DCC defends parking profits

Richard, you seem to toss off the subject of 'loan' money as if, somehow the money was not borrowed, with, therefore, no interest to be paid.

There are numerous council examples of this, the stadium being funded entirely on the never-never being an extreme example.

If the nation's housewives (sorry, home executives) thought this way, the family as the basic unit of society would have fallen to bits years ago.

Regarding energy (admittedly a bit of a side-issue), all power comes, ultimately, from the sun. Even the cycles of rain and drought are deeply influenced by that source.

Hydrocarbon deposits are the result of the sun's actions on vegetation of aeons past. Stored in that way, they are well on the way to being depleted, worldwide.

The only way to harness the power of the sun, right now, and to avoid serious problems for future civilisation(s), is to harness the suns rays now, as they are being wasted falling uselessly on many parts of the planet.

Ultimately, the only forms of energy consumption which will be able to work for the benefit of mankind will involve the harnessing of this energy in the most direct forms possible, eg direct sunlight.

We are currently on a collison course with ourselves and our endless wants and needs if we think otherwise.

To succumb entirely to this way of doing things, without careful thought as to what our native intelligence should demand of us, is the fastest route I know, back to the caves and trees from whence we supposedly came.

Come on Richard, answer the questions. "No" isn't a valid answer to any of these.

Setting aside your opinion/s and assumptions, the answer to all your questions - with one possible - exception is a resounding no.

The exception could (I repeat could) be the council share of realigning SH88 because it is part of the activity. The realignment was, of course, planned and provided for well prior to the FB Stadium being a gleam in anyone's 'eye'. (The only change related to the stadium was the switch from Parry Street to alongside the railway line, which many thought was the best alignment anyway).

Major capital projects are usually funded by loan.

The foregone dividend does not occur until 2011-12 at which time the levy via rate ceases. I have never heard it suggested until now that it could be spent on anyhting else.

You do not appear to have noticed that the surplus from parking revenue and indeed infringements has been quite consistent
whether "ring-fenced" or not as any reference to the annual plans and/or reports will show.

I do not know what you are refrring to when you mention 'submissions to Finance and Strategy'.

That's it. Thanks for the best wishes but who said it was 'a break'?

What is worth highlighting, however, is that if the surplus revenue from parking meters and that from enforcement was not forthcoming, the ratepayer would have to find another $4m in rates to expend on activities covered within the Transport Network, e.g. roading including the 2m strips used for parking etc.

This is disingenuous. If the $2 million surplus was not there, then the council would have had to engage in a decision-making process. One decision might be to find the revenue from somewhere else. One might be to cut costs. One might be to defer spending.

The Annual Plan is not a ransom note. It is not a device to continue extracting revenue from citizens.
If the $5 million dividend from DCHL had not been forgone, there would be more than enough to cover increased spending and the decision-making process and consultation for the annual plan would have been quite different.

You have not answered the questions. This leaves wondering about several options:

When the submission to Finance and Strategy regarding the "ring fencing" was made
- was the submission correct? It would appear that it was.

Was the committee misled by the submission? Was the submission made with the intent to mislead?
You see, the original thing that the council was called on in the forum was the use of surplus revenue from parking fines and infringements for other activities, in particular those associated with the stadium. I predicted elsewhere that the strategy would lead to a significant surplus.
You said at the time that the surplus could not be used for any other activity. Now you say it remains within transportation. That's fine. However, one of the major costs within that budget is SH88 realignment. It does not take a huge leap to see that the $2 million could be used to offset the $11.3 million expenditure for that project.

Which raises some more questions:
-

Can the surplus from parking revenue be used within the transportation budget to offset the costs of SH88 realignment?

Does the use of this revenue require the specific approval of the council?

Does the use of this revenue require an Annual Plan change and hence further consultation?

Is the SH88 realignment not a necessary component of expenditure directly related to the construction of the new stadium (i.e. SH88 must be realigned before the stadium can operate. Yes, the project has been on the books for a while, but it now must happen within a specific timeframe, no?).

Finally, is the increased charges across the board of DCC activities not simply a revenue grab with the aim of offsetting as many deficits within budgets related to stadium expenditure?

Enjoy your break. I'll wait.

I picked up on your comment on ODT Online in relation to revenue from ON-STREET PARKING.

Conversely, the principal focus of the STAR article you link to (and which I have not read previously) relates to revenue from PARKING FINES (i.e. infringement).

That has always been paid into the General Account but like PARKING REVENUE, it to is accounted for within the Transport Network and expended within that activity. (refer to pages 22-30 of the recently adopted Annual Plan 2010-11).

So, even if I had read the STAR article, there was nothing to elicit a response from me.

What is worth highlighting, however, is that if the surplus revenue from parking meters and that from enforcement was not forthcoming, the ratepayer would have to find another $4m in rates to expend on activities covered within the Transport Network, e.g. roading including the 2m strips used for parking etc.

That was the outcome that I was going to to 'attach' to your 'prediction'. So, don't worry about sourcing it as I am sure that is not what you are advocating.

Anyway, I have a busy week or two ahead so unlikely to have the time to continue here and not much more we can achieve anyway at this point.

Let's await the next report from the Review WP.

Cheers!

On one thing there was adequate consultation: that between Council Transportation Planning, the University and Hospital authorities. As I understand, they got pretty much what they wanted.

As Cr. Brown made clear, some of the changes that were implemented a year ago had not been before - or discussed - by elected members.

The changes made since require Sections 2 and 4 of the Parking Strategy to be amended.

Empty spaces in places like View Street, and around the Queens Gardens are currently being addressed by the review WP as indicated by Cr. Brown.

As for the CBD and, in particular, the main street (George) and immediate side streets. Since the change and, in particular the time adjustment to 30 minutes, the previous chaos in George Street is from my regular observations a distant memory, and the (now pay and display) parking spaces are well utilised and turning over, the prime purpose of the PS despite its initial flaws.

My hunch is that this will be the major factor in the increased parking revenue over budget that has occurred and - perhaps - explains why parking building revenue is down.

Seems the old Dunedin habit of 'wanting to park outside the door of where you are going' holds true. I would have thought 'we' would be a bit more canny than that and walk a few metres to save 'a shilling'.

As I am not a member of Planning and Environment, I was not party to any detailed debate but I sure was an active contributor (and continue to be so) to the solution.

As part of that, you will recall I came on ODT Online seekings comment. I could produce a business owner or two or more who could confirm that.

Finally, you seem to overlook in all your comments that the University, Hospital (and indeed all Crown-owned entities) were exempt from planning requirements to provide of-street carparking for their staff and users etc.

Things have changed under voluntary agreements with the University in recent times, but it is a bit much to ask ratepayers to bear the costs for providing all that isn't it, especially when crown-owned entities do not contribute to the General Rate.

Appreciate the exchange. Have a busy week or two ahead so unlikely to be able to continue here and not much more we can achieve anyway at this point.

So, let's await the next report from the Review WP and see what that fine-tuning brings. Who knows, you might be happier.

Cheers!

Richard, you were asked 4 questions and you didn't answer one - instead you tried to change the subject.

Please answer the questions. We want transparency from our elected representatives, and we don't get that if you dissemble when people ask you stuff.

Richard, I am pleased that you seem to appreciate that prosperity is a goal worth pursuing.

Before you and all the others voted for the Parking Strategy you should have realised, however, that discouraging parking would discourage foot-traffic and hurt CBD shop owners.

Various other groups have been seriously affected (students, shoppers, commuters and residents) and won't be pleased to know that it was completely intentional.

The main purpose of the strategy was to discourage parking (aka "mode change" "demand management" etc). I remember that some councilors expressed surprise when they learned the effects of what they had done.

Syd Brown seemed surprised, but as Chair of the Parking Working Party he earlier had written that he wanted to use parking "as a tool to encourage mode change", and "While the strategy does not suggest major changes it does remove anomalies in the current system and address the major issue of travel demand while still supporting the Central City economy" (Proposed Parking Strategy, Planning and Environment Committee, 14/4/08).

Cr Brown fully realised, in my opinion, the potentially damaging effect on the CBD economy, which came to pass, and continues to this day.

Access to parking: There is no shortage of empty parks, so while there might be "access", they are unaffordable for many and so are not "accessible".

Drivers who have to park beyond the DCC Parking Zone are faced with a long frustrating walk, travelling past empty parks inside the zone.

Again, this is what was planned; council staff expected that, as a result of the changes, car-parks in the zone would be only 20% occupied for the outer part, and only 40% for the rest (Implementation of Parking Strategy, Finance and Strategy Committee, 1/12/08). Occupancy had been 70% or more before the changes.

I am saying that the problem is systemic and covers the whole zone (soon to spread to South Dunedin).

The parking problem will continue for as long as you and Fliss Butcher continue to support an extremist parking strategy which aims to push vehicles out of the CBD parking zone.

I think that proper public consultation and more vigilant councilors would have prevented the problem with both the strategy and the implementation. 

This is not the only forum in which I post. When I track down the link be sure i will post it.
By the way, how come your apology only surfaces now and not back in December 2009 when the use of parking revenue for the consolidated fund was first made public?
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/86549/parking-fines-generating-24m-a-year
"This year's projected surplus of $375,000 will go into the city council's consolidated fund "to assist in offsetting any council departments' budget deficits".
Note also that the bulk of the "cost" for enforcing parking revenue comes from internal charges, not external expenditure.
I will leave others to ponder and pursue the interesting question of how council departments can run up a "deficit" to soak up revenue fromt he consolidated fund without necessarily requiring approval from Council.

The trolley buses were a fantastically efficient transport option. They did have problems, but one of the main reasons that they were replaced by diesels had nothing to do with rational or logical or factual decision making.

It is common knowledge that all maintenance costs of diesel buses were to be logged against the trolley bus fleet. Thus some "facts" could be used to support an unsupportable argument.

I don't think that things have changed all that much.

But clumsy. You fail to defend your claimed 'prediction'.

"There are no transfers from such things as Parking Charges to the Stadium or indeed any other activity. Such a move - if it was even contemplated and I cannot imagine it happening - could only be done by a formal amendment to the plan that would require full public consultation."

What did you get wrong?
- that the parking revenue was not ring-fenced
- that it can be transferred to other activity, including the consolidated fund
- that such a move does not require formal amendment to the plan
- the public consultation is not required.

Bring out your minutes, please.
Who told Finance and Strategy Committee that the revenue was ring-fenced?
What role do they perform?
Why are they still employed?

Well, let's have a glance back and see what you actually said last July:

Submitted by farsighted on Thu, 16/07/2009 - 11:51am. "According to the LTCCP, Citipark operations are forecast to have surpluses between $4.6m and $12.9m over the next 10 years. Just out of interest, what happens to that revenue? If it stays within Citipark's budgets, how does it get used (there is no sign in the forecasts of it being used to offset increased asset maintenance, for example).

A reasonable question.

I answered it on July 20 - I quote the relevant part: "There are no transfers from such things as Parking Charges to the Stadium or indeed any other activity. Such a move - if it was even contemplated and I cannot imagine it happening - could only be done by a formal amendment to the plan that would require full public consultation."

Yes, I got the "ring-fencing wrong", but what else was wrong in my comment?

And just exactly how do you justify your claim that "I told you so"?

Close to Leah's views, which continue to be 'trumpeted' by Teresa Stevenson? Come off it.

You seem to overlook that until 3 years ago, June and I ran a small retail business in George Street for 12 years and for the six years before that (during my six years as Mayor), I walked the main street most business days.

Even before that, between 1958 and 1974, I did 'my beat' on foot around the 'back streets' and the 'main streets' as a sales rep, so I have a pretty good handle on how activity and traffic patterns have changed over the years and the absolute mess that came from far too many 'ad hoc' decisions.

I have never, ever advocated what you seem to be suggesting. Quite the contrary.

The word is 'access'. Without off-street parking, either council or privately-provided (e.g. the Meridian and Great King Street carparks), and parking controls that provide for that access (i.e. commuter access) to be maintained, the city centre would die.

It did, in fact, come close to doing so in relatively recent times.

The short answer to your question - "to be practical and able to respond". There is not one answer for every situation.

Surely you remember our trolley buses and how wonderfull they were on the hills? The used to zip up Stuart St, and the diesels that replaced them are so much slower and they they smell bad. We got rid of them because we thought no one else was going to keep using them and they wouldn't be able to be replaced, yet they are still in use worldwide. Boy, was that a big mistake. Especially given the current price of oil.

What, I wonder, would be the source of the electricity to power the vehicles that currently (ahem) run on petrol and diesel?

Thought that term would get a response. Yes, I am aware that hybrid cars are running around the city. The council car used by the Mayor is the Honda Civic Hybrid, and Cr Butcher's family car is a Toyota Prius.

To 'JJ': well, maybe, but what I saw in Shanghai was really advanced. Electric buses much the same size as we those running around Dunedin. What a difference they would make in Princes and George Streets. Not sure how they would handle the hills though.

And 'JJ', the tecnnology is going to get 'cheaper'. Talk to me sometime about 'dams' but not here, not on this topic. Dams?

I spotted your earlier post. Your position seems a lot closer to Leah McBey's than to mine and the other car users. 

I am pleased that you and the council are prepared to tolerate a degree of car use in the city. My hope was, however, that you and Leah McBey's disciples would stop trying to use parking to discourage car use.

Did you know that the The Parking Review Working Party is in a quandary because it has to discourage car use in accordance with the Parking Strategy, but at the same time satisfy the needs of thousands of Dunedin's car users?

What do you think they should do, Richard?

The cattle prod idea could be just the thing to keep our councilors in line... you know, like if they start suggesting that ratepayers pay for a $1 billion hydro-electric dam (as suggested by council staff).

Electric cars are hopeless because of the high purchase price, and the high cost of periodically replacing the battery. Compared to petrol, batteries are an extremely inefficient way to store energy.

Electric cars can only store the equivalent energy of a few litres of petrol.
Petrol and diesel vehicles are safer and have lower long term running costs (including fuel). The disciples of sustainability would, however, have you believe otherwise.

"Electric motivation technology" .... you mean just normal electric cars right? (not some sort of cattle prod). It kind of sounds like you're channeling Mr Burns. You know, there are hybrid electric cars driving the streets of our city right now. Turns out they are perfect for Dunedin. Of course, if we all switch over to full electric we'll have to dam a few more valleys - where do you think we should start?

... headed "Two Arguments Here'. It did not attach itself to your post.

One thing I did want to say - and overlooked - is that I reject the proposition that private cars will not remain a major means of getting around, and it and must be provided for in any discussion of public transport and transport strategies etc generally.

I have had some spirited arguments about that with some you might call 'Green Fabians' (remember Leah McBey?). A refusal to recognise the place of cars in transportation is quite unrealistic.

Sure, oil-based fuel might 'peak' etc, but the development of electric motivation technology (just to mention one) is quite astonishing, as I saw for myself when visiting the World Expo in Shanghai several weeks ago.

And so on and so on. Cheers!

Remember how well the last guy did who came out with that phrase? He didn't get re-elected either.

As I see it, you raise two separate questions.

The first is about revenue and what happens to any 'surplus'. I have, of course, dealt with that.

The second is about what the parking policy of council is designed to do.

As I am not (with Colin Weatherall) a member of Planning & Strategy, I was not closely involved in the development of the strategy but am familiar with the points you make.

I have not heard  (or read) anyone else arguing the point of view you have. Suffice for me to say that I have always taken the view that "access" in e.g. the central city is the basic principle with which I have always approached the subject and which was an obvious weakness in the implementation of the strategy last year.

The 'failure' - as I saw it - was that some of the changes did not reflect the reality at street level, i.e. that each street or road has a different character relating to (say) the businesses or functions that adjoin it. The classic example was Frederick Street.

This brought home the need for council to be more flexible in its approach and keep matters under regular review so as to respond to changes in the street environment. Which it is doing.

I will leave it at that. Thank for your 'reasoned' response.

Dear Farsighted,

If I have made other statements you and the "several others" wish to challenge, then why not do it now?

No time like the present. So, bring it on. It may be your only chance?

PS: I am not a member of the Planning and Environment Committee, which deals with parking.

Richard - thanks for explaining the ring-fencing. I believe that the parking system that your council voted for is a rort and needs to be fixed.

It's a rort because we pay more and get less; in fact we have a parking system designed to discourage parking. This very obvious defect follows from the infamous Parking Strategy, specifically, objectives 2, 3 and 4.

You people, by approving these objectives, are giving highest priority to the now decrepit New Zealand Transport Strategy 2002 inspired by the Greens and Fabians of the previous government, and lowest priority to our city's car users.

Your council's job is not to obediently implement the policies of central government, but to do what's best for Dunedin.

I am looking forward to some changes.

You were challenged on this point several times by several individuals.
You have made several similar statements with reference to other aspects of local government operation. Those are now all in question.

You now say it is "difficult to argue" against the lack of ring-fencing. Be assured that you will be questioned in depth on these and other matters prior to the election.

I have just picked up on the above comment. My statement of 16/07/2009 that "Parking revenue is 'ring-fenced' and spent on the provision of off-street parking (including the servicing of loans taken out for parking buildings etc) and enforcement" is not correct, even although that was confirmed to a Finance and Strategy meeting mid-last year.

On that assurance I did not enquire further but obviously should have done. I apologise for that.

I cannot pinpoint when the change was made but find it difficult to argue against given that any capital expenditure on off-street car parking has inevitably required more funding than 'a reserve' (or ring-fenced) account has been able to provide.

Similarly, it is difficult to argue against any surplus being 'generally expended' when, in reality, it reduces the rate requirement for Roading (the Transport Network.)

I also note that, at 31 May, the surplus variance from Parking Meter Revenue was only $294,000 ahead of the Budget, largely due, it seems, to that derived from the 'new' all-day" parking spaces.

Having said that, I still support the principle that originally lay behind the "ring-fencing" and that parking fees should not be rorted simply to reduce rates in relation to unrelated non-parking and/or non-roading expenditure.

In that regard, I note that Auckland City recorded a surplus on its parking meters etc last year of some $20m.

I will leave it at that, given a more detailed report on the overall position has been called for within council to clarify many of the generalities within the ODT story of 28 June and the subsequent editorial.

MikeStk and farsighted are referring to Richard Walls' claim that parking revenues are ring fenced (16/7/09, ODT comment).
He was trying to persuade us that the increase in parking taxes had nothing to do with the attempt to pay for FB Stadium. He said this -
Parking revenue funds nothing but parking Submitted by Richard Walls on Thu, 16/07/2009 Parking revenue is 'ring-fenced' and spent on the provision of off-street parking (including the servicing of loans taken out for parking buildings etc) and enforcement. It is not used to fund anything else. I trust this information is helpful. Richard Walls Chair DCC Finance and Strategy
In Cr Walls' mind, there might have be a vision of how parking revenue (or profits) were ring-fenced, but in reality this would seem unlikely.

You say: "It is asking a bit much of any house purchaser to guess what changes a council may make many years down the track."

Clearly it would be asking too much, and that applies to a lot more than just parking strategies.

However, the fundamental issue is one of rights, or rather, perceived rights.

Property owners do not have the right to park on public land outside their properties. They never have.

We have been lucky in this city in that this has never really been a big problem in the past.

I'm simply saying property owners need to be aware of the on-street parking, or lack of it, that comes with the property they are considering buying.

This sounds reasonable until one examines the real-life situation. Recent changes have resulted in people who have lived in their own homes for years, with free street-side parking available, now being suddenly deprived of it. Their tradesmen and visitors now have nowhere to park, even guests staying for a few nights are forced to leave their cars a long way off if they are not to face the expense, not to mention hassle, of going out and shifting their vehicle regularly throughout the day.
It is asking a bit much of any house purchaser to guess what changes a council may make many years down the track.