August 2020: Local Board Member Report

Exciting work coming up in the Bays

Our work programmes were approved at our last Board Meeting. Have a read of the agenda for the full list and description of projects coming up (these are in various stages – some at planning/concept design and others near completion of physical works). Some highlights include:

Long Bay / Okura / Torbay / Waiake

• Awaruku Reserve – renewal of pathways and walkways. Location for Kauri dieback programme.

• Emlyn Place – retaining wall and some track and signage renewals. Location for Kauri dieback programme.

• Okura playground – installation of a new play equipment piece (a supernova).

• Waiake Beach Reserve – seawall renewal and upgrade of assets such as seating and bins. Kayak Launching pontoon being constructed right now. Basket swing installed at playground.

• Weiti-Wild-Link (Weiti River Restoration Project).

Browns Bay

• Bayside Drive – renewal of play equipment.

• Browns Bay Beach Reserve – replacement of boardwalk and renew play space. Sun Smart initiative programme this summer. Installation of park fitness equipment. A small upgrade to the toilet block. Some renewals to park furniture.

• Bushglen Reserve – implement the concept plan.

• East Coast Bays Leisure Centre – reconfiguration of front of house and new bathroom flooring.

• East Coast Bays Library – detailed designs starting this year for a renewal. Renew carpark at Village Green.

• Freyberg Park – demolish and rebuild main park building, replacement of pedestrian bridge and boardwalk. Install a half basketball court

• Sherwood Reserve – renew footbridges and lighting

• Trash Free Taiaotea – Browns Bay waste minimisation initiative

• Woodridge Reserve – renew play space equipment

Murrays Bay / Mairangi Bay / Campbells Bay

• Centennial Park – improved pathway network.

• Mairangi Bay Arts Centre – renew the carpark.

• Mairangi Bay Reserve – implement development plan.

• Outram Hall – replace walkway and paving.

• Other

• Development of a dog exercise park – location TBC.

• EcoNeighbourhoods – six groups across the Bays and Hibiscus Coast will be established.

• Pump track (for bikes/scooters) (this is something I asked for – Panuku has a pop-up one that they shift around neighbourhoods for children to enjoy and for events – they are fantastic!)

• Waste minimisation ‘sorting’ bins installed in some locations.

• Year two of sediment related water quality testing.

• Zero Waste Kindergarten project.

North Shore misses out on NZTA fund

Earlier this year Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (AT) submitted a package of projects for the Innovating Streets for People Fund (ISPF), funded by NZTA Waka Kotahi. This is a fund to create some people-friendly spaces (pilots, pop-ups and interim projects) that are low-cost, can be rolled out rapidly, but that also demonstrate a pathway to permanency should they be successful.

We put forward a project in the Browns Bay Centre Plan, where retractable bollards are placed in Inverness Road. This means that for events in the Village Green (e.g. Cairo to Capetown festival), the lower part of Inverness Rd could be closed off with ease (and without the enormous costs associated with road closures and traffic management plans). It also provides a great opportunity to have some high-quality markets which could draw in visitors and support the local businesses. It fitted perfectly – low cost, can be rolled out easily, great to test for permanency, and supports community spaces and local economy. It was rated highly as a suggested project and then we got the news on Friday that it was turned down. There are 8 projects funded in Auckland – and guess what? None are north of the bridge.

This isn’t the end though – we’ve got a couple of other options to explore for this particular project and to get some good things done for our area. Watch this space.

We can’t even get the Glenvar Road upgrade funded… but there’s a walking/cycling route over the bridge going ahead?

Last week NZTA put out a press release to say they’ve selected alliance partners for the Northern Pathway Project (walking and cycling route over the bridge). They’re finalising designs and preparing the 3-year long construction to begin in 2021. The government is putting in $360 million towards this first section (eventually it will connect to Albany).

I’m not entirely against this project- it’s certainly a ‘nice to have’. Is it the appropriate time to be doing it? Absolutely not. We can’t even get AT and Council to commit (again) to funding a basic safety upgrade to the pothole-ridden Glenvar Road where people take their lives in their hands at the East Coast Road intersection – and meanwhile, we’re getting a walking route over the bridge. It’s unbelievable.

If it’s a requirement for cars to be road-worthy, shouldn’t it be a requirement that roads are car-worthy?

At the time of writing, the Single Stage Business Case is still being reviewed and progress on the project is on hold until available budgets are confirmed for 2020/21.

At our last Board meeting, I put forward a resolution seeking to get on the agenda of the October AT Board meeting. We’re pencilled in to attend. We’re continuing to fight for Glenvar Road to be upgraded and for the safety of our community.

AT’s Ramsgate Tce proposals – consultation extended

For those of you in the Mairangi Bay community, you would have probably heard about the proposals AT put forward for Ramsgate Terrace. They’re proposing a pedestrian crossing (which I agree with) which was raised with the Local board last term. They’ve added on other work though including a bus lane which would operate in peak afternoon hours to save a whopping 180 seconds (I am not even joking). It removes 9 car parks and 7 more when it is operating as a bus lane. Mairangi Bay is a nightmare for parking in summer and/or when there are events on at the Mairangi Arts Centre or Bowling Club. This would be a significant loss of car parking and a hit for local businesses.

I have to applaud AT for trying to future proof work – I suppose they were thinking that if they are coming in to do some work (pedestrian crossing) that they may as well do some upgrades that will be required in the future. Feedback from the community I’ve heard already is anti the bus lane which misses the mark – particularly at a time when rates have gone up and Council is in financial turmoil, a project proposal like this does not give the community any faith in AT’s priorities.

We moved a resolution from Julia Parfitt last Business meeting that the consultation is extended to allow for a drop-in community consultation with AT (as they had planned before we went into lockdown again).

I’ve also requested AT brief us with the consultation summary and answer our questions. In the meantime though, the consultation is open until further notice, so have a look and let AT know what you like or don’t like about the proposals.

Review of Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) – time for the governing body to stop playing the blame game

Earlier this year the Mayor established an Independent Panel to review five CCO’s (e.g. Watercare, Auckland Transport). The ‘Supercity’ has been in place for a decade now so it is very timely that a review is underway. The Panel published its findings and has given 64 recommendations. Julia and I penned the Local Board’s feedback on this review back in March and I again penned last-minute feedback from our Board members on the proposed recommendations.

The recommendations centre on creating leaner agencies that are more responsive to communities, have clearer mandates, and greater accountability and strategic direction. We had quite a bit to say on various recommendations (supporting or providing some feedback to enhance or add more to them), but overwhelmingly I was gobsmacked with them. I was stunned to learn that standard good-governance practices were not taking place already. Here is a small selection (in order of ridiculousness) of some recommendations in the report that are the best ‘how-was-that-not-happening-already’ moments:

51. CCO chief and senior executives’ job descriptions include requirements about collaborating with the council, following council directions and meeting council expectations.

49. The quarterly meetings of council and CCO executive leadership teams have a formal agenda.

22. The council prepares a statement of expectation setting out its expectations of each CCO and of CCOs generally (this is long-standing, standard practice in central government)

47. CCO chief executives establish a group, led by the council’s chief executive, that meets monthly to deal with any common or significant problems, risks or developments.

4. AT and the Council jointly prepare the Regional Land Transport Plan.

15. The Council formulates a three-waters strategy (for background here- some local authorities are integrating their water, wastewater and stormwater services (AKA a three-waters strategy). Watercare is responsible for two of the services, and Healthy Waters is responsible for the third. Council had advice in 2018 from a commissioned Martin Jenkins report that the three-waters strategy should be developed. Auckland Council still hasn’t completed a strategy. There are a host of benefits from such integration – lower water charges, more competitively priced supplier contracts, improved all-round efficiency, less street disruption during upgrade work and better customer experience).

33. The council exercises its statutory powers under section 92 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 if it has any concerns that a CCO is not acting consistently with any strategy. (This should have been happening many times. If the Governing Body is concerned about a project or the performance of a CCO, this is the avenue. Sounds like it is rarely used.)

It’s easy to play the blame game (and a lot of Councillor’s do) with CCO’s – just look at the treatment of AT any time a project hits the headlines, or even the blame game that’s been happening with Watercare and its departed CEO. The performance of CCO’s is not just on them – it’s Council’s responsibility to set their strategy and ensure that they’re performing. The Panel picked this point up well and criticised the Governing Body for not exerting sufficient oversight or strategic direction. If you ever see or read a Councillor hammering into a CCO for poor performance, ask them questions about when this was alerted to them and what actions they’ve taken – because they should have regular oversight and regular reporting to intervene early if something is not right.

Regional Facilities Auckland to go, but the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board still exists?

Back to the CCO recommendations though. One proposal is to merge Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) with Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development which could save up to $6.7 million a year. There’s a lot of double up, and with the disappearance of a tourist industry, a reshuffle is in order.

What does RFA do? They look after the art gallery, Auckland Live (arts and entertainment and all the big venues), stadiums, the zoo, and the maritime museum. When the ‘Supercity’ formed, RFA was established as a CCO to act as the interface with the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board (ARAFAB).

ARAFB is the real clincher in all of this though. Before the ‘supercity’, all the amenities serving the Auckland region (e.g. Stardome, NZ Opera, Surf Life Saving Northern Region) would have to front up to every district council around Auckland begging for money. This was really challenging as lots of district councils didn’t want to give them much. So in 2008, a piece of legislation was passed (the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act) which essentially forced all the city councils in the Auckland region to fund these amenities who were struggling for money and serving ratepayers from the whole region.

But two years later, the ‘Supercity’ was formed which combined all the district councils in the Auckland region. The amenities only have one Council in Auckland to go to now to seek funding from, removing the need entirely for the ARAFB and for the legislation that enables it. All the ARAFB does now is act as the middle-man moving money from Council to the amenities. They meet to hear from amenities how much they require for running costs, and then they resolve to seek an amount from Council.

There are ten members on the ARAFB who reportedly get paid between $16,000 – $30,000 each per annum. What a colossal waste of ratepayers' money.