Local Board Service Provisions Falter

·

Local Boards Starved of Needed Cash – So Another Way to Provide Local Services?

 

Just recently Manurewa Local Board Chair – Angela Dalton posted some rather sad pictures on the state of affairs in regards to maintenance to civic places like parks and berms in Manurewa. I’ll let the photos do the talking here:

 

Now after Angela had posted the photos, the Council contractor raced out with the mowers to err trim the grass – and leave it all behind (which would have made great hay for my chickens) (oh and miss the edges too). However as the Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards will attest to, service provisions for these Local Boards from the main Council and its contractors who look after civic places has basically fallen off a cliff. And these Local Board Service Provision stories I keep seeing on Facebook due to either Local Boards facing cuts in their budgets to fund provisions or services, or super city amalgamation being a catalyst to decrease in either services or quality of services are appearing time and time again.

 

So the question is ‘what on earth is going on here?’ Why are our Local Boards being hurt with inadequate service provisions and ratepayers/communities having to suffer from reduced service levels from Auckland Council. Last month I ran a post (AN INVESTIGATION) highlighting the discussion about rates and service provisions to our local communities.

I had basically said that we need to look at how we fund things, how we fund the Local Boards, and how the Local Boards should be properly resourced to provide adequate service provisions for their communities. An example of what I said was:

Just a refresher (just in case) Bulk Funding the Local Boards goes like this. Orakei currently pays $106m in rates to the “Council” yet “Council” only gives $10m (about 10%) back to Orakei to run its Local Board and services. The proposal I am running with is Orakei pays $106m to “Council” and Council gives back (and that is a must, no if’s buts or maybes) 25-33% (up to Local Board’s decision on level) back to Orakei so Orakei can run and maintain its Local Community Services, Events plus any CAPEX spending as it sees fit (of course with dialogue with its residents and businesses).

The Governing Body can not touch the 33% as it is ring fenced to Local Boards. This also includes the Governing Body unable to hike the rates beyond 1.6x the rate of inflation at max with all spending spelled out per the current Better Local Government MK II Bill/Act/Paper

You can read the rest of that post by clicking HERE.

 

After I posted the “An Investigation” post, Botany National MP – Jami-Lee Ross posted and kicked off this discussion with me about Local Board funding and service provisions”

 

Rates Due to Hike Again – So Time for An Investigation

Okay, some idiot in Council mentioned rates and rates rises again giving the hapless ratepayer a sour stomach as we approach Summer and the Silly Season (although for Council, it is always the Silly Season with the Ratepayer Credit Card). Here is a piece from Councillor Cameron Brewer via Facebook with all the comments below (I am pasting this to draw context on where I am going with this):

 

  • Andy Cawston likes this.
  • Jami-Lee Ross In my view, the simplest way to fund local services would be as follows:
    1) have a clear definition of what is local and what is regional
    2) everything regional is funded from a general rate set by governing body. They are accountable for it. 
    3) everything local is funded from a local services targeted rate, funded from within that ward and kept within that ward. Local board set this targeted rate and are accountable for it. No cross subsidisation on local projects. Complete control for local boards when it comes to local issues. High spending local boards can spend whatever they want. Frugal local boards can likewise do so and not see their savings going back into the general pool.

    This model would ring-fence local funding for local initiatives, but would still see regional infrastructures and services funded. It would empower local boards much more as well as demand greater accountability.
  • Ben Ross You and I are on the exact same page here Jami-Leein regards to your comment 😀:D Now then can we do such a thing or do we need you guys (Central Govt) to a legislation change?
  • Jami-Lee Ross Auckland can do that by itself. It would just require discipline and a willingness by the governing body.
  • Ben Ross Okay so in other words a great amount of difficulty then 😛:P if you know what I mean
  • Jami-Lee Ross Im not sure we are on the same page – bulk funding as you describe it would see the governing body still in control of the level of funding to local boards. I would suggest LBs decide themselves and be accountable for it. If LB-A wants to ramp local rates up by 25%, they should be able to, but have to fund that from within their own local board area. If LB-B wants to have a 25% cut in local rates, they should also be able to, but have to find the saving within their own area.
  • Ben Ross Okay a similar page then but none the less ideas that can be worked on. We are both wanting similar outcomes just at this point in time different ways in achieving it. Although I am sure we can flesh out points and build a solid idea/proposal/case
  • Jami-Lee Ross It’s all academic anyway. Chances of seeing the governing body give up some power is near zero.
  • Ben Ross Sadly yes

A good discussion of ideas there about Local Board funding and service provisions. And a (mature) discussion to be honest and frank we as a community and a city need to have.

I’ll tell you what, I will go look into these ideas some more and get back to you. However I am willing to run in my election to Papakura Local Board next year stating that; If elected to Papakura Local Board 2013, I will advocate and push for a full and frank discussion with the residents and businesses inside the Papakura Local Board area on Local Board Funding and Service Provision. Do you want the status quo as currently; or do you want something like bulk funding and increased “power” over your Local Board service provisions whether it be the method I suggest OR the method Jami-Lee Ross suggested. Which ever option you chose will be the option pushed to lobby the main Council/Governing Body!

Just a quick note though, the wheels of the governing body and bureaucracy turn slow. So even if and when the discussion began, it will take some time to push the governing body and bureaucracy to change and adopt the provisions you want for your community. Patience would be the key thing here, something even I need and have to persevere with as we go through the motions with the Manukau South Link.

 

Service provisions for our Local Boards funded or provided by the main Council is a sore point with local residents, businesses, communities and Local Boards. Alternatives are being searched for and once found should be presented to the local community/communities for their input and discussion. At the end of the day it is the local that gets stuck with how and what local service provisions are provided and funded for – whether it be from the main Council or via bulk funding. I am ready to have that robust discussion for a Better Papakura and Better Auckland – are you?

 

Local Board Services and The Unitary Plan – Coming Up

·

Coming Up on BR:AKL

 

Local Board Service Provision and The Unitary Plan

 

With AT-HOP under-way and not causing too many issues (the issues that are there are being followed up regularly) it is time to turn the light and focus onto two other issues that are perennial in the complaints department – that being Local Board Service Provisions (or lack thereof) and The Unitary Plan.

 

For the rest of 2012 BR:AKL will dedicate its focus in shining the light at Local Board Services and The Unitary Plan. Transport will still be mentioned but only if it is something significantly major in the current events department.

 

Tomorrow I will be starting my constructive criticisms and alternative idea proposals on The Unitary Plan, as well as how Local Board Service Provisions are suffering under this current Council.

 

There have been victories already chalked up at BR:AKL in various areas in progressing to a Better Auckland, and with continued dedication and passion more victories towards a Better Auckland will continued to be chalked up 😀 – For your benefit, not mine! So as BR:AKL and I continue to advocate towards a Better Papakura and Better Auckland, there will be:

No sensationalism, no emotional blackmail! Just presenting the facts as they appear and offering my opinion/commentary and ideas on progressing plans (including overhauls). Remembering my opinions and ideas are framed by the ‘What I Stand For‘ foundation principles for a Better Papakura and Better Auckland.

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light – To a Better Papakura (OUR home)
AND
To a Better Auckland – (OUR City)

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

Wheels of Progress Turning Ctd

·

NZ Herald on “Boost for Trains In (the) South”

 

Wednesday I had posted on The Wheels of Progress Turning and how we are a step closer to Electrification all the way to Pukekohe and getting the Manukau South Link built and operating. Today Mathew Dearnaley from the NZ Herald posted his article on these two developments.

From the NZH:

Boost for trains in south

By Mathew Dearnaley

Auckland Transport will be asked by its council parent to give high priority to a south-facing rail link from Manukau while also considering the cost of electrifying trains to Pukekohe.

The council’s transport committee this week heard the organisation’s board is to consider electrification costs to Pukekohe at its next meeting in a fortnight.

But after the Franklin and Papakura local boards urged a more direct rail link with Manukau, the committee also decided to ask Auckland Transport to give that high priority before electric trains start running in 2014.

Although the Government’s existing $500 million electrification project is to stop at Papakura, committee member Christine Fletcher said an extension to Pukekohe was “the next logical step”.

Mrs Fletcher, who is also a council appointee to the transport board, believed an existing order of 57 electric trains being built-in Spain should be extended.

Although the cost of electrifying rail to Papakura was estimated at $115 million in 2008, and would normally be seen as the Government’s responsibility, committee chairman Mike Lee noted that he and Mrs Fletcher had persuaded the transport board last month to save $50 million by scaling down the upgrade of Dominion Rd.

“So it’s a matter of priority,” he said.

The committee also decided council staff should do their own study, although in consultation with Auckland Transport and the local boards, on the costs and benefits of a south-facing link from Manukau in relation to other rail projects.

Councillor George Wood said an $81 million north-facing line to Manukau, built to feed into a new Manukau Institute of Technology campus, was not “giving anywhere near the level of service it could do to people living to the south”.

 

Hmm Mathew, you might want to do some research (or get your junior to do so) on how the Manukau South Link came about. To give you hand go click THIS LINK and THIS LINK and THIS LINK on how the entire Manukau South Link matter arose and got to where it was.

As I have emailed Councillors Wood, Fletcher and Lee; a massive thanks to all three of them was sent for facilitating the discussion on the Manukau South Link which then got put alongside the Pukekohe electrification proposal. A special thanks to Councillor George Wood was also mentioned for bringing to the Transport Committee the Notice of Motion after I had raised concern about the South Link with him directly.

Now I will work on operation proposals on services running from Pukekohe and Papakura to Manukau using the South Link using both the existing DMU (Diesel) rolling stock and the new upcoming EMU (Electric) rolling stock and forward them to the Transport Committee for consideration.

But as I have said before:

I will continue to advocate and lobby hard for that South Link to be built – FOR YOU, the residents of South (and Counties) Auckland! As you deserve better!

 

Why?

 

Well I get nothing out of this directly nor personally per se. What I do get once the South Link is built and operating is the quiet satisfaction that access for South and Counties Auckland to Manukau via the South Link (Manukau being the major Southern Hub of Auckland) has been greatly improved for residents and communities south of Manukau. Quiet satisfaction that as a citizen and ratepayer of Auckland, I have done my part in advocating and lobbying our civic institutions in wanting to make my community that I live in a better place. And that is regardless if I am elected to Papakura Local Board next year or not!

 

I’ll draw up another post this weekend on my campaign for Papakura Local Board, but as Councillor Wood noted and thanked in the Transport Committee on Wednesday: I do have a real passion and drive on transport and planning issues here in Auckland as I just simply want Auckland my home to be a better place to live, work and play in. Thus why I lobby, advocate and draw up proposals for Council on all things Transport and Planning – it is not for me – it is for you!

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light – To a Better Papakura (OUR home)
AND
To a Better Auckland – (OUR City)

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

 

Wheels of Motion are Turning

·

Fighting for the South Manukau Link

 

Continuing to advocate and lobby hard for that South Link to be built – FOR YOU, the residents of South (and Counties) Auckland! As you deserve better!

 

Last month I had posted on someone deciding to place a nice big concrete pad in the middle of the path for the Manukau Rail Southern Link. You can see the post (SOUTH AUCKLAND GETS SHAFTED – YET AGAIN) by clicking on the link.

Well after some advocating and lobbying, Councillor George Wood who is a member of the Council Transport Committee got a Notice of Motion placed into November’s agenda about the South Link. The Notice of Motion is:

Requests Auckland Transport to give a high priority to the installation of a south facing rail link between the Manukau Spur Line and the North Island Main Trunk Line at Wiri so that this connection can be in place by the time
that electrification of the Auckland Metro rail systems occurs. 

You can see the Notice of Motion in the November Transport Committee Agenda at the bottom of this post.

 

Naturally I am supporting this motion after kicking up the initial fuss in the first place when I first spotted the concrete pad in the middle of the South Link’s path.

I had this to say in my material forwarded to Councillor Wood as well as my submission to the Regional Public Transport Plan:

The link to the original New Zealand Herald article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10799107

 

As I said above, the Herald and I had commented on the missing link in April. Now some seven months later it seems apparent the link is a no-go or basically dead. Without the link; Manurewa, Papakura and Pukekohe are virtually isolated in easy access to Manukau by rail. This flies directly in the face of the idea around a Rapid Service that should allow very easy access with minimum fuss or transfers to a primary service centre for South Auckland.

The current proposal using trains which incur a transfer penalty at Puhinui or the bus trundling along the Great South Road (which takes more than double the time a train does) from Papakura to Manukau (and skipping Homai on the way) to me in my opinion is substandard for the people in these locales, and basically reinforces the isolation factor/feeling these residents have from a major service, employment and leisure centre!

Operational Proposal for Manukau to Papakura Link

With the Manukau to Papakura Link (The South Link) built for around $3.8m, the next question is what kind of services do you run. The answer is both straight forward for both the existing diesel passenger train fleet and the upcoming new electric passenger train fleet. The estimate length of journey from Papakura to Manukau Station via The South link is around 19 minutes (plus a seven minute walk from the Manukau Station to the Westfield Manukau Mall), compared to 30 mins using the Waka Pacific 471 and 472 bus according to the www.at.co.nz Journey Planner.

Thus allowing for turnaround at Manukau and Papakura Stations and knowing what rolling stock availability there is available pre-EMU’s; I recommend using one ADL-2 class DMU to run a single service backwards and forwards between Manukau and Papakura every one hour  in a single direction from 6:00am until around 10:19pm – seven days a week. That means for example your Papakura to Manukau via The South Link would start at Papakura at 6:30am and arrives in Manukau at 6:49am; then leave Manukau at 7:00am to make its return run to Papakura via the South Link.

An example of how a proposed Papakura-Manukau via The South Link Timetable would work (for brevity I have not included the afternoon services)

From Papakura Arrive at Manukau From Manukau Arrive at Papakura
    6:00am (first service) 6:19am
6:30am (first service) 6:49am 7:00am 7:19am
7:30am 7:49am 8:00am 8:19am
8:30am 8:49am 9:00am 9:19am
9:30am 09:49am 10:00am 10:19am
10:30am 10:49am 11:00am 11:19am
11:30am 11:49am 12:00pm 12:19pm
9:30pm (last service) 9:49pm 10:00pm (last service) 10:19pm

 

When the new electric trains are fully on-stream replacing the diesel fleet between Papakura and Swanson, the frequencies can be increased to every 30 minutes at the minimum, or 20 minutes for optimum service delivery until either the Botany or Airport Line (via Puhinui Station) is open and a new operating model would be in place (subject to EMU fleet availability).

In concluding this section of my RPTP; I highly recommend Auckland Transport remedy the situation and get that link for $3.8m built by 2016 at the absolute latest. Once the link is built, operating services would begin on an hourly timetable, stepping up to 20 minute frequencies once the new EMU fleet is fully online. To do otherwise is not an option unless you endorse isolating a major part of the community from its main service centre!

 

Now what I did not mention is the fact that we will have 10 ADL-class DMU’s available when all the EMU’s are online 2016. With ADL DMU’s already by then doing the Papakura – Pukekohe shuttle runs until the main line is electrified from Papakura to Pukekohe, those DMU’s can be extended to do a full Pukekohe – Papakura – Manukau via the Southern Link shuttle service until such a time Pukekohe is electrified and the EMU’s fully take over. So with upwards of 10 DMU’s, you can pretty much obtain 15-20 minute frequencies on Pukekohe – Manukau shuttles until those EMU’s can do the runs in place of the DMU’s (most likely 2020).

 

 

So here I am pitching for the residents and communities of: Homai, Manurewa, Takanini, Mahia, Papakura, Drury and (in-part) Pukekohe to get the missing link built for a frequent and rapid service to Manukau – the primary service and employment hub of South and Counties (former Franklin District) Auckland. Manukau has more connections to South Auckland residents than the CBD ever will, and as a result South Auckland should be able to access Manukau easily and efficiently which building The South Link will provide. To not provide the link and roll out the services utilising the link in my opinion as a Papakura resident and ratepayer, an insult to my fellow South Auckland neighbours and communities.

 

Thus I will continue to advocate and lobby hard for that South Link to be built – FOR YOU, the residents of South (and Counties) Auckland! As you deserve better!

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light – To a Better Papakura (OUR home)
AND
To a Better Auckland – (OUR City)

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

 

 

The Agenda

 

 

 

·

Someone from Central Government interfering where they should not be? Seems so according to Louis

Housing, Housing, Housing

·

Is The Housing Situation in Auckland That Hard to “Solve?”

 

I see the Main Stream Media and Central Government have  got on the bandwagon about Auckland’s housing affordability situation. Much as I hate to say it, the MSM I am having no issues with reporting the news (when they do) but I am having issues with Central Government interfering in what is a debate between Council and its ratepayers.

I say that as two particular articles have cropped up from the NZH in regards to housing affordability:

First article

Govt to open up more land for houses

By Adam Bennett , Kate Shuttleworth

Prime Minister John Key says fast-tracking the supply of land will help solve the housing affordability crisis.

The Government is to work with councils to open up more land for development as it seeks to rein in New Zealand‘s high house prices.

Finance Minister Bill English will unveil the Government’s response to theProductivity Commission’s inquiry into home affordability after the Cabinet meets today.

He said it would act to address one of the main issues identified by the commission – a lack of land for building new homes – but the package was a broad programme.

“There isn’t really one simple initiative that changes the way the housing market works.

“It’s a very complicated beast so I wouldn’t get expectations too high about changing the trajectory of house prices next week.”

The commission focused on the need to free more land on city fringes for home-building, but Mr English said some of the best opportunities for development, particularly for low-priced housing, were within cities.

 

And the second article – actually an opinion piece

National’s affordable housing package lacks any substantial detail

By John Armstrong

Package? What package? No wonder National avoided over-selling the contents of their plan to make housing more affordable. The plan looks more like a rough first draft.

As Annette King, Labour’s housing spokeswoman noted, the Government’s long-awaited announcement was a combination of “considering new ways”, “undertaking more inquiries”, “doing more work” and “undertaking evaluations”.

The lack of detail serves to illustrate one thing: when it comes to increasing the housing stock, there is not a lot central government can do unless it is willing to spend big bikkies.

 

The two parts I am going to raise were both in bold in the first article:

“Prime Minister John Key says fast-tracking the supply of land will help solve the housing affordability crisis.”

Opening up supply of the land will help and was mentioned in the Auckland Plan, Long Term Plan and the Civic Forum (that I attended) for the Unitary Plan. What it needs is Council to follow through with the plans and get opening up that land now rather than later. So no need to worry John, already ahead of you there mate.

 

And from the Minister of Finance:

“The commission focused on the need to free more land on city fringes for home-building, but Mr English said some of the best opportunities for development, particularly for low-priced housing, were within cities.”

Well that seems to be more hitting the point on the head there. And the easiest way to accommodate what the Minister is saying is to:

  1. Zone appropriately
  2. Lower the cost of construction
  3. Lower the regulation hurdles to build

Get on top of those three points via adopting the Keeping It Simple Stupid philosophy and you might find the above points going some distance (but not all) into helping get on top of our housing affordability and supply situation.

 

I was pondering over my coffee this morning a few things. First of all acknowledging that a house is deemed affordable when the price of purchasing your house is not more than three times above the total gross income of the people going to be paying the mortgage for that house. Four times above the income is indicating stress but still okay, but anything above five times the income (Auckland is at 5.3-6.0 times) is deemed unaffordable and the situation needs to be addressed FAST!

The second thing I was pondering over was; who is actually getting in the way of solving the housing affordability situation here in Auckland. Traditionally I would stick my boot into our planners, however after the Civic Forum on the Unitary Plan last Saturday I concluded that actually our Planners can and are redeeming themselves here are actually not the ones in the way for the most part. I told our planners at the Civic Forum that the biggest hinderance to urban development were our planners and they simply need to get out of the road. That point still stands in my eyes but to a lesser degree now after talking to them at length on Saturday. Planners have their shot at redemption if they can work with the Local Boards and ratepayers in a multi-way partnership as urban development occurs. Saturday showed the potential there from our planners in working with that partnership with the Local Boards and the ratepayer and I am hoping that potential can develop and flourish (rather than go backwards and me having to stick the boot back into them again – which I don’t honestly want to do as I do that enough with our beyond hopeless CCOs).

Now I know there are planners reading this who I talked too  on Saturday and my message is this: Lets work together (planner, ratepayer and Local Boards) in developing an outcome forward for Auckland and its development through to 2040. The foundations were laid on Saturday and a lot of good faith and will was set at that Civic Forum. I extend my hand as a ratepayer to you – our planners as I don’t want to stick the boot in no more to you guys. I have ideas, you have ideas, we all have the same outcome as the Civic Forum showed, lets work together rather than apart. And that I make as a serious genuine offer. As for the ideas I have, you can read my rather extensive submission to The Auckland Plan which I will translate over to submissions for the Unitary Plan in due time. Oh and even though I am advocating the decentralisation of the urban development processes, Planners will be still flat-out if not even more flat-out as they buddy up with the Local Boards in delivering and providing advocacy during urban development phases 😉 !

 

So then if Planners are not getting in the road, then who is?

Sorry hate to say it but it is our Councillors and Central Government Politicians and in my next post, I am dedicating my boot to you both and how YOU are causing the housing affordability situation…

 

For Auckland Council Planners Consumption – My Submission to the Auckland Plan, and due to be translated to the Unitary Plan submissions

 

 

3, 2, 1 AT-HOP IS GO!

· 3 Comments ·

And We are Away with AT-HOP

 

Monday has been and gone and all was relatively well for the first day of AT-HOP (for commuters that is).

No major problems at Britomart or Newmarket were heard of via the feedback back to BR:AKL. Any problems that might have occurred seemed to be more passenger orientated as everyone gets use to AT-HOP 🙂

 

Auckland Transport has released a new brochure on AT-HOP showing the traditional cash fares, AT-HOP fares, and the expanded Monthly Pass system. You can see the brochure in the embed below:

 

And for a close up of the AT-HOP Stored Value Fares vs Standard Cash Fares

 

Hmm I remember a smallish episode with AT over those AT-HOP Stored Value fares not too long ago 😉

 

Any case; AT-HOP IS GO and away 😀

Oh and I noticed all the big wigs from AT were at Britomart last night too… hehe