Dear Hutt City Council,
Could you please advise and/or provide information on the following:
1. Prior to 2020 did Wellington Water (WWL) periodically produce asset management plans (AMPs) which contained projects (capital) and programmes (operating) designed to maintain and improve the three waters networks over time, and were those plans reviewed and approved by independent experts, and audited by the Office of the Auditor General?
2. Prior to 2020 did WWL ever express any concern to Council, that the AMPs which they produced did not represent good asset management practice. If so, please provide details of any such advice given to Council.
3. Can the Council confirm that the budget guidelines given to WWL prior to 2020 as part of the annual planning round were indeed just guidelines, and where WWL expressed any concern about the level of funding of any particular capital project or operating programme, please provide details of the concerns expressed by WWL.
4. Prior to 2020 did WWL ever convey to HCC any specific instances where HCC budget restraint meant that WWL were unable to deliver the projects or programmes in the AMPs? If so, please provide details of those projects/programmes, and of any advice given to Council on these issues, and details of any discussion or agreement, or lack of agreement.
5. In the cases of the trunk wastewater main down Randwick Road and the stormwater main under the lower part of Dowse Drive, did WWL express any concern about the risk analysis associated with delaying those projects? If so, please provide the concerns expressed by WWL.
6. Can the Council confirm that the below accurately summarises the annual budget process pertaining the three waters and, if not, in what way is it not accurate?
a) WWL periodically (every 3 years?) produced AMPs for each of the three waters
b) Each year, Council would give all departments, including WWL, budget guidelines within which they were asked to live.
c) In WWLs case, they were therefore asked to deliver the capital projects and operating programmes in the AMPs, within those guidelines, if possible.
d) Where WWL considered that was not possible, then WWL would notify HCC that they needed extra funding in that particular area. HCC would discuss the matter and bring it to a resolution. Once agreed, HCC would either find extra funding within the infrastructure group budget, or at a higher level by way of discussion at a senior level. There were times when HCC pushed back on some of WWL’s requests and WWL would then review and/or reconsider, but the final outcome was always by agreement, never by way of any flat directive from HCC.
e) While it could be said that up to 2019 WWL were operating under a financial strategy which looked to impose limits on spend, both HCC and WWL were under no illusion that good asset management practice came first, and the budget guidelines were simply guidelines, designed to impose financial prudence on the relationship, in other words - simply sensible annual planning.

Yours faithfully,

Max Shierlaw

Dear Hutt City Council,

Please acknowledge receipt of my request,

Yours faithfully,

Max Shierlaw