Always needing the money – but never enough of it

This afternoon (or yesterday afternoon depending on when I publish this) the Auckland Council Budget Committee met in Town Hall where the two main items was on budget short falls and the cost of the Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (all-inclusive that stands at $28 million).

I have pointed out the short falls in my Governing Body and Budget Committee Agenda’s Out post where it has been mentioned of Auckland Transport’s shortfall owing to lower patronage figures standing at $10.1m. As for the $28m cost towards the Unitary Plan that was pointed in my Price of our Democracy? post.

Not too much was mentioned about the budget hole especially from Auckland Transport as they will be dealt at later dates according to the Mayor (who is chair of the Budget Committee). That said Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse did Tweet:

Needless to say we will be hearing more around the budget holes as we approach the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.

Unitary Plan Hearings Budget Costs

First of all an update as of 2:20pm 27th March with the Unitary Plan submission count which now stands at 8,961 with still more being “processed.”

As to the costs of the Unitary Plan Hearings, well that generated more debate than even I expected at the Budget Committee today. Put it this way I was only expected to drop a few Tweets by the end of the Committee rather than trawl through around a hundred plus notes owing to the material that actually was debated. In the end the vote came down to a 13-7 split (Councillor Krum was absent) on approving the $12 million for the City Rail with the dissenters being: Christine Fletcher, Dick Quax,Sharon Stewart, myself (Cameron Brewer), John Watson, Wayne Walker, and Mike Lee. I do wonder though if these seven truly understand the Local Government Act (Auckland Amendment) 2009 legislation that sets the parameters for the Unitary Plan, as well as true market costs for such an exercise like the Hearings Panel over three years.

:Long story short the Budget Committee got grounded down over two things:

1. The $12m cost which again I have mentioned in my Price of our Democracy? post
2. Location of the Hearings Panel

Location for the Hearings Panel

I was surprised this even came up given that briefings have been given before on why the Unitary Plan INDEPENDENT Hearings Panel. I was at a media briefing earlier this year where it was clearly outlined the Hearings Panel processes (including pre-hearings and mediation) as well the reasons why the Hearings will not be in Council facilities. So the Councillors should have been briefed prior to the media or (does happen) soon after on the Hearing Panel housing requirements. The reason why non Council facilities are being used was the following:

1. There is no available facilities owned by the Council in the CBD where the Hearings are to be held (Aotea Centre is too costly owing to lost revenue from other events they would have otherwise not being able to hold)
2. Perception of independence if Council Facilities were used by the Hearings Panel

Looking at the figures from the Budget Committee yesterday (page 21) it will cost us (the ratepayer) $3.1 million over three years to have facilities leased from the private sector, set up and operated. The reason why we have these costs is owing to the perception built around the Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel being just that – independent from Government (central and local). If the Hearings were to be held in Council facilities there is the very high risk that there would be a perception by the wider City that the Hearings are Council run and Council influenced rather than being run by the Independent Hearings Panel Chair David Kirk-Patrick (who has overall control of the Hearings). There would be nothing worse if the media decided to go on a blackballing campaign stemming from a perception issue.

A legitimate question was raised yesterday in the Budget Committee of allowing the Independent Hearings Panel to move around the City for example major site specific concerns. The answer given back to the Committee was one of “No” due to costs of having to lease out more non Council facilities (including support structures) and possible grinding down the Hearings Panel time wise. I am of two minds about this in allowing “field operations” for the Panel. Cost to me is of no particular issue and I would not get in the way of another $5 million being put to one side to allow the Panel to move around Auckland for the big BIG issues that have been brought up in the submissions. The grinding the Panel down time factor wise is of concern as I would not want to burden them with extra “delays” to the Hearings process which is on a strict time frame per legislation.

I suppose the question to be asked is two-fold:

1. Are there any common big issues from the submissions that would warrant the Panel going on a one month field trip?
2. Logistics of it all

A question I might forward to Ms Pirrit (a senior Planning manager one day)

Cost of the Hearings Panel

I can not believe the debate got ground down over the cost of how much Hearings Chair David Kirk-Patrick was being paid as well as “support” costs. Just to point it out again these are the costs for Panel Members, Facilitators and Mediators:

• Mediators and facilitator: $2.64 million over three years
  • 10 mediators/facilitator at 180 days. Mediators rate is $200/hour, facilitator is at $150/hour
• Chairman and Panel Members are budgeted at $4.529 million with the Chair being paid $1500/day ($187.50 for a 9-5 day) and Panel Members at $1200/day ($150/h for a 9-5 day)
• $1.142 million for Democracy Services support

It was pointed out to me an Environment Court Judge gets paid more than what the Hearings Panel Chair would be paid (and Kirk-Patrick is an Environment Court Judge) and that someone of Kirk-Patrick expertise in a consultancy capacity could command at least $400/hour if not more. For me when I work in my TotaRim Consultancy capacity I also charge out by the hour as well as costs and of course GST. So standard practices here and I am wondering if the seven dissenting Councillors realise that the Panel Members (who’s rate was set by the Minister) are most likely on a discount rate for the work we have set them.

I have also noted a comment from Councillor Christine Fletcher last night (which I was not particular hospitable towards):

Christine Fletcher: Just debated and voted against the outrageous cost to ratepayers of $12.5 million on costs associated with the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). Last month at the Governing Body in Takapuna I recorded my dissent for the plan on the basis that while I support the basic principles and general strategic direction of the plan, the process undertaken by the Auckland council has resulted in a failure to comprehensively assess critical issues or consider staging the plan. This has resulted in a situation whereby sections of the overall zoning, rules and overlays are inconsistent with the core principles. In short we have mucked the process up making the task for the Commissioners more difficult. I believe that the plan is fundamentally flawed and should be withdrawn

My reply was the following:

 A reminder of a few things that Councillor Fletcher is all too aware of
The final date for the Unitary Plan processes (minus appeals) as pointed out in the Budget Committee today is August 2016 with the allowance for a one year extension if requested by the Hearings Panel. 

Central Government has dictated via the Local Government Act Auckland Amendment 2009 this with the Unitary Plan and that it must be operative by end of 2016 (subject to appeals). The timeline is set and Council has no time for any delays unless it wants to greatly annoy the Ministers concerned – remember that. 

If the Plan is fundamentally flawed as Christine alleges then the final measure and check is the Ministers to intervene as such. The Ministers at this point in time are not intervening nor will be thrilled by any delays caused by the Governing Body. IE the only people who can withdraw the UP now is Central Government and I see no inclination they wish to do so at this point in time (as the last available measure for Auckland was the elections and looking at that the UP issue did not cause a major swing). 

Unless there is anything else Councillor Fletcher then I see this as re-litigation long gone and focus should be on how the Governing Body can facilitate or support the submitters through the hearings which are meant to start at the end of the year.

————

I grow rather tired of constant re-litigation by those particular Councillors on issues long dead and using a current situation (such as housing costs for the Hearings Panel) to bring back up those long gone points. To me that is petty democracy and inspires no confidence towards our elected representatives. If Councillor Fletcher is so inclined we can always be presented with what is going on in the big cities of Australia. Over there the State Governments (with Federal Government blessings) are wanting the Councils to cede their planning powers over to “Planning Corporations” overseen by the State Government. Imagine the Unitary Plan from the word get go until it becomes operative taken off the Council entirely and given to this corporation entity with a State Government (so in our case the Minister) hovering right over it. I would bet there would be a massive stink if this were to occur – more than what is going down now by a small but vocal minority.

This piece from The Age illustrates on how Melbourne is not in a good space right now planning wise:

From The Age

Plan Melbourne: Wrong way, go back

Urban planning expert Roz Hansen is disappointed by Planning Minister Matthew Guy’s response to her committee’s suggestions for Melbourne’s future. Photo: Joe Armao

Roz Hansen remembers the meeting at No. 1 Spring Street as particularly unpleasant. Hansen and her handpicked team of six had been working away on the draft planning strategy for Melbourne, a vision that would guide the burgeoning city to 2050.

The group had the official title of the Ministerial Advisory Committee, appointed by Planning Minister Matthew Guy in May 2012 to ”direct the development of the strategy”.

That is precisely what it had done for the previous 12 months, which included exhaustive public consultations to tap into the concerns of everyday people.

The Spring Street meeting in June 2013, at the Planning Department, was the culmination of this work, a chance to discuss a draft strategy produced by Hansen’s committee and working groups comprising external experts and government staff.

Around the table were senior planning public servants, staff from the minister’s office and, at the start of the day, the minister himself.

”Some of the public servants and ministerial staff at the meeting were snotty and arrogant, and quite frankly, offensive at times, in my view,” says Hansen, an internationally renowned urban planning expert.

As Hansen tells it, the day-long meeting was the start of the demolition of the draft document: it was too long, it shouldn’t have targets, they didn’t want to talk about encouraging housing density in the suburbs. And some people in the room who had contributed to the draft were now effectively disowning it, or merely sitting silent without defending the content.

”It was as though the document had suddenly become the Ministerial Advisory Committee’s document and that the other people, including some in the room, had had no input,” recalls Hansen. ”They certainly didn’t put their hands up to declare that they were contributors.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/plan-melbourne-wrong-way-go-back-20140325-35gd2.html#ixzz2xCZe9spq

Auckland has it lucky with the Unitary Plan compared to Melbourne and its State Government interfering. We should all honestly stop complaining and make best with what we have as we approach the Further Submission, and Hearings Panel Stages (hint focus on Section Two: Objectives and Policies rather than Section Three: Development Controls, I’ll tell you why tomorrow)\

$28 million for the Unitary Plan. A Fair Price for our Democracy? I say it is. That said will the actual NIMBY’s and BANANA’s grind the whole thing on causing this to become a long expensive exercise…