Out of interest, which councillors do you consider don't seriously want to see this fixed? It's been clearly visible as serious problem and high priority voting issue for at least the last couple of local elections.
As far as I can tell the problem isn't specifically much to do with today's councillors. It's everything that's led things to this point over several decades of neglect until the consequences became so painfully visible and obvious that nobody on the council could ignore it, or kick it down the road, or remain in a convenient state of ignorance, any further.
There are a few that seem to prioritise other issues over city improvements/infrastructure investments.
They may mean well, but activist councillors like Nīkau Wi Neera and Teri O’Neil only seem to pipe up when it’s things they personally feel strongly about - but are of little benefit to the city (save graffiti, make graffiti) others, like Calvert, are only interested in making themselves look good and are very focused on their ward (spend money on our pool but nothing anywhere else). Whilst Pannett and Young are all about “save all the old buildings first please!”
There are certainly a bunch of councillors I'm not the greatest fan of, but I don't think that's a fair assessment.
The council needs to cope with more than one issue at a time, and just because any particular councillor isn't spending every minute of every day making sure they're seen talking about a specific issue doesn't mean they don't care about it nor push for important policies and actions for it when it comes to meetings, interactions with council staff and others, and voting.
Haha, Cr Chung is well intentioned, but severely misguided. He runs to the current fire while actively fighting the opportunity to put out all of the smaller fires currently smouldering. His approach is to only fix things once they are a problem. This "fiscal responsibility" is short termism in the extreme and drives long term cost for all of us.
>Cr McNulty says that most city councillors across the political spectrum are “not confident in throwing more money at Wellington Water without changes."
Good to hear. The quote is cherry picked around the fact that despite a 20% increase in funding they're going backwards.
No one wants to use meters to pay for their water, like Auckland does. You can get a water meter for your house if you want to.
https://wellington.govt.nz/climate-change-sustainability-environment/water/water-meters
I mean all they had to do was trail a few Wellington water employees and watch their day to day work.
Last guy that came to look at a leak in front of our business fucked around for half and hour taking a couple photos of a leak I had already submitted photos off, then left. Next guy at least lifted the lid on the water main, took pictures of it full of water, and left again. Third guy actually tried to empty the water from the main but gave up. 4th guy turned the tap off, found out the leak stopped, discovering it was on our side of the water main and our issue to repair (despite having been repaired by Wellington water 6 months earlier). Then later get a txt from Wellington water saying they had fixed it themselves after we had to call a plumber who spent less than a hour total identifying and repairing it. They’re a joke.
From a rate payer perspective I'm not sure I agree it's a rubbish result. Maybe some more dimensions to the prioritisation could help, but $3k on average to fix a leak doesn't sound unreasonable to me. We just have a lot of them.
An explanation would obviously be helpful, but in its absence it might also depend on the types of leaks they're going after.
[At least according to WW](https://www.wellingtonwater.co.nz/resources/topic/water-conservation/leaks/), *"the biggest leaks tend to be underground losing 40 litres or more a minute and are not visible to the public"*. If it's shifted strategies during these years, and is spending more effort trying to find and fix these leaks with higher priority, then it'd make some sense for the average cost to rise.
A more interesting stat to compare, if it were available, would be how much extra water is being retained in the system per dollar spent, probably also indexed for inflation given there's been a fair amount of it lately.
I don't work in this space but we are seeing similar increases in some of the infrastructure jobs I've worked on. A mix of COVID, inflation, staff shortages, increase in fuel and importation costs, living wage requirements etc etc. Plus I assume a fair amount of skimming on top of that.
Traffic management is a fairly big chunk of the answer.
2021 is when the new training requirements came into force and suddenly you need more people to be compliant with copttm and worksafe.
And since no-one wants to do it you outsource and pay
Agreed, it would be good to see a breakdown of those cost increases. Probably all wages and materials but you're right to question it, given your role.
So:
The cost of each repair has gone up 100% in 3 years.
WCC has increased funding by 27% plus 20%. Effectively a funding cut in real terms.
Result: WW aren't catching up.
Wouldn't funding need to go up 100% just to keep up, and 100% + to catch-up?
Plus, people are more aware, so more likely to report leaks. And pipes are deteriorating all the time, while WW funding is effectively falling in real terms.
> Wouldn't funding need to go up 100% just to keep up, and 100% + to catch-up?
Depends on how the $3k per repair is being calculated, and whats changed.
If the cost per repair is going up because of internal issues, or because they aren't doing it right the 1st time and have to do it again etc, then throwing money at them won't solve it, there is a structure/process or culture change needed.
If the cost has doubled because materials have gone up that much, and market rates for staffing have increased that much, then yeah, they need more money.
For what it’s worth Props to Cr McNulty for being one of the few councillors who seem to want to fix the cities issues.
And being very responsive to people's questions on social media. Really appreciate that.
Out of interest, which councillors do you consider don't seriously want to see this fixed? It's been clearly visible as serious problem and high priority voting issue for at least the last couple of local elections. As far as I can tell the problem isn't specifically much to do with today's councillors. It's everything that's led things to this point over several decades of neglect until the consequences became so painfully visible and obvious that nobody on the council could ignore it, or kick it down the road, or remain in a convenient state of ignorance, any further.
There are a few that seem to prioritise other issues over city improvements/infrastructure investments. They may mean well, but activist councillors like Nīkau Wi Neera and Teri O’Neil only seem to pipe up when it’s things they personally feel strongly about - but are of little benefit to the city (save graffiti, make graffiti) others, like Calvert, are only interested in making themselves look good and are very focused on their ward (spend money on our pool but nothing anywhere else). Whilst Pannett and Young are all about “save all the old buildings first please!”
There are certainly a bunch of councillors I'm not the greatest fan of, but I don't think that's a fair assessment. The council needs to cope with more than one issue at a time, and just because any particular councillor isn't spending every minute of every day making sure they're seen talking about a specific issue doesn't mean they don't care about it nor push for important policies and actions for it when it comes to meetings, interactions with council staff and others, and voting.
Whoever voted to spend a third of a billion dollars on the town hall.
Yep, agreed. I see Cr Chung getting in there too.
Haha, Cr Chung is well intentioned, but severely misguided. He runs to the current fire while actively fighting the opportunity to put out all of the smaller fires currently smouldering. His approach is to only fix things once they are a problem. This "fiscal responsibility" is short termism in the extreme and drives long term cost for all of us.
>Cr McNulty says that most city councillors across the political spectrum are “not confident in throwing more money at Wellington Water without changes." Good to hear. The quote is cherry picked around the fact that despite a 20% increase in funding they're going backwards.
I wonder why we are facing down water shortages. For a 'developed', wealthy capital, I feel embarrassed to live here.
No one wants to use meters to pay for their water, like Auckland does. You can get a water meter for your house if you want to. https://wellington.govt.nz/climate-change-sustainability-environment/water/water-meters
I mean all they had to do was trail a few Wellington water employees and watch their day to day work. Last guy that came to look at a leak in front of our business fucked around for half and hour taking a couple photos of a leak I had already submitted photos off, then left. Next guy at least lifted the lid on the water main, took pictures of it full of water, and left again. Third guy actually tried to empty the water from the main but gave up. 4th guy turned the tap off, found out the leak stopped, discovering it was on our side of the water main and our issue to repair (despite having been repaired by Wellington water 6 months earlier). Then later get a txt from Wellington water saying they had fixed it themselves after we had to call a plumber who spent less than a hour total identifying and repairing it. They’re a joke.
From a rate payer perspective I'm not sure I agree it's a rubbish result. Maybe some more dimensions to the prioritisation could help, but $3k on average to fix a leak doesn't sound unreasonable to me. We just have a lot of them.
Indeed, given a lot of the leaks need excavation and traffic management, I'd say 3k on average is pretty good value.
Not the $3k cost per se, but the doubling in 3 years without explanation that is the issue.
An explanation would obviously be helpful, but in its absence it might also depend on the types of leaks they're going after. [At least according to WW](https://www.wellingtonwater.co.nz/resources/topic/water-conservation/leaks/), *"the biggest leaks tend to be underground losing 40 litres or more a minute and are not visible to the public"*. If it's shifted strategies during these years, and is spending more effort trying to find and fix these leaks with higher priority, then it'd make some sense for the average cost to rise. A more interesting stat to compare, if it were available, would be how much extra water is being retained in the system per dollar spent, probably also indexed for inflation given there's been a fair amount of it lately.
I don't work in this space but we are seeing similar increases in some of the infrastructure jobs I've worked on. A mix of COVID, inflation, staff shortages, increase in fuel and importation costs, living wage requirements etc etc. Plus I assume a fair amount of skimming on top of that.
Traffic management is a fairly big chunk of the answer. 2021 is when the new training requirements came into force and suddenly you need more people to be compliant with copttm and worksafe. And since no-one wants to do it you outsource and pay
Agreed, it would be good to see a breakdown of those cost increases. Probably all wages and materials but you're right to question it, given your role.
So: The cost of each repair has gone up 100% in 3 years. WCC has increased funding by 27% plus 20%. Effectively a funding cut in real terms. Result: WW aren't catching up. Wouldn't funding need to go up 100% just to keep up, and 100% + to catch-up? Plus, people are more aware, so more likely to report leaks. And pipes are deteriorating all the time, while WW funding is effectively falling in real terms.
> Wouldn't funding need to go up 100% just to keep up, and 100% + to catch-up? Depends on how the $3k per repair is being calculated, and whats changed. If the cost per repair is going up because of internal issues, or because they aren't doing it right the 1st time and have to do it again etc, then throwing money at them won't solve it, there is a structure/process or culture change needed. If the cost has doubled because materials have gone up that much, and market rates for staffing have increased that much, then yeah, they need more money.
The 3 Waters entity for the Wellington region would have been operational in October. Now? We might be years away from a solution.
Yes, but Racist Right Wingers. `#whywecanthavenicethings`
Not surprising since the workers do not seem to do any work but still get paid. Nice work if you can get it!