hazard and as distracted pedestrians played “chicken” with distracted drivers. We should take note of what has happened in Wellington. Separating pedestrians from traffic used to be a planning policy. Has some new theory been formed?Porirua is already the most car shopping friendly place I know as we can park pretty close to the shops and then walk safety of the pedestrian precincts. It is a huge plus. Most people I know like the canopies but there could be some thought to reducing the wind tunnel effects. I am sure there is an engineering solution.We are already over supplied with shops in Porirua and it is difficult to see how some of them can be making any money. There is only so much cash about and the more shops we have the less viable they become. Natural market selection takes place and unprofitable shops close. With the slow growth predicted for Porirua, providing more shops will not attract visitors from outside Porirua. What we want is for more of the junk shops to close (they don’t give the city a good look anyway) and a few more high quality shops to open. That would be more in tune with the demographics of only a few more people but of growing affluence. I see the essential concept of a central pedestrian precinct surrounded by car parks is a good model for the centre and currently works well. The Mega Centre also works well with central car parks surrounded by shops.Making Hartham Court more attractive with a mini park and more trees might encourage more restaurants. But why not be more innovative. HC could be turned into a large open piazza with a car park underneath. That would significantly increase parking and provide one of the nicest city centre in the region. A great place for even functions attracting people to Porirua. I believe it should be sufficiently above the river/ high tide level to allow drainage. Has that option been considered?The walk through from Te Rauparaha Park to the Inlet might be nice and the idea of a waterfront development is innovative and could be attractive but very expensive and has to be somewhat pie in the sky at this time. Certainly nothing should be done that would preclude it later but it is likely to be much later.A lot of the proposed plan can be implemented because it is largely landscaping.
Opening up new streets or current pedestrian precincts would, in my opinion, be a retrograde step and do nothing to improve the area or the shopping experience. However improving pedestrian access from the railway station to HC might have advantages but few people currently arrive by train to go shopping.The plan as present begs the question about the S&EC outer wall that in winter will cast a long afternoon shadow into the park and will be something of an eyesore unless measures are taken to hide it. That could prove to be a real challenge.

The main issue is the central city centre square and the latest proposal is extremely questionable.

liz loves jenny

Jenny

My understanding is that there were two items 1.Forward work programmes for the committees and 2.The informal briefings on committee day. These meetings were for opportunities as chairs and deputies to be cohesive in our approach to the agendas ensuring that the direction set by Council is being met effectively and efficiently as well as an opportunity to raise any other business that may have risen that we may need to address.

Your unilateral decision today epitomizes your leadership - knowing you as I do now I guess I really shouldn't be surprised. The issues I wanted to raise was information that had been given to me regarding A&E I understood we are striving to build a relationship with the Health Board and thought it prudent for Council to ask for an explanation about the matters that had been bought to my attention however I have since read your media release and I guess I should follow your lead and go directly to the papers.
Liz

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jenny Brash - PCC" <JBrash@pcc.govt.nz> To: "Cr Liz Kelly" <liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz>; "Roger Blakeley - PCC" <RBlakeley@pcc.govt.nz> Cc: "Jenny Brash - PCC" <JBrash@pcc.govt.nz>; "Cr Euon Murrell - Work" <euon.murrell@gilliesgroup.co.nz>; "Cr Ken Douglas" <marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Sue Dow" <suedow@paradise.net.nz>; "Cr Robert Shaw" <robert@porirua.net> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007

11:38 AM Subject: RE: Meeting Cancelled: Informal Meeting of Chairs and Deputies with CE: 2 pm Thursday 19 July2007 > >

Liz

There were no aganda items which is why I supported cancelling the > > meeting. Nothing to do with people not mattering. As chair I am happy to > > meet with you and Roger to discuss matters you wanted brought up. Jenny

> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Liz Kelly [mailto:liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz] > > Sent: Thursday, 19 July 2007 11:24 a.m. > > To: Roger Blakeley - PCC > > Cc: Jenny Brash; Euon Murrell; marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz; > > suedow@paradise.net.nz; ROBERT SHAW > > Subject: Fw: Meeting Cancelled: Informal Meeting of Chairs and Deputies with > > CE: 2 pm Thursday 19 July2007 > > > > > > Roger - are you telling the rest of us that we don't matter?? I actually > > have some matters I would like to discuss, privately will do now - if you > > are available? > > > > Liz > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Roger Blakeley - PCC" <RBlakeley@pcc.govt.nz> > > To: "Roger Blakeley - PCC" <RBlakeley@pcc.govt.nz>; "Jenny Brash - PCC" > > <JBrash@pcc.govt.nz>; "Cr Euon Murrell - Home" <murrells@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr > > Euon Murrell - Work" <euon.murrell@gilliesgroup.co.nz>; "Cr Ken Douglas" > > <marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz>; "Cr Robert Shaw" <robert@porirua.net>; "Cr Liz > > Kelly" <liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz>; "Cr Naureen Palmer" > > <naureenp@familystart-porirua.org.nz>; "Cr Sue Dow" <suedow@paradise.net.nz> > > Cc: "Diane Koha - PCC" <DKOHA@pcc.govt.nz> > > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:35 AM > > Subject: Meeting Cancelled: Informal Meeting of Chairs and Deputies with CE: > > 2 pm Thursday 19 July2007 > > > > >> > > Jenny, Euon, Ken, Robert, Liz, Naureen, Sue >> > > >> > >

I have had apologies from Ken Douglas and Euon may not be able to get >> > > there-and thee are no agenda items! So after consultation with Jenny, >> > > the meeting is cancelled. Regards, Roger

our company attracts attention

better meeting in Whitby

The Whitby Residents Assocation meeting last week gave people a chance to talk in a sensible way. There were a few political hoists, but by in large it was educative. The need at the moment is for them to focus on what is needed in the reform of the District Plan. Work is being done, but the challenge is one of priorities.

Regarding the reform of the budget process, I had a chance to say some of the things I was trying to say to them early last year. Basically the same talk that I have given to Pukerua Bay, Plimmerton and Paremata associations. If you are interested in the financial managment of the council you should take a close interest in the budget process reforms.
r
Monday, July 23, 2007

politics in high places

‘Red Ken’ abandons Labour

Ken Douglas - the unionist once known as "Red Ken" - has abandoned the Labour Party to run as an independent at the upcoming local body elections.

Mr Douglas, a Porirua city councillor, withdrew his request to run on the Labour ticket after being dumped as a party candidate - along with fellow city councillor Litea Ah Hoi and former mayor John Burke - for the Porirua Community Trust. Mr Douglas has indicated dissatisfaction with some of the candidates selected by Labour as another reason why he will run as an independent."(But) I am not going to get into reasons, or the details, of the individuals concerned."

The three sitting trustees have been replaced on the Labour ticket for the trust elections by former city councillor Bud Lavery and present councillors David Stanley and Taima Fagaloa.

Mr Douglas will stand as an independent in the western ward at the October 13 elections, where he will face off against Labour candidates Henry Smith and Mr Lavery, a former Porirua Licensing Trust president.

He will also stand as an independent for the Porirua Community Trust.

A life-long unionist, Mr Douglas was founder of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Union Party, a secretary of the Federation of Labour, and foundation president of the Council of Trade Unions. He received the country's highest honour, the Order of New Zealand, in 1998.

He has been a member of Porirua City Council since 1998 - representing Labour after joining the party in time for the 2004 local body elections - and has been on the Porirua Licensing Trust since 2001.

He was elected to the Capital and Coast District Health Board in 2004, and is on numerous other boards, including those of Air New Zealand, New Zealand Post and the New Zealand Rugby Union.

windfarm is to be built soon

very nice statement, which i appreciate

Robert,

Just to pass on to you our congratulations for your AU$10,000.00 Ph.D. award. Such International recognition is hard won and obviously recognizes outstanding academic acumen and thinking. We’re really proud that one of our Councillors has received this kind of recognition. Well done. Helen and John

council's only company

health board - the wheels have fallen off

ROBERT COMMENTS:

The statement below is a concern often expressed. The privatisation of the emergency facility occurred a few years ago. The private facility in the town centre moved to the Kenepuru site. The arrangement was a sort of public private partnership. Nothing new is happening in terms of the philosophical foundation although the plan seems to be to change the private partners around. At the last meeting of the Porirua City Council City Services Committee I asked Cr Douglas as the deputy chair of the health board to comment on events. His response was that nothing had been decided and there were options.

It should be noted that the scheduled review of Kenepuru has been completed. It provided useful statistics and an assessment of how things are going. I became quite angry when I read it. The statistics show that the Pacific Island population is using Kenepuru but the Maori and Pakeha are not. The latter are rather obviously worried more about the charging set up, which frightens people, even though it is misunderstood.

It is good that the Pacific Island people are using the facility. They remain the New Zealanders with the greatest health needs.

Someone ought to ask about the economics of the whole facility at Kenepuru. It is rather obvious that the plans for income have not worked out, and that Kenepuru is costing the health board a bomb.

I was most angry when I read the white-wash in the report that was the "community consultation". I think I will write to the board and request all the documentation that pertains. Basically, they asked Ken Douglas and Margaret Faulkner as board members if all was well and they said it was all fine. Well it is not fine. The consultation committee established with the City Council was ignored evidently. At least those I spoke to had never heard of the review. The list of names of people consulted in the report (in two groups) was a shock -how on earth did they select that lot?

Also, it so happens that I know rather well many of the staff that work from the place, and they tell a totally different story. The community is most upset with Kenepuru, it staggers along without the proper levels of staffing, without the resources needed to service the community, and without a care. The stress on the staff is excessive and there are no credible plans to support Kenepuru.

The strike by specialist doctors has been reported in the media as being about pay. It is not. It is about the management medical split in this country. We ignore the highly trained medical specialists opinions about specialist matters and expect them to work under mangers who do not understand the issues. So long as the health board battles along with great community participation (which means, some selected people with loud mouths get to make the decisions) we are doomed to what we have. Thus spake Zarathustra.

r

SPOTLESS TRIES ITS DIRTY TRICKS

A virus is stalking our hospital wards – the virus of privatisation. The lockout of 800 staff in many hospitals has been brought about by the firm which has a contract for services that Boards use to run themselves. Some still do. This dispute involves staff who are employees of contractor Spotless Services an Australia transnational, which has refused to be part of the deal that the Service Workers Union negotiated for its 2000 members covering cleaners, kitchen workers and orderlies. Spotless will not agree to pay the new rates to new staff and with a 30% annual turnover that means a sizeable number of Spotlight staff will be on low rates.

Union organiser Alistair Duncan told the Health Boards affected that they controlled the premises, and they mustn’t let a rogue boss get away with low pay. Some of the Spotlight workers get $11.33 per hour – seven cents above the minimum wage.  

LETTER TO CCDHB

 “The Chief Executive Officer  Capital and Coast District Health Board WHITE CROSS AND BOARD SERVICES Information provided to a meeting in Porirua last week indicates your Board is considering proposals to privatize some Board services by setting up a Trust in which the White Cross organization will provide services currently provided by the Board. In terms of section 22 of the Health and Disabilities Act 2000 I request that you 1 Advise me of the nature of the proposals. 2 Make public the proposals you are considering. 3.Immediately set up procedures to ensure that the community can participate in any planning taking place on this proposal as required by Section 22. I understand a Board representative told the Porirua meeting that the Board regards this as a “management matter”.  On the contrary it is a significant amendment to the provision of health services and the Board has a responsibility to see that the Act is complied with.  

Please let me know urgently the action you propose to take to carry out your legal responsibilities to “foster community participation” in planning relating to this issue.” SGD JIM DELAHUNTY

Cr Green on the service lane

Brian Helm has been working on the Rates Inquiry

Discussion Paper and Alternative Proposal Submitted by:

Bryan Helm
15 Kiriwai Road, Paremata, PORIRUA 5024 Phone: 233 8250 Email: bhelm@paradise.net.nz

I make this submission as an individual and do not represent any other person or organisation. Introduction. This submission is in two parts. Part I is based on issues identified in the Rates Inquiry discussion paper. Part II outlines a possible alternative for funding local authorities based on income instead of property values.

SUBMISSION: PART I DISCUSSION PAPER PART 3 1

Rates.

The Porirua City Council produces a voluminous document detailing its proposed activities and costs. My interest is in new proposals and increased expenditure in existing ones and I find this difficult to identify from the document produced. I would prefer a simpler document. Something like “The Activity, its present cost, the amount and reason for any increase and the effect on rates and whether we support or oppose the proposal. A more detailed statement could be made available elsewhere.” I have made submissions in the past but no modification has ever been made by the Council to the issues I have raised. At least a questionnaire type document would provide a better reflection of opinion by the community and would likely result in a better response. I think the percentage of ratepayers who make a submission is fairly low. 2

Drivers of increased costs.

One factor can be a tendency of some councils to depart from their core activities and embark on ‘nice to have things’. Individually the cost may not be great but cumulatively this can be significant. Some councils are not as cost conscious as they could be. Activities, especially those relating to administration, might possibly be shared. Millions of dollars are spent on computer systems controlling information which is basically determined by legislation. It might be possible to have a service centre which provides the software for processing information which councils would connect to. The point I want to make is that councils should have a specific policy to explore the most economical way of undertaking any activity. Another factor could be the standards required of some infrastructure. Many schools have closed their swimming pool because of being too expensive to upgrade. Just how many infectious ailments have occurred to justify the upgrade? None that I know of at our local school which no longer has a pool. This raises the question of cost/benefit of standards. 3.

Trends in the use of rating tools to fund services.

As you will note from Part II of my submission I strongly favour rates being income related. If this is adopted ( a meeting I attended suggests this could be a popular option) a review of the rating tools available would have little relevance as would the type or value of the property on which the rates have been collected. I could however see merit in water being separately charged for, ie metered, as this would be better environmentally as users would be more aware of the cost of providing it and be less wasteful. If the present property value system is retained I would favour greater use of uniform annual charges as this would mitigate the inequity of fluctuating property values to some extent. 4.

Sources of revenue

User charges.

Depends on whether optional or compulsory. If someone is seeking a service then I believe that that person should meet at least the bulk of the cost. Eg. Dog registration or consents. If compulsory, such as rubbish then this user charge should be kept to a minimum as otherwise there will be a tendency to dump rubbish away from landfills and those on low incomes may find it difficult to meet higher costs. ·

Development contributions.

I am not aware of the split between developer and council but consider that the developer should pay at least most of the cost. ·

Fines.

Should definitely not be used for revenue gathering . This encourages enforcement for minor infringements and engenders a sense of injustice. Fines are imposed regardless of the ability to pay and a forgetful act could result in financial hardship.

Borrowing.

Should be a last resort option as interest either increases the cost of the project or reduces the funds available for a project if the available funds are capped. ·

Comments on other funding sources.

The other sources listed in (4) of the discussion document are of course the preferred ones but availability often limited. 5 Sustainability of rates Clearly the group affected is that containing those on a low income who are adversely affected by rising property values. This group is not static as changing fortunes determine ability to pay eg. retirement after receiving a high salary. Assets should be divorced from the ‘ability to pay’ discussion. Assets are built for a variety of purposes such as provision of a retirement income or a fund to meet medical expenses when health insurance is not held. Even if assets are built for the benefit of adult children, why should local authorities get the benefit of these assets.

This is one of the reasons why I propose an income related method of funding local authorities. 6. Rates rebates. No comment except to say that this would be redundant if income related rates is adopted. There should however still be some provision for government assistance for low income people. . 7.

Te Ture Whenua Maori Land.

No comment except to reiterate that income based rating would resolve these issues. 8. Exemptions I am not aware of the percentage by which Porirua City Council rates would decrease if exemptions were removed but I imagine the effect would be small. I strongly support the list of exemptions being retained while the property value related rating system applies. If it were abolished the consumer would most likely still pay through increased charges. Some community activities might have to cease if exemptions were removed assuming that the property tax system is retained. I would find it hard to believe that the increase in electricity charges was not influenced in some measure by councils ability to rate lines use. 9.

Other Revenue raising

The main principles for considering other methods for fund raising are that contributions should be according to ability to pay and that every person in receipt of an income from any source should make some contribution. I therefore favour a local tax and I have dealt with this in more detail in Part II of this submission. I do not favour other forms of taxes such as GST or payroll tax as the first does not reflect ability to pay and the second would place an unfair burden on business and absolve the majority in the community from having to contribute. Neither do I support special taxes for tourism. Tourists do not use many of a council’s resources. They do not use sports grounds or libraries or much in the way of cultural amenities. They probably use walkways but ware and tear from such use would be minimal. They do use water but contribute to the cost through their accommodation charge, The monetary benefits of tourism far outweigh the relatively small cost to councils and it is imperative that we do nothing to discourage tourism by adding to the costs of those businesses which provide services to tourists.

PART: II PROPOSAL FOR REVISED RATING SYSTEM

Objective.

To adopt a new system for funding local authorities by levying income and totally abandoning the present system of funding on property values. The Proposed System This applies to the residential sector only as business reform is best left to those directly involved in business. The proposal is that a small levy apply to all income regardless of source. This would include benefits and superannuation payments. In the case of benefits, Government assistance could be given if a beneficiary has difficulty in living on the allowance after the rates levy has been applied. This would be the same principle as help with rent etc, as is done at present A broader base than that for taxation is needed as some income is not taxed. My preference would be for the Government to determine the amount of the levy and collect it, then distribute it to local authorities according to population and some amenities. This would have the advantage of local authorities having to live within their income. However this proposal is likely to be strongly resisted. As a second option the local authority would be permitted to set the rate of the levy according to a formula prescribed by Government. Every person in receipt of an income would complete a Rates Declaration along with the normal tax code where applicable, which would record the local authority in which that person lives and the rate code there, regardless of where they actually worked.

A special “no Declaration” rate would apply and the levy retained by the local authority in which the person worked. A change of address notification would not be required until the next 1 April as I believe it would be impracticable to change codes whenever a worker moved home and ‘swings and roundabouts’ would generally compensate local authorities when this happened.. The paying organisation would deduct the levy in the same way as it does for tax and send the levy to the appropriate local authority.. This could be done electronically and automatically once the system is set up.

Advantages. ·

Payment based on income recognises ability to pay which is not the case with the present property tax · Although a few might pay more than the under the present scheme while employed , this would reduce when income fell following retirement or extended sickness. · Everyone benefits to some extent from council amenities so why should not all contribute in some measure. · Under the present system many who do not pay rates tend to lobby the council for some amenity which they might be less keen on having if they had to help pay for it. · There will be some saving through not having to value properties each three years and maintaining a rates and valuation register. · The need to send out periodic rates accounts would be eliminated. · No need for special rates exemption for certain property classes or targeted rates The Probable Levy Rate The calculations in the attached table are based on Porirua City. The levy could be 0.02360271 cents in the $ if Greater Wellington Rates are levied separately or 0.027746215 cents in the $ if Porirua and Greater Wellington Rates are combined. (See table attached) The total rates collected for Porirua amount to $39,755,198. However I have reduced this to a total of $27,338,246 as I have excluded business rates because I believe their rates should be calculated separately and for GST which in all justice should never have been included. GST I understand that this was added to rates because it was claimed that local authorities provide a service for their citizens who should therefore pay GST. Any service provided by local authorities is primarily of a social content and is no different from that provided by the Government which does not levy GST on normal taxes. Some common activities are provision of parks and walkways, and environment enhancement. As the Government does not add GST to those taxes which support their activities, why on earth should local authorities pay GST? Similarly, activities devolved from Government to local authorities did not attract GST before so why now? What is even more pernicious is that several activities paid for from rates are GST exempt. I refer to loan and interest repayments and contributions to the depreciation fund. The levying of GST is so unfair that it must be discontinued regardless of any outcome from the Rates Review. Calculating the Proposed Rates Levy The income groups in the attached table are from the 2006 Census. The income groups have been used to determine the total income pool on which to base my rates calculations. I then adjusted the Porirua City expenditure as already explained, then determined the rate in the $ as shown in the Table. Some 13% of those in the Census did not state their income and this understated the size of the pool for determining the rate of the Rates levy. That explains why an allowance has been made for this by reducing the levy rate by 13%. Some general outcomes I accept that these calculations are indicative only, as my assumption that had all income been stated that this would have increased the pool by 13%, may not be particularly accurate. I also accept that this proposal is not definitive. It is intended to offer an alternative to the inequitable property tax which must be replaced by something else and therefore I offer this proposal as an alternative. It should be noted that rate payers in Porirua pay a greater proportion of city expenditure in rates than those in many other local authorities because those authorities have more revenue earning assets which contribute to their income. The difference has been assessed at 20% which means that in the event of an income based rates system being adopted nationally, their levies could be 20% less than Porirua. A final observation is that if rates are divorced from property values then some nine items relating to property values listed in the Porirua discussion paper, would become irrelevant."

city centre

I have been facilitating discussions between Russell Black and council officers. The Council seeks to engage everyone in a thoughtful discussion about the city centre. Council must take action there, it is not an option to just leave it alone. There is more to be done, but below is Russell's report on one meeting.
r
Thursday, June 21, 2007

awards for great service

Pip Piper, Russell Morrison and Tiketi Auega were last night recognised for their outstanding contribution to Porirua City at the 2007 Civic Awards for VoluntaryCommunity Service.As well, Rosetta (Rosie) Gallen and Phil Jensen received Mayoral Certificates ofRecognition for community service given way beyond the call of duty.

Pip Piper has been an active member of the Plimmerton Residents' Association for over 20 years and is held in high regard by the community.He is an active member of Grey Power group, is a volunteer at Porirua PublicLibrary's genealogy section, works as a Citizens Advice Bureau volunteer and is amember of Senior Net helping others come to terms with new technology.Mr Piper has been a Justice of the Peace for many years and is an active member ofthe Plimmerton Croquet Club.In his working life, Mr Piper was an inspector with Educational Services and is aveteran WW2 pilot.Those nominating Mr Piper said helping others has been a feature of his whole life."He is highly regarded by all in the community for his unwavering contribution in a huge variety of ways."

Russell Morrison has lived in Paremata since he was 10 months old. He attendedParemata School and has been a member and Commodore of the Paremata Boating Club.Mr Morrison has been on the committee of the Paremata Residents' Association forabout 30 years and is currently Vice President.He was a founding member of the Transmission Gully Action Council, being itschairman and spokesman since 1990. He has been a member of the Guardians of theInlet since its inception and is a trustee of the Pauatahanui Inlet Community Trust.Those nominating him, say Russell's extensive local knowledge, passionate interest inthe area and ability to draft the necessary reports, letters, submissions etc means histime has been filled with research, crafting reports and papers, speaking and attendingmeetings."The Paremata Residents Association, Paremata residents and many others haverelied on and benefited from Russell's expertise and willingness to donate literallythousands of hours of his time.""Paremata residents as well as those interested in the preservation of the Inlet and/orthe construction of Transmission Gully owe Russell, who is still actively involved, an ongoing debt of gratitude."

Tiketi Auega is a founding member of the Porirua City Council Youth Council. He is also a member of the Porirua East Residents and Ratepayers Association as well as onthe board of the Porirua Pacific Forum. He is an educator and community liaisonofficer with Whitireia Community Polytechnic, and is the National Vice President ofthe Pacific National Educators Association, as well as a member of the CannonsCreek Opportunity Centre board."Tiketi Auega has immersed himself in serving his community of Porirua City, inparticular Porirua East...Tiketi is totally committed to working with all types ofcommunities...As young as he is, Tiketi continues to be a pioneer for his community and a dynamic young role model for the youth community and his people in general."

Rosie Gallen was born and bred in PoriruaSince 2002 she has been Housing New Zealand's Community Renewal Project Manager for Eastern Porirua.Those nominating Ms Gallen say the programme is making a huge impact in EasternPorirua and Rosie continually rises to the challenges involved in addressing industryand social issues in meaningful and sustainable ways.She has been instrumental in developing and implementing "Map to the Future', anappraisal of issues in Eastern Porirua which has been pivotal in changing strategicthinking and operational budgets to address the issues the community has identified asimportant."Rosie is a very capable strategic thinker. She is also very skilled at engaging withcommunities on their own terms."Rosie is a driving force behind the Cannons Creek Community Campus project,which has been involved in creating a new vision for Cannons Creek ShoppingCentre.As well, Rosie is a trustee on the Porirua Primary Health Organisation, deputy chairof the Porirua Healthy Safer City Trust, chair of the Porirua Community Guardiansgovernance group, as well as a community patroller, advisor to Cannons CreekOpportunity Centre, founder of the Tuakana youth programme and many more.She was instrumental in nurturing the Waitangirua Action Group and worked behindthe scenes to help establish the Aoga Amata Porirua early childhood facility, whichopened in 2005."Rosie has a keen eye for the potential in people and community organisations.""Helping people achieve their potential is much more than just a job for Rosie - sheworks tirelessly for HNZC tenants, their surrounding communities and for Porirua City as a whole."

Philip Jensen joined Porirua City council in 1993 and since then has been employedin the control and eradication of graffiti and other vandalism within the city. He leadsa team of three."Phil has always approached this soul-destroying task with an energy and vigourwhich is admired by all he comes in contact with...Such is his energy andcommitment to the job that he commonly works weekends to ensure the criminalsdon't get a "free pass".In addition to his work with Council, he also takes troubled youth under his wing tomentor them. These youth are normally referred to him by Police or Courts.

more on the fence - 223 people !!!

Hi Robert

Thank you for both coming yesterday and blogging congratulations. Whilst Tim does a huge amount for the community, congratulations in this instance should fairly and squarely go to Dave Anderson, our Chief Volunteer Fire Officer  as well as to all the other members of the PRA, the Fire Brigade, our local Red Cross, the School, the Baptist Church and the Anglican Church for all their support as well. Particular thanks need to go to all the members of the Community who rang with offers of help, delivered flyers, baked cakes and cheerfully turned up to lend a hand.

Our sponsors – Mana New World, Resene Paints, Café Vella and Brights Building Supplies were just amazing in their helpfulness and generosity.

Needless to say we couldn’t have achieved this result without the help of many Council Officers who worked with us to achieve the end result from doing risk management plans through to water  blasting.

Our intention from the start (when you will remember those early efforts to get a “Plimmerton Chapter” in the LTCCP) was to encourage and promote Community building through the Village Planning exercise as a means to enhance our community. We’re on the way to keep building on this with lots of ideas for the future and were obviously thrilled with the turnout where the final count was 223 people helping in one way or another both at the scene and behind the scene.

We have lots of photos and many will be on display in the local coffee shop before the end of the week. I will email others as they come to hand.

The final coat of paint needs to go on next Sunday after the Kindy mid –winter swim at 1.00pm. Here’s hoping we get plenty of stalwarts to help us with that task as well, energised by their dip in the cold water!

Northern Ward Councillors and paint

Thank you again for your support and the support of all our Northern Ward Councillors, the Mayor and to Chris Findlayson, M.P.

Regards

Helen

ROBERT COMMENTS

There is a very perceptive comment in the above email. Few people understand the village strategy work FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE COUNCIL. The comment about the LTCCP leads to some important insights. More on this later.

Further photographs will be posted shortly. Comments also welcome. Keep emailing them to me.
r

rates miracle

I am pleased to announce that the rates rise this year has been reduced by one whole percent (subject to the decision-making of Council). You may not think that is much, but it represents an incredible amount of work from a small group of councillors.

The average rates rise for householders this year will be 3.7 percent, and not the 4.7 percent proposed in the Draft Annual Plan. The overall rise will be 5.3 percent, which is reduced from 6.3 percent in the Draft.

The only way to deal with the financial pressures on the Council, if your goal is to reduce the rates, is to alter the way we do the budgeting. Much work has been done on this particularly at the councillors retreat.
r
Tuesday, June 19, 2007

MR WATSON REPLIES

Rates Miracle - Come off it Robert! What is so non-miraculous is that this is an election year. Will a one percent rates reduction save some councillors' bacon? Now I'm in favour of elections being held annually.
Regards - John Watson

how do we rank on quality of life?

If Wellington is the 12th best city in the world, and Auckland 5th, Porirua City must be pretty much the top of the list!!

http://www.mercerhr.com/summary.jhtml?idContent=1173105

whitby meeting

ROBERT COMMENTS

Tim is right that I did not write much about the Whitby meeting. The meeting was in two distinct and contrasting parts.The presentations on the village strategy by Robin and Tim were excellent. The councillor presentation was inaccurate when it was specific, repleat with sweeping generalisations, and not informed by the recent work of the Council. Two councillors said to me they felt insulted by the meeting. It was in very marked contrast to the Plimmerton AGM. This was the second meeting at Whitby in the same vein. The Council's chief executive and I answered the first meetings allegations in the Whitby NewsBrief. The chief exeutive's points were ignored in the second meeting. Indeed, the same allegations were repeated. Enough said. I really do not want to go there! (excuse the pun)

Tim asks why I did not blog his meeting. The answer is simply pressure of work. We were trying to clear the Annual Plan and and there were several issues that particular residents had with Council decisions (one to do with a Plimmerton walkway). These take time. Also, the roading issue has been demanding attention.
r

LETTER FROM TIM

Dear Robert

I have just returned from overseas and have caught up with your blog on the recent Whitby Residents’ Assn last meeting. Of course I am not a member of that association, but I was there and I think you do them a disservice in your fairly dismissive reporting of their meeting. Yes, they did have an important first brainstorming session on the development of a local village strategy. Robin Gunston did a superb job in setting the scene for that and it was great to see all the people present getting involved – this is true grassroots democracy. But no, you are not correct in saying that councillors were not invited to speak. The keynote presentation was to have come from your colleague John Green, but since he was in hospital it was delivered by the RA Chair Jim Dearsly. This might have been before you arrived (since you had been chairing the City Services Cttee), so let me assure you that it was a useful overview of many of the key local issues for Whitby residents. Since it was a Residents’ Assn meeting it seems to me that the presence of councillors - and their participation like all other attendees – is most welcome, but it seems to me a bit pretentious for you to expect to have more than one councillor given a formal speaking slot on the RA agenda. Did you put your hand up to contribute anything along the way? I also disagree with your dismissal of the rest of the meeting. Yes, you’re right in saying that both the Mayor and Sue Dow left after the brainstorming session, but Jenny apologised that she had another commitment and couldn’t stay; ie I don’t think we should assume she went in response to any criticism of Council, as you suggested. You acknowledge that the first part of the meeting, on the village strategy, was “useful” but then claim the second part of the meeting was a “barrage of inaccurate stuff about the council that I did not deem worth answering”. So what was the rest of the meeting? Essentially it was another guest speaker, namely Moi! I had been invited to explain to the Whitby RA what we in the Plimmerton RA had been up to recently, especially with regards to our experience with village strategies. I am disappointed you thought that was worthless. While you are entitled to your opinion as to the worth of my address, I think it is unfairly misleading for you to tell your blog readers it was an attack on council. Indeed I believe my whole tone was positive and enthusiastic (indeed, one of the appreciative members of the audience said I was “inspirational” and another thought I was “evangelising”!). Since you have clearly forgotten what I said, let me remind you that my key message was that in Plimmerton we had found the experience of village strategising to have energised our wider community, with many more people now getting involved in community matters. I explicitly recognised the role of Council in this and saw it as a harbinger of a renewed focus on grassroots democracy. If you like I’ll send you a copy of my speech notes and I would challenge you to find anything in them that would justify your assessment of them as a “barrage of inaccurate stuff about the council”. Don’t you think you owe me an apology? You claim to be an active supporter of Residents’ Associations so I’m a bit surprised that you both criticise the Whitby meeting and also have not yet blogged anything at all on the Plimmerton RA AGM you attended two weeks ago. Perhaps you think even less of that meeting since we didn’t have any formal agenda item for councillors to address us, but of course as Chair I did identify the councillors present, welcomed you and thanked you all for your service – what more do you want? We had about 100 residents attending (it was standing room only), which seems to support my claim that the village strategy process we followed seems to have galvanised us all. Of course we had an excellent drawcard speaker in Ian Athfield and his thoughts will be helpful to us all in the District Plan Review – something you yourself referred to in your welcome contribution from the floor.
Regards Tim Sheppard

plimmerton fence paint

Congratulations to Helen Chipper and Tim Shepherd and the team of over 150 fence painters.This job was one of the outcomes of the village strategy work begun four years ago (at least).

I found the day elating. The rain just managed to stay away long enough to make the whole thing a success. I had plenty of interesting discussions with people about all manner of Plimmerton and Council issues.

Chris Findlayson, MP

Comments on the event are welcome for the blog. More photos would be good. It is a fantastic achievment for Plimmerton - the look of the place has improved beyond measure.
r
Sunday June 17, 2007

haunui bush, pukerua bay

UPDATE

The property has evidently been sold to to a Waikato farmer who intends to live in the house. He says he will add two properties to the estate, remove the pine trees and supports the bush being maintained. The Pukerua Bay Residents' Association is delighted with this proposal.
r
Monday, June 18, 2007

PUBLIC MEETING

This issue was discussed at a public meeting tonight. I was asked to present a petition to the Council.

It asks for protection for the Haunui Bush and the Charles Gray Homestead.

I know the area well having watched my own children play there and having looked in the gully for evidence of human beings (never found anything but I did see some interesting birds). I always assumed the bush was a public reserve and the house in private ownership. Foolish assumption. Peter Jackson also used to play there evidently, and he shot a film there in his early days, or so I am told.

Haunui Bush and the Charles Gray Homestead are being considered as areas for development. Council's actions regarding this matter will depend on the nature of the land ownership. The existing rules in the District Plan will apply. Allegedly, 3.49 ha is for sale. I am not sure how accurate that is, but it is what is being said in the community. On the face of it, it would be expensive to make the area a reserve.

See the map below.

r
Thursday, June 14, 2007

LETTER THAT PERTAINS

plimmerton residents' association agm

I have been asked to say something about the recent Plimmerton Residents' Association meeting that was chaired by Tim Shepherd and featured the architect Ian Athfield.

I thought the meeting went very well. It addressed all the normal protocols and had ideas that were relevant and expanding.

Ian Athfield says at every meeting he attends at Porirua that we should make all resource consents contingent upon the approval of neighbours. In the jargon, "noncompliant" with the District Plan. There is food for thought in this. It is impractical, but that aside there is an important concept.

One feature of the meeting was the way the Assocaiton recognised the role of council officers in the business of decision-making. There has been a very deliberate attempt made to form a partnership between the RA's and the Council at both the officer and the councillor level. Blog readers will know that I figured out that over 80% of what involved RA's is management and not governance. It is good to see engagement between the Assocation and the management of Council.

The meeting was light-hearted and positive. That augurs well for the future.

Incidentally, the meeting round this week has been "philosophical". The ceo is on leave and the agenda is light. Discussions about budget process have begun but there is a very long way to go before the scheme decided at the councillors' retreat is implemented.Also, begun was further discussion about the rate of progess with the District Plan work. Fact is there are signficant problems of a practial kind and we have to be patient. This is not something the community want to hear. However, I can remember some years ago when I was the only one saying we needed to redo the DP as a matter of urgency and no one seemed to be that much interested. Now they are saying it is too slow. One cannot win.
r

Thursday, June 14, 2007

progress with the reform agenda - one year on

THIS IS THE BLOG STATEMENT FROM ABOUT A YEAR AGO

I AM GOING TO USE IT TO MONITOR PROGRESS NOW

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