$50,000 hydraulic bollards

City council staff have paid $50,000 to save themselves the bother of lifting out a wooden post every time council vehicles enter and leave the southern reclamation carpark.

The installation of the hydraulic bollards is being completed this week – much to the disgust and dismay of mayoral candidate Murray Guy.


The super bollards being installed on The Strand reclamation. Photos: Murray Guy.

The justification for replacing the old wooden bollards with the hydraulic system was for health and safety and efficiency reasons, says transportation manager Martin Parkes in a letter to Murray.

'An efficiency audit was undertaken which concluded that the expenditure of $50K will be paid back in staff time savings over a 2.5-year period; the audit looked at average time spent dealing with the wooden bollards, the number of visits to/from the car park each day, and number of staff using the car park,” says Martin's email.

Funding for the bollards is from a non-rates funded activity.

Council staff have moved into the southern reclamation carpark because of earlier complaints from retailers and businesses about vehicles being parked on-street in the vicinity of their Devonport Road offices.

'The vehicles parking on-street were in the main associated with our Building Services team who require access to their vehicles numerous times per day,” says Martin.

'Therefore parking within close proximity to the office ensures their business is operating efficiently.

'Following a review of nearby parking areas, it was determined that a revision of the car park layout on The Southern Waterfront area would provide the best solution to the problem.”

The new bollards will also ensure that persons who shouldn't be in that area don't have access to it. The bollards will also assist with the management of events and cruise ship buses, says Martin.

Murray wants to know why they could not have just put in a gate, like at the northern reclamation carpark.

The bollards are sensor activated for departing vehicles, with entry by a keypad.

'Nothing has changed for the existing mooring card holders except the access system,” says Martin.

'Instead of manually unlocking wooden bollards they now have a swipe card to activate the new hydraulic bollards.

'After the building team moved into the offices at Devonport Road, we started getting complaints about the building inspectors parking their cars in the city centre and taking up valuable parks for shoppers.

'The inspectors are in and out of the building all the time and need easy access to their vehicles. The waterfront park was the best solution to the problem.”

You may also like....

38 comments

shame and disgust

Posted on 08-09-2016 07:56 | By Captain Sensible

Now we can all see why this wasteful dysfunctional anti-democratic out-of-touch council is approaching half a billion dollars of debt. Shame on the lot of them. And as for the BS about the money not coming from rates...that is just using creative accounting to hoodwink the ratepayers.


bollocks

Posted on 08-09-2016 08:08 | By dumbkof2

where does the money come fron to go into the non rates funded activity. from the rates i think. what a complete waste. will the council install my gates from the non rates funded activity.


Waste of Money

Posted on 08-09-2016 08:12 | By The author of this comment has been removed.

A simple sign saying "Council Vehicles Only" would have done it, you get a ticket if you don't obey. Come on council staff, start thinking outside the square!


Yeah Right!!

Posted on 08-09-2016 08:13 | By The Hobbit

"Funding for the bollards is from a non-rates funded activity". So this is why there are so many traffic wardens out - collecting revenue to pay for this sort of luxury. Is there such a thing as non-rates funding because no matter which way you look at things the Council have to pay someone to issue fines and to collect/process fines whether it be one of their own employees or a contractor and this pay comes out of rate payers pockets. As for H&S - don't try and use the new Act to get your own way or to justify this sort of trash. Too many people are using the new Act to get their own way when the Act generally doesn't require many actions currently taking place in many workplaces.


The old Health and Safety routine

Posted on 08-09-2016 08:27 | By BullShtAlert

if it's non rates funded, how is it funded?


Moving with the times

Posted on 08-09-2016 08:30 | By Gigilo

Innovative and forward thinking options like this are commendable, what the knockers don't realize that the council service staff these days do far more work than back in their hey days when a horse and cart was the mode of transport.


self funding

Posted on 08-09-2016 08:44 | By hapukafin

Did the council run a sausage sizzle we didnt know bout to fund this.What happens when somone run into one of the bollard and jams it.Not going to be cheap to repair.Is it going to be more sausage sizzles.


question for Murray Guy

Posted on 08-09-2016 08:56 | By Councillorwatch

In the previous election you stood as a councillor at large, then in the byelection you stood in the Mount/Papamoa ward and now it seems the Welcome Bay/Te Papa one is the ward for you. Since I believe you live in the Otumoetai/Pyes Pa ward, could you be seen as an opportunist? I know the councillor salary is attractive, but really? Also is standing for mayor and councillor like double-dipping?


Hmmmm

Posted on 08-09-2016 09:08 | By How about this view!

If council offices were not in the central city would they need to commandeer such a huge swathe of waterfront property for parking council vehicles? The fact that this is happening shouldn't be the main focus, what we should be reviewing is why it needs to happen and looking into the future, as we fund more and more seatwarmers for our burgeoning population, how much more highly priced commercial land will be taken over for no gain to the ratepayers???


Interference

Posted on 08-09-2016 11:11 | By 4AGR8TgaFuture

$50k - surely an operational matter, not governance - some candidates seem to not know the distinction!


fail safe

Posted on 08-09-2016 11:17 | By hapukafin

It has been known overseas that the syncronisation of these bollards can fail and become axel stands for a unsuspecting driver.Whos going to pay for the damages.I guess it will come out of the non rate fund.


4AGR8TgaFuture, more info please

Posted on 08-09-2016 12:22 | By Murray.Guy

4AGR8TgaFuture, I need clarity. As a resident and ratepayer I am concerned that the parking area concerned is not being used to the best advantage of the CBD retailers, I am concerned that an expenditure of $50,000 (which is a ratepayer asset) has been used unnecessarily. Since when am I not allowed to share such a concern, express an opinion as a resident / ratepayer? I am NOT an elected member confined to governance, however, as an elected member, this expenditure does serve to validate elected members looking more closely at budgets, policies and protocols that staff rely on for guidance. This mindset of extravagance is NOT confined to $100k budget items.


golly gosh

Posted on 08-09-2016 12:44 | By old trucker

Funny how this is advertised after they are put in$50,000 come on,a sign would have done,they still havent cut trees back on Bureta hill,they could all move out to Trust Powers old building at Baypark,OH thats right they would not be able to duck over to Red Square for coffee and sit for 1 hr to drink it,and they start at 9 oclock,why do they turn their ID around when out,just wondering,my Tuppence worth, thanks sunlive.


parking problems?

Posted on 08-09-2016 13:03 | By Crash test dummies

So these problems are not and issue for anyone else meriting a thought about fixing it all? Wow $50,000 is a lot for a temporary fix until the new Palace is built?


Wow

Posted on 08-09-2016 13:58 | By overit

How pretentious this Council has become. Got to have all the 'trimmings'....


This one doesn't bother me.

Posted on 08-09-2016 17:19 | By morepork

In the scheme of things it is trivial and the bollards will be more convenient. We don't live in the dark ages. But there should be a full explanation of exactly how the "non-Ratepayer" funding is financed.It's easy to snipe at the Council; they are doing a very bad job, and I can understand Murray Guy wanting to score political points, but I'd really like to see his (and everybody else's) energy channeled into doing something about the latest fiasco with the Administration Building. We should pick our battles (and much more carefully, pick our Council).


Bollards?

Posted on 08-09-2016 17:27 | By Starling

To me this seems to be CEO's decission not one that elected councillors have a say in.


@Councillorwatch

Posted on 08-09-2016 21:16 | By flipper

Seriously, can you not stay on topic for once. You have made it obvious you don't like Murray Guy now grow up - the rest of us are sick of hearing you whinge. If he was spending $50k we would all hear about it but when he tries to reign it in you still bitch!


What a joke

Posted on 09-09-2016 03:15 | By Hot stuff

Non rate payer funded activities , what an utter waste of money this is . Why did they just not put in a gate at a fraction of the cost


Council does

Posted on 09-09-2016 06:10 | By PeterST

exactly what council wants!


Thank you Morepork

Posted on 09-09-2016 08:32 | By Murray.Guy

$50,0000 is far from trivial. Highlighting this gross extravagance is directly related to the administration building in that the same mind-sets that champion $50k bollards also champion $60million buildings. In regards to political point scoring and elections, a moments reflection and you will appreciate my concerns and passion for our city do NOT surface only during an election period. I confess that if re-elected procurement and rate/debt caps fiscal responsibility, will be very much a priority. PS: All expenditure is ratepayer related, directly or indirectly.


@flipper

Posted on 09-09-2016 09:10 | By Councillorwatch

Sorry to ask the hard questions but I never get an answer. Asking about political opportunism is a serious question. I've also asked many times about the money spent by former Cr Guy's council on Baypark and even buying a Speedway. I don't approve of 50k on bollards but I don't approve of even more money $millions) on Baypark too.


Ciouncillorwatch, you lie or are just very forgetful.

Posted on 09-09-2016 12:46 | By Murray.Guy

I will indulge you just this once more. Doesn't it strike you as somewhat ironic you accuse me, who is very open, of not being open, while you refuse to get our from behind your mask. Here's the deal, list all of your often repeated questions and provide them to Sunlive along with permission to disclose your identity and I WILL answer them all again to the best of my ability and within any legal framework, to be in the context of an article. You can even throw in some new questions as I may have missed one, ask about why I never claimed expenses as a Councillor. (edited)


WASTE OF TIME SPACE AND MONEY

Posted on 09-09-2016 16:31 | By kellbell

I agree no reason why this could not just have been dealt with by way of non parking signs and fines. Surely this parking restriction only applies 9 to 5 Monday to Friday anyway or is it available for private use too.What's going to happen when and if ever these noddies move into the new palace.


golly gosh

Posted on 09-09-2016 17:40 | By old trucker

See on computer that 2 of the $200.000 BMW goverment cars have been damaged on these type of Bollards in wellington, IMM be interested to see if it happens here,my shillings worth, thanyou sunlive


What's up Doc'

Posted on 10-09-2016 19:37 | By ROCCO

Whoever overthought up this little doozie needs a psychiatric assessment pronto.Start at the top and work down.


Have any of you people;

Posted on 14-09-2016 16:15 | By Localfella

Actually ever tried to remove the manual bollards? They are a bloody nightmare, the holes get filled up with rubbish, the bollards get stuck down by hydraulic forces, locks fail, bollards roll away in short they are basically useless... With labour and maintenance, to install these at $50K vs the maintenance on automated gates (and including vandal repairs and asthetics) this isn't expensive. Seems that council bashing is the thing to do at the moment, how about you people try engaging your brains prior to going to full-open mob mentality???


Localfella, bollocks!

Posted on 16-09-2016 00:43 | By Murray.Guy

Nothing is required! No timber bollards, no $50,000 wasted. Just a few, at best, 'no entry' or reserved signs and marking as elsewhere around our city! This is NOT an underground private car park. A galvanised swing bar might be handy for night time as with the Dive Crescent end.


@Localfella Brainfade

Posted on 16-09-2016 07:07 | By kellbell

Read my lips you do not need any costly bollards or barriers simply signs(inexpensive option) spelling out restricted parking say 9am to 5pm on weekdays only rest of time it is public parking.Threats or fines and tow away zone would deter most transgressors. Guess that is too simple for Council fawny adherents to comprehend would rather spend obscene amounts of money on gadgetry. LOL


Council Parking

Posted on 16-09-2016 12:57 | By flyingtoaster

Is someone trying to say that ONLY council owned vehicles park there? Any vehicles NOT owned by the TCC, i.e. privately owned vehicles of employees, councillors and subcontractors, should have to pay for parking, just like everyone else.


Signs Instead

Posted on 16-09-2016 14:18 | By flyingtoaster

If simple signs were put up, then vehicles breaching the restriction could be ticketed = extra revenue for TCC and extra revenue for towing companies. So, spending 50K on bollards is a poorly thoughtout decision. But I guess this is the sort of wastefull and illconceived decision we have come to expect from TCC


$50,000 on bollards is bollock!

Posted on 16-09-2016 15:33 | By Crash test dummies

But sadly reflects the likely state and quality of the decision making process across the board at TCC, the waste is colossal, the add on the rates annual for these mindless decisions perhaps can not be counted as so large.


@ flying toaster saucer whatever

Posted on 16-09-2016 16:09 | By ROCCO

Yes this must be only for the use of TCC Council staff who will be issued with the swipe cards anyone else will have got the card from an authorised person. Woebetide them if they are spotted in the carpark by any of the Councilwatchers someone wlll indeed have their guts for garters,because that will be a fraud on Ratepayers.


@ ROCCO

Posted on 16-09-2016 19:25 | By Crash test dummies

Isn't already a rort on ratepayers, the spend up of $50,000?


Ridiculous!

Posted on 18-09-2016 10:19 | By Raewyn

The minutes of Council meetings should all be put on website so ratepayers can see who votes on these crazy waste of money projects!


@ Raewyn

Posted on 01-10-2016 23:50 | By Crash test dummies

The last thing that they want is you to know who voted for it, you may not want to vote for them if you did.


Some facts.

Posted on 02-10-2016 11:50 | By Accountable

I was in communication with the Council CEO the day before this story was released and he knew nothing about these bollards as my concern was to open this area up for public parking and he thought that that was a reasonable request. The Councillors themselves knew nothing of the bollards.The issue here is the Council Staff are not accountable to anyone when spending large sums of money on unnecessary and unwelcome projects. Hopefully a new Council will be able to rectify this glaringly obvious major issue.


Hmmm

Posted on 05-10-2016 08:28 | By Politically Incorrect

I don't know what the average cost of these bollards are, maybe they are expensive, maybe not. The thing is, putting up signs is one thing, but how many of you would start screaming 'incompetent council, where are the barriers?' the minute some hoon decided to drive in and do doughnuts on the grass, costing $100's of thousands to rectify? $50k is a small price to pay for protecting the area, and will pay for itself quite quickly in lost time trying to even locate a key let alone wrangle the old bollards.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.