Dear Wellington City Council,

I am interesting in the economic analysis used to support the Island Bay Cycleway. The Executive Summary of the "Wellington Cycleway Feasibility Study - Island Bay to CBD" by Opus - May 2013 ("IB Feasibility Study"), includes the following:

"An economic efficiency assessment was then completed. The number of current and anticipated users was forecast. 439 existing cyclists on the route are projected. Following completion of the cycleway 400 new users are forecast. By considering Health, Safety and Travel Time benefits the economic efficiency of the proposal was determined to be 3.7." (page 3)

Section 8 of the IB Feasibility Study outlines the Cost Estimate & Efficiency Forecasts including:
* Summary of Option Cost Estimates (Table 18)
* Forecast of Daily Trips on Cycleway (Table 19)
* Benefit Stream Estimates and BCR (Table 21)
* Sensitivity Tests on preferred option (Table 23)

Supporting the above is the following information in appendices:
* Appendix B of the IB Feasibility Study includes printouts of the costs of various cycleway options.
* Appendix C of the IB Feasibility Study includes printouts of the cycling forecasts
* Appendix D of the IB Feasibility Study includes printouts of the Economic Worksheets to calculate the various costs and benefits as well as the benefit cost ratios.

1) Can I have a copy of the detailed calculation spreadsheets printed in Appendix B of the IB Feasibility Study includes printouts of the costs of various cycleway options ?

2) Can I have a copy of the detailed calculation spreadsheets printed in Appendix C of the IB Feasibility Study includes printouts of the cycling forecasts ?

3) Can I have a copy of the detailed calculation spreadsheets printed in Appendix D of the IB Feasibility Study includes printouts of the Economic Worksheets to calculate the various costs and benefits as well as the benefit cost ratios ?

As this information is held in electronic form, I would prefer it was provided in its complete and original electronic format. Also I would also prefer that all correspondence be via the FYI web site.

Yours faithfully,

Tony Randle

Dear Chris Brown,

I understand the results from the analysis spreadsheets are printed in the appendices but l am requesting a copy of the original analysis spreadsheets. These will include how the results were calculated and the original source data used as the basis for the results.

Does this clarify my request ?

Yours sincerely,

Tony Randle

Dear Chris Brown,

Thanks for the update, but I would have assumed the WCC has access to obtain these spreadsheets from whoever holds them (which I assume is Opus International Consultants Ltd) on request ? If so, then I would ask that the WCC obtain the requested information for their contracted provider of the report.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Randle

Dear Chris Brown,

Can the WCC please confirm it has agreed to provide the requested information subject to the payment of the requested charge because the information must come from the consultants ?

Yours sincerely,

Tony Randle

Dear Chris Brown,

Two days ago I asked the WCC the following simple question of clarification WRT my information request: "Can the WCC please confirm it has agreed to provide the requested information subject to the payment of the requested charge because the information must come from the consultants ?"

Can the WCC please provide the answer to this point of clarification on its previous response or outline when the WCC can provide its answer to this simple question ?

Yours sincerely,

Tony Randle

Dear Chris Brown,

The lack of any WCC response to my TWO previous replies is very frustrating and this is becoming a joke really. You also have not responded to my voicemail last week to call me about the hold-up.

Just to be clear:
* I would like to proceed with this request further
* Before discussing payment of the charge, I ask the WCC to clearly state it has agreed to release all the requested spreadsheet information subject to this charge. This is because I need to understand if any of the requested information will be withheld before I can consider payment of the substantial charge required by the WCC.
* I submitted my request on 27 June, 2016 and so by my estimation, the information response from the WCC was due on 25 July, 2016. The WCC is now a week overdue in its substantive response

I am happy to discuss if required (you have my phone number from my voicemail).

Can I at least get an update on when the WCC will provide its next substantive response ?

Yours sincerely,

Tony Randle

Dear Chris Brown,

Thanks for the reply and confirming that the request for information has been granted although I do not understand why this point of clarification has taken more than 5 minutes let alone more than 5 days.

Also, apologies for the voicemail message to you not being audible.

WRT to today’s WCC response stating:
"Just to confirm, the Council is not overdue with the request, as you were provided a response, and advised of a charge for information - to that end, we have met the terms of the consent."

IMO the WCC substantive response IS late because he WCC response of 25 July 2016 does not contain all the required information including "whether the request will be granted". This is why I had to ask for this key element of the WCC LGOIMA decision in my follow-up messages on 25th July, 27th July and again today (See the Office of the Ombudsman's Guide "The LGOIMA for local government agencies" section on "Communicating the decision" for more details.)

Finally, it is my assertion that there is a significant public interest in understanding the original justification that supported the WCC decision to implement a protected cycleway in Island Bay. I and others are interested in this information as it would contribute to informing interested stakeholders on the WCC decision to build a protected cycleway on The Parade of Island Bay.

I would especially highlight, with respect to the potential public interest, the following decision of the council Transport and Urban Committee of 30 June 2016 to commence a review of the Island Bay Cycleway:
"2.4 Wellington City - Urban Cycleways Programme
...
Resolved
That the Transport and Urban Development Committee:
1. Receive the information.
2. Note the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) commissioned Morrison Low report on Wellington’s Urban Cycleways Programme.
3. Agree that officers proceed with actions listed and report back to Committee on 11 August 2016.
4. Agree that a refreshed programme consider the whole Southern route (ie. Berhampore and Newtown) and advancing the investment for a cycle route from Te Kopahou Reserve to the Airport as part of the Great Harbour Way cycle way route.
5. Agree that re-engagement with the Island Bay community commence as soon as practical and be community-led with the detailed engagement approach to be developed by representatives from the Island Bay Residents’ Association, local businesses, Cycle Aware Wellington and interested stakeholders together with council and be ready for presentation to the September 2016 Transport and Urban Development Committee meeting.
6. Agree that any consultation regarding changes to the cycle way in Island Bay take as long as necessary to get a suitable outcome and include a full range of options, including the status quo and original designs.
7. Agree that a cycleway along Cobham Drive and around the bays to Ngauranga from Miramar, as part of the Great Harbour Way ie. an iconic harbour side cycleway, is considered as part of the refreshed programme.
...
Majority Vote: 13:0"
(refer T&U meeting minutes pages 30 - 33)

I would like to obtain the requested information from the WCC in support of an informed submission to this public consultation on the Island Bay Cycleway. I would note that my requirement for this information is becoming urgent as any submission must be provided by the end of this month (the results of this community engagement are to be reported to the 15 September T&U Committee).

Can the WCC please confirm that, in requesting a charge to provide this information, that it has considered the public interest in possibly remitting this charge ? I would appreciate urgency in providing this information.

Yours sincerely,
Tony Randle

Dear Chris Brown,

I originally requested information on the Island Bay Cycleway Costs and Benefit Calculations on Monday 27th June (35 working days ago).
In your most recent response on behalf of the WCC (3rd August), you said "I will provide you with the finalised quote as soon as I am able to do so".

Another week has passed and yet no quote has been provided by the WCC. I cannot confirm whether I wish to proceed with my request without this quote.

Can I again ask for an update on when I might expect to receive basic information promised by the WCC to progress my LGOIMA request ... this time being the quote to provide the requested information ?

I also want to follow-up on the other issue outlined in my previous correspondence on the 2 August where I stated:
“Finally, it is my assertion that there is a significant public interest in understanding the original justification that supported the WCC decision to implement a protected cycleway in Island Bay. I and others are interested in this information as it would contribute to informing interested stakeholders on the WCC decision to build a protected cycleway on The Parade of Island Bay. … I would like to obtain the requested information from the WCC in support of an informed submission to this public consultation on the Island Bay Cycleway. I would note that my requirement for this information is becoming urgent as any submission must be provided by the end of this month (the results of this community engagement are to be reported to the 15 September T&U Committee).
Can the WCC please confirm that, in requesting a charge to provide this information, that it has considered the public interest in possibly remitting this charge ?”

The WCC response of 3 August related to this issue states:
“Additionally, yes the Council had considered remitting the charge, but it is not information we hold ourselves and our contractors are required to undertake a certain amount of work to provide the spreadsheet - which is outside the scope of the agreed work and is therefore not covered by the agreement between the Council and the contractor. To this end, the Council is required to meet the cost of the provision of information it does not require, except in passing the information on to yourself. The cost of this information is therefore to be passed on to you.”

As a ratepayer I am concerned about the fact that the WCC believes it “does not require” the supporting evidence behind the benefit and cost figures used in its own million dollar business cases.
However, on the 2nd of August I actually asked about whether the WCC applied any “public interest” consideration in its decision about the amount I, as the requestor, is to be charged to provide the requested information. The WCC response does not address this question.

So I ask AGAIN (now in CAPS so the WCC cannot miss it):
Can the WCC please confirm that, in requesting a charge to provide this information, THAT THE WCC HAS CONSIDERED THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN POSSIBLY REMITTING THIS CHARGE ?

Finally Chris, I must also comment on your statement of 2 August "We are trying to work with you on this, not against you." I am certain that you, as a profession council employee, ARE trying to work with me on this but the repeated delays in WCC responses are evidence to the contrary. Everyone following this must realise that delay after delay in providing even basic information to support this LGOIMA request from other parts of the WCC on which you rely makes the reality that the WCC IS working against and delaying the release of this key information on the Island Bay Cycleway.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Randle

Dear Chris Brown,

Thank you for (finally) providing the WCC charge amount to provide the information from transport consultants, Opus. The WCC response includes the summary from Opus on the information to be provided and the effort claimed by Opus to provide this information:
“There are 35 worksheets spread across 11 work books that will need to be
cleaned (to have our IP removed). In addition, the crash costs were
calculated using the old EEM software so we would only be able to provide
the output files as PDFs (as per the preliminary report appendices)
Assuming:
3 hours for a grad to clean the spreadsheets (5 min per worksheet)
1 hour for briefing and review from Sam
2 hours for time spent to date investigating
1 hour for project Management
We estimate $1,000 (excl GST)”

Unfortunately there are still a number of issues that need confirmation as outlined below.

1) I note with considerable concern that the OPUS is charging to remove some of the information as the WCC “estimate” "There are 35 worksheets spread across 11 work books that will need to be cleaned (to have our IP removed)" and “3 hours for a grad to clean the spreadsheets (5 min per worksheet)”.
On the 25th July I specifically asked “Can the WCC please confirm it has agreed to provide the requested information subject to the payment of the requested charge because the information must come from the consultants ?”. The WCC stated in in its response of the 2nd of August “Yes, the spreadsheet information will be released once the charge has been paid and the information is provided by the contractors.”
It now appears that the WCC is reneging on its promise to provide all the requested spreadsheet calculation information and is permitting the contractor to remove information used to support the calculations used by the WCC in deciding to build the cycleway on the Island Bay Parade.

The required $1,000 charge is a considerable amount of money and obviously I need to be sure I will be provided with the information promised by the WCC before I can commit to paying this charge. Can the WCC confirm that I will receive a complete copy of the spreadsheets used to justify the Island Bay Cycleway as promised would be provided by the WCC on 2nd of August should I decide to pay the requested charge ?

2) It appears that I am to be charged for work completed by Opus to investigate provision of this information and provide the estimate for charging the WCC:
“2 hours for time spent to date investigating”

Can the WCC please confirm it wishes to retain this element of the charge ? I ask because I do not believe that effort expended to date by Opus in support of the WCC assessment of providing this information is chargeable to the requester under Ombudsman Charging Guidelines.

3) As I have previously stated, I do require this information to be provided by the end of the month so it can be available to support any public submission to the Island Bay Cycleway Review currently underway by the WCC. Going through the 35 worksheets used to calculate the Island Bay benefits and costs will obviously take some time.

Can the WCC also confirm the deadline by which I have to pay the charge in order to have the information provided to me by 31 August 2016 ?

4) In addition to the above new issue, my earlier correspondence also asked the WCC for one other key piece of information in relation to the WCC charge for this information requested in my email the 2nd of August, and repeated again below.
"So I ask AGAIN (now in CAPS so the WCC cannot miss it):
Can the WCC please confirm that, in requesting a charge to provide this information, THAT THE WCC HAS CONSIDERED THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN POSSIBLY REMITTING THIS CHARGE ?"
Having received this estimate, I also note that the WCC is requiring a charge of $1,000 for 7 hours work (an average of $143/hour). The public interest test required of LGOIMA can also impact the rate charged which is further reason why I need to understand WCC that have included this consideration in their decision to charge for this information.

When may I expect to receive the confirmation from the WCC in requiring a charge of $1,000 to provide this information, that the WCC has considered the public interest in possibly remitting this charge this information needed by myself and others to inform the public about a decision currently under review ?

Finally, the constant delays to progress this request are simply appalling. The WCC outlined it was “just waiting for a final quote from the contractors for the information” on the 2nd of August and it has taken nearly 3 weeks just to get this quote. I am still waiting for the other information requested on the same day being confirmation that the WCC has considered the “Public Interest” in requiring the charge for this information. I still do not have sufficient information, due to WCC delays, to confirm whether or not I will pay the required charge.

The previous WCC response commenced with the statement “I will ask the relevant Council Officers to expedite the collation of the information most recently requested.” I hope the next substantive response from the WCC will not take the over two weeks to “expedite”.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Randle