More Literature on AT-HOP I saw this being distributed around rail stations this morning on my trip into the city – the latest on AT-HOP and impending ticket regime … Continue reading AT-HOP Update
Tag: transportation
Meetings for More Meetings
Was at Transport Committee Meeting Today
I finally managed to squeeze some time in my hectic work schedule to trundle along to a Auckland Council committee meeting today. And today it was the Transport Committee chaired by Councillor Mike Lee that I was able to rock up to and sit quietly down the back and observe around about two-thirds of the proceedings before I wanted lunch and carry on with other things.
I also saw for the first time although I did not introduce myself (bit shameful on me) to them were; MP Julie-Ann Genter and Principle Transport Planner Joshua Arbury. Both were due to give their respective reports or presentations in front of the Transport Committee today.
You can see the agenda (the hard copy was thicker than a piece of 4 by 2) in the embeds below. But from observations today out of that Transport Committee; the bulk of the resolutions were: “To Hold another meeting to discuss what was in this meeting which was about the previous three meetings WHICH was about the meeting last year.”
I say we are getting progress somewhere if today’s resolutions were anything to go by…
One thing that I will single out though was the immature behaviour of Councillors Quax and Morrison against Julie-Ann Genter and her first class presentation (which reminds me to email her to get a copy of that presentation). Councillor Quax raised a point of order as Ms Genter was explaining a finer point in her section of the presentation about abolishing ‘minimum parking requirements for a development’ due to “time.” While the Chair might of not been keeping time I certainly was and 10 mins was not up to the point anyone that passed a motion for extension of time (which Cllr Dr Cathy Casey did raise in the end) I would have been grateful so I could hear Ms Genter finish her presentation fully. What Councillor Quax was doing was trying to “stomp” on Ms Genter’s presentation as it would have been a direct affront to his flawed and dead ideology which Auckland is trying to shake the legacy from off.
I for one Councillor Quax do not support Minimum Parking Requirements and made that extremely clear in my submission to the Auckland Plan, and will make it even more extremely clear in my submission to the Unitary Plan.
As for Councillor Morrison and asking Ms Genter had she read the Auckland Plan. That to me was implying that the MP had no idea what she was talking about in her presentation when speaking on land and transport planning. Most likely also Councillor Morrison was also implying that he supported the extremely flawed ideology on having Minimum Parking Requirements. I’ll tell you want Councillor, I would be falling head over heels to get Ms Genter into a working party on the unitary plan as some of her ideas were pretty damn solid and much better than what I am seeing coming out of Unitary Plan discussions at the moment.
So to both Councillors – SHAME ON YOU! Then again both of you I would oppose and are in opposition to what you represent any how…
And on that note, I wonder if I rock up to the Governing Body meeting coming up – should be a lively debate in that meeting.
Oh and good to see my local Councillor Calum Penrose also participating in the Transport Committee today 😀
The Agenda
[update from Admin: Embeds now working]
Coal: Its and Our Future
Opinion: All things Coal
I was cruising through the opinion sections of the Herald on the trip home today when I saw this opinion piece on coal:
From the NZ Herald:
Dave Feickert: Dark day as coal mines shuttered
By Dave Feickert
The recent decisions by Solid Energy to put the Spring Creek coking coal mine on to care and maintenance and stop the development of the half sunk ventilation shaft at the East Side mine will have horrendous consequences for the West Coast and the Huntly regions. These regions are already hard hit, especially the Coast after the deaths of 29 Pike River men in a gas explosion on 19 November, 2010, and the loss of over 300 Pike jobs.
Coming with the decision to dismiss many other staff at its headquarters and elsewhere it looks like a panic restructuring brought on by crisis. State Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall told Solid Energy unions on Tuesday that the company had debts of over $300 million. This was news to the men. He made this sound highly significant but in financial terms it is not. It may be that the debt accumulated without the Government being aware, but that is because of the remote, revenue-collector role they chose to play.
Solid Energy has made a hefty $614.3 million profit over the last 10 years, with $394 million in the last five years alone. Government has had its pound of flesh big time.
Why then is this state-owned enterprise acting more like an American coal robber baron from the 1920s and despoiling whole communities?Both Mr Ryall and Prime Minister John Key have taken up the refrain of Solid Energy’s Don Elder that it’s all because of the collapse in international coal prices, which are priced in US dollars. Apparently, Spring Creek can only get $120 per tonne now and its production costs are high, partly because it is going through a development phase into new reserves. So over 300 miners in an area of high unemployment are to be sacrificed and there is nothing the Government can do.
It is difficult not to share the anger of the miners who went to see Ryall at the Beehive because this is decidedly not the international view of coking coal prices. Kevin Crutchfield, the CEO of Alpha, one of the biggest coal mining companies in the US, has just said, on explaining why it is moving from power station coal to coking coal: “Globally there remains a structural undersupply of metallurgical coal and Alpha expects to see demand grow by more than 100 million tons by the end of the decade.” This is long-term thinking, totally absent in the Solid Energy board.
Crutchfield and other coal industry analysts know that the demand for steel will pick up again in China as that country, India and Brazil move to a developed country per capita use of steel. They are only halfway there at the moment. Coking coal prices will then rise.
The key question for Solid Energy is how to get through production gaps, when developing new areas of coal is costly, as it always is in mining, through to the promised land. Do the Solid Energy board members understand this? There is not a single mining engineer on the board and the sole Australian minerals expert knows little about how to mine West Coast coals, I would guess. Elder, himself, is not a mining engineer.
So if coal prices are “volatile” rather than “fixed” what about production costs? Well, we have just seen an unprecedented co-operation between a workforce and local management to come up with a costed plan for transition, survival and future success. It has already been rejected, with Ryall admitting that he had not even read it; for that was a matter for the board. This is head-in-the-sand government.
And to hear Steven Joyce, the “ideas man” of the Government and a possible future PM, say that coal is one of the sunset industries they are not interested in is quite incredible. We have 11 billion tonnes of coal reserves and we should remember that oil and gas are by no means as plentiful. Coal was once the foundation of the chemical industry and will become so again as oil and gas deplete. Moreover, it will be processed in future in an environmentally acceptable manner. Once again, driven by its own insufficient oil supply and a growing dependency on oil imports, China is leading the way in this new revolution, but then it is doing so in renewables, too.
Let us then also consider the horrendous costs to the nation and the taxpayer should the non-miners on Solid Energy’s board decide to shut a publicly owned company’s key assets down – closing its two deep mines and refusing to develop Pike River, which it also owns. Pike had over 300 jobs and many of those miners remain unemployed. Spring Creek and East Side have over 300 miners, including contractors; so we have a thousand deep mining jobs at stake.
As the Europeans know from closing down their coal industries there are two jobs depending, in related industries, on every mining job.
I have calculated on the basis of the redundancy pay for Spring Creek miners and just 150 of the total workforce remaining unemployed for two years that the cost to the taxpayer -with the multiplier effect on other jobs – will be over $30 million. And here we are talking about the whole deep mine sector.
In the UK the mines started closing fast in 1986. Those 180 have now gone, but for a handful and the communities, 26 years on, remain devastated.
Just go and see for yourself, Mr Ryall.
Dave Feickert is a mining consultant who worked in the UK coal industry for 10 years. www.davefeickert.co.nz
This comment caught my attention the most:
HC (Onehunga)11:17 AM Monday, 1 Oct 2012
As much as I am for a gradual move away from the use of fossil fuels, I realise that the use of coal will be necessary for at least a few more decades, if not longer, for industrial purposes in steel mills, in powering some high tech power generation plants with sophisticated, environmentally friendly filter systems reducing emissions. Other industrial use of the resource is possible.
And to build more alternative generation capacity, energy from coal is needed to make steel to build the wind generators, dams, solar reflectors and else.
So of course, the government is again following ideology and a hidden agenda.They prefer fully privatised operators like Bathurst (now how often did Joyce refer too that company?) and want to sell off 49 per cent of Solid Energy, being a state owned enterprise. It is apparently even written in their annual plan – or the likes thereof – that they want to make the SOE “fit” for the shares sell-off.
The government should step in to help Solid Energy establish some additional, diversified operations, within which the workers can be employed until the supposedly now so low coal price recovers again. Train them to do something else for being.
I would be tended to agree with that comment that was made in reply to the opinion piece. Look as I have said in my submissions amongst other places; oil, gas and mainly coal will be with us until at least the end of this century. Coal is used in so many of our industrial processes that if we were to ban all coal use tomorrow (hello Greens) we would be sent back before Roman times. Ask yourself and look around your home (including car, garage and outside) and see what had coal as an input to produce that item you have/use and what can honestly replace coal to make that item you have or use. You might be shocked on how crucial coal actually is. In my home coal was used for the following:
- car manufacturing (whether it be steel or power production)
- house (power generation for the actual house and the factories producing wood, nails, tiles, pipes, electrics, etc)
- garden (fertilisers both synthetic and organic like Blood and Bone (comes from meat works you know), sprays, power generation again for factories producing wood, brick, concrete, etc)
- Fuel (synthetic petrol is possible in NZ)
- Food (indirect but check our fertilisers are made and again power production)
- heating (old place had a fire-place able to burn coal, power generation for heating and cooling (Huntly?))
- Gadgets like my computer and tablets (power production for the mines, steel and other metal production, etc)
- And so on
Coal is pretty well embedded with us if we are to remain industrious and not slip back to pre Industrial Revolution days until actual alternative are here and viable – which they are not.
To say other wise is damn stupid and foolish. And as said from the commenter and myself, coal will phase out eventually – just not when the Greens would like to do so.
So unless you are willing to give up every thing you have that was made by industrious process (and that includes your bus, train and bike) then don’t go bagging coal. Of you do have an alternative – why is it not on the market yet?
Causalities of – The LTP?
And Here Come the Causalities
The Long Term Plan 2012-2022 was adopted into existence earlier this year, setting the Council’s course on all things revenue and expenditure (yeah lets ignore the V8s and White Water-rafting for a few seconds). On the rates side; some of us got stung with large rates rises while others got nice rates decreases. All of us though got service and capital expenditure cuts when our respective Local Boards had to follow through on a 3% cut in their budgets per the Mayor’s “orders.”
Manurewa Local Board have been very vocal on what the funding cuts have meant capital expenditure wise (so money for community projects like playgrounds and upgrades to community facilities). Well it seems I have stumbled (via the NZH) across our first OPEX (so facilities funding in the operational costs side) casualties in the form of POSSIBLE library closures.
From the NZ Herald:
Cost cuts threaten two libraries
5:30 AM Monday Oct 1, 2012
Pressure goes on after mayor’s directive for all areas of city council to trim budgets by 3 per cent in election year.
Libraries in Snells Beach and Grey Lynn have been marked for closure as the result of a directive from Mayor Len Brown to reduce costs in what will be election year.
Snells Beach residents, many of whom are retirees, are bewildered and angry at murmurings the refurbished Mahurangi East Library in the community centre is closing.
More than 300 locals have signed a petition deploring the proposal and there is fighting talk by local politicians of chaining themselves to the building.
“We love our bright, welcoming, well-used library, the heart and soul of this mixed and growing community,” said local Sandra Garman.
The other locality in the cost-cutting sights of council library manager Allison Dobbie is the Grey Lynn library, housed in its original 1924 building on Great North Rd.
Waitemata Local Board chairman Shale Chambers said closing Grey Lynn library would be unwarranted, completely wrong and would cause pointless grief.
Mr Brown, through chief executive Doug McKay, has directed all council departments, local boards and council-owned bodies to cut their operating budgets by 3 per cent next year.
This is so Mr Brown can reduce the projected rates increase for his election-year budget to “well below 4 per cent”.
Mr Brown and Mr McKay have boasted about making $1.7 billion in savings and efficiencies over 10 years.
And for the first time they are calling for cuts to service levels. This has led Ms Dobbie to look at closing two of the council’s 55 libraries.
She did not return calls to comment about the pressure she was under to reduce library services.
In a written statement, Mr Brown said he doubted any libraries would be closed to reduce next year’s rates.
But he would not give a firm guarantee to Snells Beach and Grey Lynn library users
Article continues at NZH site
Okay so which way is it, we looking at library closures or not? And why is a guarantee not able to be given here – that to me sounds like that the libraries will close but not one has the balls to say so from the outset. Gee I feel the communities affected through being left in limbo over the state of their libraries.
But we all knew this kind of thing was coming under this Council with this failed Long Term Plan.
I suggest that we divert money from the CAPEX budget and sink it into the OPEX budget. The money for the Cruise Ship Terminal and the money for phase one for the Quay Street Boulevard would cover the libraries and other Local Board budgets for the next wee while to come (oh say 10 years).
And what about Quay Street Boulevard? Defer all work on it until 2020 but leave enough money behind for our engineers to get the traffic light phasing RIGHT and maybe some extra signage and pot plants.
Hey we all got to make sacrifices here and I am making a few suggestions that are win-wins all round here.
But then again win-wins and the simple things often escape Council and the bureaucrats – otherwise we would not have these problems would we?
Quay Street Nuts
Quay Street Plans Are Nuts
Well so the Herald has pointed out this morning:
From the NZH:
Quay St boulevard ‘just nuts’
By Amelia Wade
5:30 AM Monday Oct 1, 2012
Anger has erupted over plans to turn Quay St into a pedestrian-friendly boulevard within three years – and the greatest upset has been caused by what critics say was lack of public consultation.
But Waterfront Auckland says it kept the community well informed about the “exciting project” and it “couldn’t have done more” consultation.
Waterfront Auckland’s plans, revealed in the Herald on Friday, could result in more crossing points, a wider footpath taking in a lane of traffic or two and opening up parts of the red fence to improve to the water’s edge.
The first stage – from the Viaduct to Britomart – is due to be finished by 2016.
But critics of the project say the Tamaki Drive Master Plan hasn’t been taken into account, the traffic plan is “just nuts” and the local board most negatively affected by the proposal was not consulted.
Tamaki MP Simon O’Connor said he was disappointed by the plan, which he said would take cars off the street in the name of beautification.
“This is a surprising development that does not appear to have been thought out …
It seems to be motived more by ideology than practicality.”
Mr O’Connor said Waterfront Auckland was pinning its hopes on the “unfunded, yet to be built rail loop and a new ferry service”.
Auckland councillor Cameron Brewer said the suggestion that Quay St was not a busy road outside rush hour was “just pie in the sky”.
“This is a critical piece of transport infrastructure that carries over 30,000 cars a day. Taking out lanes and directing more traffic down the likes of Customs St is just nuts.”
Mr Brewer said he had been given assurances that the community would be closely consulted before any decisions were made.
Orakei Local Board chairwoman Desley Simpson said Auckland Council‘s environmental strategy and policy planning manager, Ludo Campbell-Reid, had been to only one of the board’s meetings, during which he gave a short presentation on the original Quay St Vision.
“We were not encouraged or asked for any comment on input into these plans. He promised to workshop this with the board which has yet to happen,” Ms Simpson said.
She said the plans also didn’t take into account the Tamaki Drive master plan, in development since February, which includes safety improvements at the intersection with The Strand.
Waterfront Auckland’s general manager of development, Rod Marler, said the Tamaki Drive plan was outside its area of control and influence but it had been working with Ms Simpson and consulting the local board about its plans.
Mr Marler also said there was three months of consultation for the waterfront plan last year and included in that was the Quay St project.
“All the projects that we proposed for the waterfront had wide consultation, on general public bills, with key stake holders. It’s been through council, it’s been through local boards – there was plenty of opportunity for people to discuss those initiative … I don’t think we could have done too much more, from a waterfront plan perspective.”
Mr Marler said there was a roadshow for the plans, to which all the affected parties were invited, and there were also workshops with the council.
Waterfront woes
Tell us what you think about the plan. newsdesk@nzherald.co.nz
Might get some feedback to the Herald on this if I can be bothered getting round to it (lunch first) 😛
Now this was from Facebook this morning in regards to Councillor Cameron Brewer replying to the Herald’s “Nuts” piece (comments also included):
Local MP Simon O’Connor, local board chair Desley Simpson, and the local councillor went out to bat for their eastern bays constituents who woke up on Friday to the surprising news that the Quay Street boulevard is supposedly done and dusted!
Quay St boulevard ‘just nuts’ – National – NZ Herald NewsAnger has erupted over plans to turn Quay St into a pedestrian-friendly boulevard within three years – and the greatest upset has been caused by what critics say was lack of public
Okay not good – although I thought in my presentation to Council said that the above was extremely fool hardy if not stupid… someone forgot to give Ludo and the Planners the memo 😛
However as I said above: the problem is that this part of Quay Street flipping over to a boulevard is somewhat too soon without actual alternative in place. Stanley Street and State Highway 16 is not somewhat of an alternative heading from the east seeming our engineers can not phase traffic lights for peanuts
Emphasis on the last past with engineers, lights and peanuts!
Look why I am giving a damn here when this is affecting Waitemata, Orakei and North Shore Wards and not Papakura is a case of who knows. But there is a way around this for Quay Street west (the Britomart end) I am just trying to think of something (Quay Street East is not affected yet).
In the mean time I seriously need more coffee – I don’t get paid enough for this – wait I dont at all 😛
So from what I can gather unless my English and interpreting documents some what out of whack, these incoming changes have been signalled well in advanced in three sets of plans (The Auckland Plank, The City Centre Master Plan, and The Long Term Plan 2012-2022). Whether I agree with the changes or not is a different story although it can be seen above in my comments to the Facebook thread.
In short I have no issue with the Quay Street works, but as I said:
“I think the problem is that this part of Quay Street flipping over to a boulevard is somewhat too soon without actual alternative in place. Stanley Street and State Highway 16 is not somewhat of an alternative heading from the east seeming our engineers can not phase traffic lights for peanuts”
Outside of that issue, I am not having major issues here with Quay Street (west) although I am looking at alternatives here (not whole scale Quay Street west – just some minor tinkering to smooth the works transition). As for Quay Street east, I already drew up a plan for that and submitted on it. However works in that sector are not due to after the CRL I believe, so still time to keep the dialogue going there.
Oh if you are wondering what I meant about sticking the boot in at that particular Hearings Panel; it means I strongly disagreed with Parnell and do not want that station built, was not overtly fond of Quay Street work so soon in the game, and as for the CRL – well you all know how I advocate for that mega project on a delayed timetable. But as I said, there was both constructive criticism and as I said singing the praises too. So I am not always a grumpy old fart 😛
Due credit is give when it is due – such as Councillor Wood is about to find out. 😀
Greetings BR:AKL
Richard Donnagen Says Hi Good evening everyone. My name is Richard Donnagen. I am an amateur photographer and I like to travel and am a big fan of … Continue reading Greetings BR:AKL
Response from AT
Letter From AT on RLTP
Got a letter from Auckland Transport acknowledging and thanking my submission to the Regional Land Transport Program. The letter I will show in the embed below, but upon reading it I can appreciate what could be just about literal hell for everyone concerned as the city goes about not building a world-class transport system – but rebuilding the existing system so THEN we can build that world-class system (the only other method is start afresh and I don’t think we will like that option much (Christchurch?))
The letter from AT on the RLTP and difficulties that are going to be faced:
And as I write this, the CRL debate is still going around and around the same circle again – more on that later
To SimCity and Beyond
Next Version of SimCity Out 2013 My favourite game of all time was and is still the SimCity series, starting from SimCity Classic right through to SimCity 4 Deluxe … Continue reading To SimCity and Beyond
Auckland Parking Regime Change
Changes to Parking in Auckland CBD
A little while ago I had commented (and submitted to Auckland Transport) that there was consultation taking place for the impending parking regime change in Auckland CBD. Well Auckland Transport released yesterday the final version of the regime change after the consultation (some 700+ submissions including mine) which can be read below:
From Auckland Transport:
New initiatives for City Centre Parking Zone
Last reviewed: 20/09/2012 8:12 a.m.
Media release: 19 September 2012
A new City Centre Parking Zone, along with some other new parking initiatives, will be introduced by Auckland Transport in mid-October.
Auckland Transport’s Chief Operating Officer, Greg Edmonds says: “As Auckland’s population continues to grow, we are committed to delivering convenient access to parking both on and off street as part of the transport mix which includes public transport, walking and cycling.
“The main objective for Auckland Transport in changing the management of on-street and off-street parking in the City Centre is to prioritise short-term parking over long-term parking in an area of the city which has a high degree of visitation for business and leisure activities.”
The proposal for the creation of a new zone and associated pricing went out to public consultation in June this year.
Auckland Transport received 718 submissions on the proposal and has made changes as a result of that feedback.
On-street parking prices will remain unchanged at $4 per hour for the first two hours in the core CBD. After two hours prices will increase relative to the zone, the purpose of this is to prioritise short term (less than two hours) parking on streets.
The scheme will commence with three parking zones rather than the two initially proposed with lower prices around Union Street and Wynyard Quarter. There will be no time limits on any of the zones.
Auckland Transport will also introduce a ten minute “grace period”, which effectively means free parking. It will also remove most P5, P10 and P15 restrictions for on-street parking. The grace period will allow the removal of short-term parking restrictions as people will be able to stop anywhere for ten minutes before payment is required.
“This is a customer friendly option allowing quick pick-ups and drop offs and extends parking options for the likes of couriers and delivery companies,” says Mr Edmonds.
Auckland Transport will also extend paid parking from 6pm to 10pm in the central CBD area. This will improve access for visitors to premium on-street parking in the city in the evenings for leisure activities and reduce congestion during the evening peak.
Additional changes as a result of public feedback include; reducing peak casual hourly rates to $3 an hour in Auckland Transport’s Civic, Downtown and Victoria Street car parks. The current rate is $5.50 per hour for the first two hours and $4 or $5 per hour thereafter.
Mr Edmonds says “Car parking buildings are also a good option, particularly at night, because they are well-lit and have security measures.”
In a further effort to encourage off-street parking in the CBD, a daily maximum charge of $17 per day will be introduced in Auckland Transport parking buildings for longer stays. The daily maximum currently sits at $29.
Both on-street and off street parking prices will be reviewed after six months.
The revenue impacts from these changes are not known at this stage but Auckland Transport expects it to be revenue neutral.
Chief Executive of Heart of the City, Alex Swney says: “For many years parking has been seen as a major reason not to come into the city. We see today’s announcement as a significant change in approach to parking in the city. It recognises the ‘moving feast’ of parking demands of our businesses and their customers. It’s a major step forward and we are sure we will be looking back in a year and see significant improvement as a result.”
Mr Edmonds said the changes will be implemented from mid October 2012. Details of the changes will be communicated to the public through the Auckland Transport website and through a public information campaign closer to the date.
Map of the Proposed Zone (PDF 4.7 MB – please allow time for download)
The Map can be seen in the embed here:
Personally all things considered especially per my submission to Auckland Transport on the parking regime change, I am quite happy with how the final product turned out. Of course still work to be done – but happy with the outcome.
Well done to Auckland Transport 😀
(even I can praise AT when warranted)
References
ALTERNATIVE TO CENTRAL CITY PARKING ZONE REGIME (basic form of my submission to the regime change)
$20m for Fried Snapper
Snapper Asked Auckland Transport for $20m
Well knew this was coming from a few light years out. Auckland Transport (finally) dumped Snapper and in return Snapper wants compensation.
You can read it here from the NZ Herald:
Dumped bus card firm seeks $20m compo
6:00 AM Wednesday Sep 19, 2012Electronic payments card supplier Snapper says it will claim up to $20 million in costs from Auckland Transport after being dumped from the region’s $98 million integrated ticketing project.
That is on top of an extra $12 million it says the council organisation must now pay the main Hop ticketing project contractor, French company Thales, to supply replacement ticketing equipment to be leased to the region’s various bus fleets.
Snapper chief executive Mike Szikszai says it simply wanted to recover its costs, rather than try to halt the project and sue for lost business.
“We are aiming for this to be as quick as it can be and we want to move on,” he said.
Szikszai said Wellington-based Snapper was still itemising its costs “but I think we’re looking at a range of between $10 million and $20 million”.
“It’s significant – we haven’t been paid a cent for our work in Auckland.”
Szikszai denied Auckland Transport’s contention that Snapper was unable to meet an extended deadline for the rollout of Hop cards across buses, trains and ferries by November 30, saying it had “delivered against all of our milestones”.
“We met all of our obligations and Auckland Transport didn’t stand up to their side of the deal,” he said.That included a failure to provide Snapper with the specifications it needed to plug its technology into the wider Hop system.
Szikszai said there were about 200,000 Snapper-enabled Hop cards in circulation in Auckland, and the company would continue to support these, even though it would ultimately have to remove its machines from the NZ Bus fleet.
The row over Snapper means it will be April before Thales starts adding the new cards to fleets run by NZ Bus and a consortium of other bus operators which were originally to have been supplied by a third ticketing company.
$20m to fry Snapper – dang that is expensive Snapper indeed.
I suppose our resident Prude – The Mayor might want to err “divert” the Cruise Ship Terminal money he has “earmarked” to paying out Snapper quickly so this saga does not need to drag on more than it already has.
But will he?
Nah Pigs Shall Fly First before that would ever happen which means the hapless ratepayer gets stung yet again.
Talking Southern Auckland 