|
Resolution
number WTK/2025/91
MOVED by Chairperson
G Presland, seconded by Member L Manley:
That
the Waitakere Ranges Local Board:
a)
welcome the opportunity to provide
feedback on Multi-board Services.
b)
note that it is vital that the public
can understand how council decisions are made. The Multi-board Services proposal
makes an already complex system worse.
Funding
c)
support option 4 - additional funding
coming from the Governing Body for Multi-board Services.
d)
do not support the proposed funding
options for Multi-board Services for the following reasons:
i)
it is said to be
aiming for fairness and equity, though arguably achieves the opposite. It
favours local board areas with significant assets, while asking local boards
with fewer assets to pay for access.
ii)
the service user
data is not frequent or dependable enough to inform annual planning (budget)
decisions.
iii)
it will have a
negative financial impact on the Waitakere Ranges because even though we have
a number of assets of regional significance few if any would currently
qualify for funding.
iv)
note that the model
only considers where a person lives and not where they might go to
work, receive education, do their shopping, or visit for other reasons.
v)
note that the
fairer funding formula based (mainly) on residential population, while
multi-board services is reversing this by focusing on destinations rather
than residences.
vi)
note that rates are
collected regionally so it is reasonable to expect residents to use local
services whether or not they are in the area where they live.
vii)
note that areas
with significant assets like the central city already enjoy economic benefits
and the funding options would provide even greater funding paid for by areas
with few if any qualifying assets.
Criteria
e)
note that only a
limited class of assets will qualify and assets that are popular visitor
destinations such as the west coast beaches in the Waitakere Ranges, and
natural assets, are not identified in the proposal as multi-board
services. Visitors to the Waitakere Ranges come from all over the west
and wider Auckland, a significant amount of time and resource goes into
looking after these places, although the cost may not be so easily
identifiable. The investigation into multi-board services has not taken a
holistic view.
f)
note that the
Waitākere Ranges Local Board invests well over $500,000 into
environmental outcomes for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area as a place of
national significance, with its mix of local and regional parks, public and
private land, though the whole is inseparable. We would like to see a funding
formula that considers the needs of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area as a
whole. The proposed Multi-board Service funding approach is compartmentalized
and does not appear to provide any real value.
g)
note the community-run art gallery,
Te Uru: Waitakere Contemporary Gallery, is not identified in the list of
multi-board services though meets the criteria (receiving an operating grant
of $772,203; more than 50 per cent of users come from outside the local board
area, including 20 per cent being visitors from overseas or other parts of
New Zealand). We are not arguing for this to be funded as a multi-board
service.
Governance
h)
do NOT support shifting
decision-making to the Governing Body for swimming pools or other classes of
assets.
i)
support keeping Multi-board Services under the over-sight of local boards.
j)
support closer
local board collaboration on multi-board services to enable sub-regional (or
wider) discussions to take place. As an example, the west coast surf
lifesaving clubs (Piha, United North Piha and Karekare) recently raised with
the Waitakere Ranges Local Board an issue with volunteer lifeguards access
swim lane time for training at Westwave, in Henderson, the west’s only
pool. Surf lifesaving is an essential service to enable region-wide visitors
to safely use west coast beaches.
k)
recommend the Multi-Board Services
work be re-orientated to support governance collaboration.
i)
recommend that when
new ‘multi-board’ facilities, eg the Whau swimming pool, are
being planned that local boards from the catchment the facility is expected
to serve are included in the planning process.
CARRIED
|
