|
Resolution
number OR/2015/26
MOVED by Chairperson DEC Simpson, seconded by
Member M Thomas:
That the
Orākei Local Board:
i)
receives the report and the attached
feedback from Orākei submitters on the draft Long-term Plan 2015 – 2025.
ii)
delegates the Chair and Deputy Chair to
provide feedback on the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 on behalf of the
Orakei Local Board during discussions with the Auckland Council Budget
Committee.
iii)
requests that the governing body amend
the draft LTP to bring forward the upgrade of the Meadowbank Community Centre
from 2020/21 to 2015/16.
iv)
notes that while the views of Orakei
residents are fairly clear and consistent with those expressed in other
forums, it considers some of the LTP consultation included leading questions
that are likely to have favoured certain responses.
v)
notes that a majority of submitters
expressed support for the Orakei Local Board’s proposals.
vi)
notes the Orakei Local Board area again
received one of the highest number of submissions at 1,648.
vii)
notes that 80 per cent of Orakei
submitters support an “average” rates increase of less than 3.5 per cent
which is exactly the same as the regional result.
viii)
requests the Budget Committee of the
Auckland Council to find at least the approximately $15 million required to
reduce the “average” rates increase from 3.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent.
ix)
notes the overwhelming direction from
submitters to spend less in the Governance and Support areas of council and
also the strong support for less spending in Economic and Cultural areas.
x)
notes that achieving a $15 million
saving would require only a 1.7 per cent reduction in the $900 million annual
staff and consultants expenses.
xi)
notes Orakei submitters are not
convinced by the Auckland Plan transport network proposals, with 60 per cent
supporting another option.
xii)
notes that 64 per cent of Orakei
submitters oppose the Mayors investment plan for Auckland.
xiii)
notes that only 30 per cent of Orakei
submitters support the Uniform Annual General Charge rate at the current
level.
xiv)
believes that this lack of support for
the Auckland Plan transport network proposals is likely to be because they do
not include the Orakei Board’s top transport priorities, which include
progressing Tamaki Drive Master Plan projects and the Selwyn Train Station
proposal.
xv)
confirms the following list of advocacy
points, based on community feedback and board member discussions, for its workshop
with the Budget Committee on 29 April 2015:
Regional Proposals - top four consultation topics
|
Investing in
Auckland
|
|
The Orakei
Local Board supports an overall rates increase of 2.5 per cent, not the
proposed 3.5 per cent increase. The Orakei community is also strongly
opposed to the 3.5 per cent increase. The Board and its constituents
support making savings in the governance and support activity area and
reviewing the operating expenditure on Ports of Auckland that is included
in this line. We do not feel confident ratepayers are getting value for
money from this expenditure; for example some of the planning work council
and its subsidiaries undertake seems to serve little purpose. We also
support making savings in the economic and cultural activity area.
|
|
Fixing
Transport
|
|
Neither the
basic transport network nor the Auckland Plan transport network provide
positive transport solutions for the Orakei Local Board area. The board's
top priority advocacy projects, which have been extensively consulted on
with residents, are not included in either option: developing a new train
station behind Selwyn College in the Pourewa valley and separating traffic
along Tamaki Drive through THE-C boardwalk. The cases for tolls or petrol
taxes have not been well made and more time is needed to better explain and
consult with our residents on these options before a preferred option can
be agreed.
|
|
Your Rates
|
|
The Orakei
Local Board supports increasing the UAGC to $500 as the burden on Orakei
residential ratepayers is already too great. We also consider any reduction
in the business differential should take into account the impact on
residential ratepayers. There was more support for increasing the UAGC in
Orakei than in the rest of the region and a large majority of Orakei LTP
submitters opposed reducing the business differential. The board considers
the business rates question was poorly framed and did not explain the
council’s policy on this issue. We support a 10 per cent cap on residential
rates increases in 2015/16.
|
|
Housing and
Development
|
|
Not enough
information has been provided on this and from the Orakei Local Board's
perspective it is not clear what the benefits are: it does not guarantee
key Orakei placemaking projects, such as the Tamaki Drive Masterplan, will
be advanced. A majority of Orakei LTP submitters opposed this initiative,
in contrast to the rest of the region.
|
Local Priorities
|
Advocacy request
|
Activity area
|
Why is it a priority
|
Funding implications or options
|
|
Upgrade Meadowbank Community Centre
|
Parks, Community and Lifestyle
|
The facility has not been fit for purpose for a number of years
and renovations have been deferred as demand has increased. As it is
centrally located and easily accessible, an upgrade would benefit a wide
area. Consultation on the LTP and the LBP showed a majority of the Orakei
community support upgrading the centre. The Community Facilities Action
Plan did not rate the project an ‘action priority’.
|
The projected cost is $3.6m. In the current LTP the project was
scheduled for 2016/17 but this has been pushed back to 2020/21 in the
proposed LTP. The Orakei Local Board requests that this is brought forward
to 2015/16.
|
|
Advocate to
the governing body for a more equitable balance between larger-scale
regional initiatives and investment at the local level
|
Governance and Support
|
This is a general advocacy point in response to the Orakei Local
Board area paying the highest residential rates in the region and getting a
relatively low level of council investment. The projects that are being
progressed in the LTP do not always reflect local priorities. The Board
proposes that local boards' top priorities should replace the lowest
regional priorities.
|
No direct funding implications overall, but would result in a
decrease in regional projects and an increase in local projects.
|
|
Reduce the
burden on ratepayers
|
Governance and Support
|
A clear message from the Orakei community is that the rates
burden is a significant issue for residents. In addition to increasing the
UAGC, the Orakei Local Board asks that the governing body explore other
options for keeping rates down, including reviewing its ownership of
non-core elements of council’s holdings in the port and the airport and
slowing the move to fully fund depreciation.
|
No direct funding implications.
|
CCO Priorities
|
Advocacy request
|
Activity area
|
Why is it a priority
|
Funding implications or options
|
|
Tamaki Harbour Edge Connector boardwalk
|
AT - Cycleways and walkways
|
This is a priority project from the Tamaki Drive Masterplan, which
was developed through community consultation. The community has expressed
strong support for the project through the LTP and the Local Board Plan and
the Orakei Local Board considers that insufficient progress has been made
on this project since it was signed and endorsed by the mayor.
|
Not costed
|
|
Advocacy request
|
Activity area
|
Why is it a priority
|
Funding implications or options
|
|
Selwyn/Pourewa Train Station
|
AT - Public transport
|
The Orakei community expressed strong support for this project
through consultation on the LTP and the LBP. It contributes to the Auckland
Plan transformational shift of moving to outstanding public transport
within one network. AT is undertaking a feasibility study and this project
must be included in the final LTP.
|
Not costed
|
Regional Proposals – other proposals with local impact
|
Comment on
proposed level of service changes
|
|
The Orakei
Local Board supports in principle efforts to drive efficiencies in council
services. However, very little information has been provided about the
proposed level of service changes in the Long-term Plan Revised Local
Budgets document and we cannot endorse them until we have a clearer
indication of the impact on our constituents. We also support further
investigation of other options, such as the sale of non-core elements of
council’s shareholdings in the port and airport that would allow council to
minimise rates increases and maintain levels of service. Below are some
specific comments on proposals to change services.
|
|
Proposal
|
Feedback
|
Funding implications or options
|
|
Standardise
community library opening hours, including reducing central city library
opening hours to match those of our local community libraries
|
The Orakei Local Board opposes levels of service cuts in
libraries as this is a core council activity and the case has not been made
for changes to the status quo. We do not support a reduction in number of
opening hours.
|
See board proposals for minimising rates increases.
|
|
Remove some
street gardens which have high maintenance and safety costs compared to the
benefit they offer and replant some street gardens with low maintenance
perennials
|
This is an example of a proposal where we need more information
before commenting, for example: more detail about what is proposed, the potential
savings compared with savings from other proposals, and a better indication
of how this might affect street gardens in Orakei.
|
See board proposals for minimising rates increases.
|
|
Replace some shrubberies in
local parks with grass and maintain through mowing
|
The board opposes service level cuts in this area as it was not
consulted on and we do not believe adequate information has been provided
to make a judgement about the impact of this proposal.
|
See board proposals for minimising rates increases.
|
|
Reduce maintenance frequency
(e.g. weeding) for shrubbery in local parks
|
The board opposes service level cuts in this area as it was not
consulted on and we do not believe adequate information has been provided
to make a judgement about the impact of this proposal. For example, no
seasonal variation in the frequency of maintenance appears to have been
considered.
|
See board proposals for minimising rates increases.
|
|
Greater use
of sprays in parks, instead of mechanical means, for maintaining grass edges
|
The board opposes service level cuts in this area as it was not
consulted on and we do not believe adequate information has been provided
to make a judgement about the impact of this proposal.
|
See board proposals for minimising rates increases.
|
|
Increase
the time taken to deliver new library collection items onto the library
shelves and introduce a new fee when users do not pick up a request book
from a library
|
We support a $2 penalty charge for items that are requested but
yet not picked up as disincentive to this costly behaviour.
|
Proposal has potential savings.
|
|
Proposal
|
Feedback
|
Funding implications or options
|
|
· Growing
levels of community participation across the region
· Communities
contributing towards the achievement of outcomes that meet their priorities
· Local
prioritisation and delivery
· Diverse
community needs being recognised and responded to effectively
· Council
achieving better outcomes, tailored to local community priorities
· A
reduction in the cost to deliver community development activity, over time.
|
We support a
community-led approach to community development and safety in principle but
it is not clear how ready community groups are to take on this role. We would require a thorough assessment of
community capacity and capability in each local board area before
commenting
|
N/A
|
CARRIED
|
