Mayor Elect and CEO Talk Committees

Imagine: The election is over and we know who the mayor of Auckland Council is, and who the Councillors and Board Members are. But this Mayor has different powers from previous mayors we have seen. Among other things the Mayor of Auckland Council has the power:

to establish the committees of the governing body;
to appoint the chairperson of each committee of the governing body and, for that purpose, the mayor—
(i) may make the appointment before the other members of the committee are determined; and
(ii) may appoint himself or herself (Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 36-2 (2009))

So let's listen in on the conversation between Doug McKay (Auckland Council's Interim CEO), and the Mayor Elect..... This is an imaginery conversation....

CEO: Congratulations on your result. Welcome to Auckland Council.

Mayor: Thanks Doug. Yep, the people have spoken. Time to get down to business.

CEO: Agreed. My people have prepared substantial briefing materials. Briefing to incoming Council. She's a bit of a beast to get on top of.

Mayor: Tell me about it. But before we do that I want to talk Committees.

CEO: Yep. Thought you would. We've looked at a few options and can go through that analysis with you. We know it's your call. How do you want to play this?

Mayor: I've got a few ideas and had a few conversations but I'm keen to hear what you recommend. How you see it.

CEO: Well we're all set up in here, and up and running as you know. I've got three very good people running Council's Operations, Planning and Finance divisions. They're outside ready to meet you by the way....

Mayor: Saw them on my way in actually. Place has a good feel. You're doing a good job. So give me a flavour. What's your recommendation?

CEO: Well as I say we've had a long hard look at this and I've got a power point I'd like to go through with you, but in summary we think less is more. Three Committees of the whole, Council, and independent commissioners for hearings. That's it in a nutshell. Of course there's always room for a few sub-committees if you saw the need...

Mayor: Less is more. Hmmm. Sub committees. Hmmm. The Council I used to be Mayor of had a hell of a lot more committees than three, and we were responsible for a quarter of what we're doing in here. What makes you think three Committees will cut it?

CEO: Well it's not three Committees when you think about it. There's 21 Boards as well. They'll decide the local stuff. Make the grass-roots decisions. Community Development decisions. And the big decisions around the Waterfront, the Port, Water, Wastewater, Transport, Public Transport - they'll all be well handled by Council's very capable CCO's. As you know.

Mayor: I thought you might say that. But I'll tell you this. I haven't bust a gut getting in here, along with a whole bunch of capable councillors, just to leave decisions to someone else. To a bunch of CCO Boards. And even if I did have some sympathy with your three Committee idea, you can bet your bottom dollar my Councillors won't tolerate being side-lined over major decisions. They won't want to delegate everything to your officers and CCO's - no matter how good they are.

CEO: But you won't be delegating everything. That's the point. Council will decide strategy. Transport strategy, Water strategy, Long Term Council Plan, Spatial Plan, Waterfront Development Strategy, Finance Strategy. Statements of Intent. The lot. That won't be delegated. The CCO's and the Council will then implement those strategies. Your strategies. You will control Council and its CCO's through strategy. And you will monitor our delivery, and CCO deliveries, through reporting that's as detailed as you want it to be.

Mayor: Well I'm not so sure about that. This is a whole different ball game and the public and councillors want to understand better what's going on so they can influence it. I think we need to be looking at some options.

CEO: We can do that. But give me a flavour of what you want. Have you got an example?

Mayor: Well I've taken an interest in Watercare and that's all well and good for trunk sewers and the like, but I can't see how that model - that hands off model - is going to work for transport projects. There's too much public interest and too many different interests when it comes to transport.

CEO: But isn't that the point? Councils haven't done anything because they've been too busy worrying about local concerns. This model reduces that impact on getting things done. I'm not saying Council can hide behind the Transport CCO, while it steamrolls through, but it will have a focus on getting things done. We can open up meetings and be transparent about decisions so people know what's going on. This will free up Councillors so they can concentrate on the Spatial Plan. That really needs political attention, and once it's done then Auckland Transport will be required to implement it. I think it would be a waste of councillor's time if they got into the detail of every roading project and road asset management plans and all that.

Mayor: It sounds great the way you put it. But it ignores the fact that people own land and run businesses and live and go to school and shop by these roads. Roading projects affect them and their assets like nothing else Councils do. It's the whole land use and transport integration thing. You can't fix one without affecting the other. I buy into keeping councillors away from little projects. But they will want to have a say on the big ones. Like Dominion Road, like AMETI, like the Britomart Rail Loop and those new stations. The list is a big one. I'm thinking of something like a delegation. Something like if the value of a transport project is more than $10 million - to pluck a figure out of the air - then Council must be consulted.

CEO: Hmmm. I'll have to get advice on what the law says about this. My understanding is that parliament intended for there to be a strong separation between Council and Auckland Transport juridictions. I think before we go any further with this we need to have a chat with Mark Ford. You OK with that?

Mayor: Absolutely. We need to get this right. No point in rushing now we've got this far.

CEO: OK. I take it you're happy with Watercare then?

Mayor: I'm no expert on it. We have had the odd report back at Council. Once over lightly. But word is everything that's been going on there has been under the public radar for years. No-one really knows what's what. On the face of it looks like a tight ship. The Watercare Shareholder Representative Group has been controlled for years so that Watercare get's what it wants, but who knows if it's the best option. I mean take that water tariff announcement a few weeks ago. $1.30/cubic metre across the region. Everybody pays the same. Has a ring of confidence about it. Everybody likes a cut in rates. I don't know the basis for it. Watercare has a revenue requirement that must be met. I suspect tariffs are just the sort of thing that Council will want to understand and decide. How does that fit with your committee plan?

CEO: These are highly complex technical matters, but I'm sure we can pick them up in the Statement of Intent. Or maybe a Sub Committee when needed.

Mayor: I had a flick through Watercare's SOI before coming in today. Someone gave it to me. Here's what it says about tariffs. Objective 18 is "To ensure that the regime for the pricing of water and wastewater services is enduring, transparent and reliable.".... Fantastic, what does that mean?.... And its performance target - I don't know who writes these things - is: "The pricing methodology enables the revenue to be set to recover all costs and provide for an adequate level of debt servicing."

CEO: What's wrong with that? Sounds sensible to me.

Mayor: It may be sensible, but where in there is the need for a conservation pricing message, where in there is any need to consider developer levies so infrastructure costs get allocated where they are incurred. I suspect the whole thing needs a rethink. Sure business must continue. But you can't expect us all to troop in here and accept everything as a done deal. There is a need in my opinion for us to set up committees which allow the Council to take control of what is happening. Councillors may be happy to accept the status quo - once they understand the options and alternatives. But you can't assume that.

CEO: So where from here?

Mayor: Well I'd like to to see your power point presentation, and I'd like another meeting maybe tomorrow, where I'd like to bring in a few more councillors, and I want to see Committee options which at the very least include a Transport Committee, a Watercare Committee, and a Waterfront Committee. There must also be a Local Board Committee. Councillors need to engage politically with Auckland Council Boards. These are the meaty issues, and I want Committee options that will enable us to get to grips with Auckland local government.

CEO: Hmmm. How about a cuppa tea?

End of imaginery conversation. More later. In another Blog. Maybe.

Auckland's Britomart Rail Tunnel Project - Ontrack Designation Process

One benefit of not being a chair this term of ARC is that I have had time between ARC meetings and workshops to take Masters in Planning Practice papers part-time at Auckland University. One paper I took in 2008 was Masters Infrastructure Planning. Its main assignment related to the strategic planning needed to support a Notice of Requirement (NOR) for the proposed Britomart Rail Tunnel project. The form of the assignment was a report to Ontrack.

Below I have pasted the Executive Summary of that assignment. If you are interested, I can send you the whole thing, plus appendicees. Remember - it is an assignment - but I wrote it as if it was objective and informed advice for Ontrack.

My key findings are set out in this Exec Summary.

Having done the research and analytical work needed for this assignment, I felt it would be useful to share my findings and recommendations with ARTA, and so provided a copy to a couple of ARTA Board Directors who tabled it at an ARTA Board meeting in October. At the time I wasn’t sure which organization (Ontrack or ARTA or both) would be carrying out the necessary NOR planning work.

I understand that at that meeting, the ARTA Board resolved to carry out a region wide network planning assessment. I also learned that Ontrack was to lead the NOR work, but in partnership with ARTA. I also provided a copy of the assignment to Ontrack staff who were working on Request for Tender (RFT) documentation in respect to the preparation of NOR documentation for the Britomart Rail Tunnel. You will recall that the previous Govt instructed Ontrack to protect that corridor – after the Downtown Westfield resource consent issue.

Just before Christmas Ontrack issued its RFT (request for tender) documentation. The due date for tenders is 5th Feb, $5 million has been set aside for the work, Ontrack is intending to lodge the completed NOR documentation with Auckland City Council within 12 months.....


Executive Summary - Joel Cayford's Ontrack report

Ontrack has been instructed by Government to protect and designate a preferred route for the Britomart Rail Tunnel in order to provide future passenger transport services. This report is a high level strategic analysis of work needed to support the related Notice of Requirement.
Electrification and expansion of Auckland’s suburban commuter rail network is now strongly supported at national, regional and local levels, both politically and in the transport and land use strategies set out in key planning documents.

Today, Britomart is the only railway station in the Auckland CBD. Its configuration constrains the Auckland rail network’s passenger carrying capacity. The Britomart Rail Tunnel project could release this constraint, and add one, two or three more stations, depending on which historical plan is considered. These plans were all prepared before the Auckland region decided to accept a Northern Rail connection to the North Shore through a harbour tunnel, as its preferred alignment and mode for the second harbour crossing.

The strategic planning issues this project poses are many and varied:

• A key objective for Ontrack is to increase rail freight, which in Auckland shares the network with commuter rail services. The implications of this conflict needs to be understood, and options for managing it considered to avoid rail freight services inhibiting the development of high capacity and high frequency passenger transport rail services.
• While the Britomart Rail Tunnel project has been around in some shape or form for almost 85 years, limited strategic planning for Auckland CBD Rail has been carried out recently that takes account of the provisions contained in Plan Change 6 to Auckland’s Regional Policy Statement, let alone a possible rail connection to the North Shore. ARTA (Auckland Regional Transport Authority), which now has the responsibility for planning Auckland’s passenger transport service network, has not conducted the necessary comprehensive strategic planning to support a NOR for the Britomart Rail Tunnel project.
• Auckland City Council will need to be involved in the planning for the size, location and functionality of railway stations within the CBD area, as well as bus/rail interchanges that might be required on the CBD periphery. ARTA, ARC and ACC will need to coordinate and sequence land use changes, the staging of transport infrastructure construction, and the roll out of new rail services – in order to optimise integration outcomes. There is a need to properly coordinate these planning processes in accordance with RLTS provisions, which suggest a duty to establish an appropriate "CBD Rail Steering Group" including ACC, ARC, ARTA and Ontrack.

This report explores these key issues, and asks several strategic questions, all of which need to be addressed thoroughly in an Integrated Transport Assessment process in accordance with RPS provisions, culminating in the development of a publicly agreed long term Auckland CBD rail network plan, before Ontrack can legitimately proceed to issue a Notice of Requirement for the Britomart Rail Tunnel project.

Ends

I can provide copies of the RFT, if you are interested. The NZ Herald ran a story about this which you can read at:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10551410