27 Mar 2018

Minutes of the RRA Meeting to Discuss the 10 Year Budget and Auckland Plan 2050, 22 March 2018

by | posted in: Latest News | 0

Report on Remuera Residents Association Meeting to Discuss the 10 Year Budget and Auckland Plan 2050

Approximately 30 people attended the meeting – some of whom have not been at a previous meeting of the RRA. David Wong represented the OLB and apologies received from Councillor Desley Simpson, Orakei Board Members, Colin Davis, Kit Parkinson and Troy Churton.

Chairman Iain Valentine opened the meeting and said that this was the opportunity for residents to ask questions and make comments and then to please all go online and fill in the questionnaire on the Budget and Plan.

Comments are noted for each of the questions and then a sample vote taken.

Question 1 – Regional Fuel Tax

  1. More equitable way of getting money for transport needs
  2. A regressive tax as people who live further away from where they work will have higher transport cost as for many there are no viable public transport options available to them and in many cases will be many years away before there will be – if ever.
  3. No measurable outcome – where and what is money raised being spent on there is nothing identifiable it is all unspecified
  4. Lack of accountability
  5. Will add to the cost of living in Auckland
  6. Indefinite term could last forever and what happens when the majority of people have electric cars
  7. It would appear that the Government and Auckland Council have already decided the tax will go ahead as there is legislation going through at present that will make it a reality.
  8. How will AT fund development if they don’t have this tax.

Meeting Vote:            Support 3                   Do Not Support 15               Other 6

Question 2 – Targeted Water Tax

  1. Recognised that something has to be done about the problem but a targeted tax is unfair
  2. Should be a uniform tax as everyone will benefit from the harbours, beaches and stream not being polluted.
  3. Not fair on single occupiers
  4. Just a way of getting more revenue but keeping the rates at the election promos of 2.5% – is this being honest with ratepayers
  5. Ability to pollute should be based on amount of area and land usage – far more equitable to base on amount of land areas and usage of water, so what is proposed is not a fair tax.
  6. Shallowness of reasoning given by Council
  7. User pay is the norm, this tax is just easy for Council to implement – sloppy, lazy and unfair!

Meeting Vote           Support 0                      Do Not Support 8                 Other 22

Question 3 – Targeted Tax to invest more in Protecting the Environment

  1. Everyone agreed that Auckland’s growth is putting pressure on the environment and something needs to be done
  2. We need to protect our Kauri Trees but not enough is known about the disease and can we actually stop it. A recent Islands in the Gulf programme showed that kauri on an island which is closed to the public has significant kauri die back and so is this disease a natural process, part of evolution.
  3. This tax once again is just based on ability to pay and many of the comment made about the water tax can be applied to this tax as well

Meeting Vote            Support for either A or B 0     Do Not Support     7          Other 22

Question 4 – Rates Increases

  1. The Mayor needs to explain the policy changes he is proposing, felt that what has been published is not transparent. People not happy with the Business rates compared to residential rates
  2. Would prefer Business rates to be higher as more businesses are moving into the suburbs and people running home offices and employing staff in their home office.
  3. The way this rate increase is being done is sneaky
  4. The comment that without this level of rate increase the Council would have to reduce existing service levels to such things as Libraries, Art Galleries etc is a threat and plays on the emotion that people have about these services. It was noted that nothing is said about Ateed and the amount they spend on unnecessary activities and travel.
  5. Comment made that Ateed is not needed for the next few years as we have more tourist than we can cope with, Team New Zealand have done the job for them ensuring that we will have plenty of tourists and money being spent in the region for the next few year
  6. Council needs to look at itself and become more efficient and cut its costs.

Meeting Vote             Support 0                               Do Not Support 20                Other 8

Question 5 – Accommodation Providers Tax

  1. Administrative nightmare – more employees needed to police this, if Queenstown Southern Lakes has 3 people employed to do this how many will Auckland need?
  2. Owner is still paying rates whether tourists or friends and family staying
  3. The Question is flawed it doesn’t say if it is specifically for tourists only. Could be skewed to anybody renting out a place.
  4. It will be an income tax nightmare.
  5. Leave it to Inland Revenue to sort out
  6. Why is Waiheke in Zone B and therefore at a lower rate when it is one of the most popular places for people doing a short term let??

Meeting Vote              Support 0                   Do Not Support   28              Other 0

General comment made by several people that the Council will need to employ a lot more people to implement the new taxes proposed.

Auckland will not be a liveable city as people will be unable to afford to live here

It would appear that the Council is using targeted taxes so that they can keep to the impossible promise of keeping rate increase at 2.5%

Question 6 – Local Board Priorities – ORAKEI

  1. Key Advocacy project being the walking & cycling linkage from Meadowbank to Kohi/Mission Bay – large proportion of discretionary funding absorbed in this project, that should have been part of the original region wide/ NZTA Shared Path investment. Obviously worthy of priority
  2. Several of other priorities – e.g. pest management, healthy waterways – have crossover with targeted rates – blurring of responsibilities
  3. Nothing in Orakei plan designated for Remuera – no change contemplated for 10 years – ignoring the fact that it is the largest suburb. All others have some form of Community Centre – a Focal point – that is community focussed.

Meeting Vote           Support 0                      Do Not Support 8                 Other 15

Question 7 – Other Matters

  1. CCO Accountability Policy amendments – long overdue
  2. Dis-establish Auckland Council Investments Ltd – overdue
  3. Waste service charges (targeted rate – user pays per lift) – real concern with the increased targeted rate, plus new bin lift charge and impracticality of the 3rd Experience in Wales proved 3rd bin did not work. Charging for bin lift will cause problems with people putting rubbish into other people’s bins that may not be suitable for type of bin. Neighbours will get upset with each other if this occurs. More council staff required to administer. Overall a greater cost. Rubbish removal is a core business of Council – will not create a good impression with this technically difficult regime – and how will multilevel apartments conform?
  4. Tupuna Maunga Authority Operational Plans – Funding for Mt Hobson maintenance & development overdue, but on its way we believe.
  5. Art Gallery Funding, Heritage Funding cuts. Regarded as under resourcing of this important dimension to city life – (Hard to reconcile with priority for Business Class travel decision)

Needs to include budget for cultural heritage organisations to develop infrastructure for storage & protection of collections (Auckland Museum, Auckland Art Gallery, MOTAT, Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland Libraries)

  1. Pest Management – cats and plants (Killing cats not microchipped when found near special reserves)
  2. Water charges increase of 2.5% (on top of targeted rate). Noted that no profit margin, and that capex is self-funded)
  3. UAGC – Uniform Annual General Charge is the highest ever: $414. Heading in the right direction.
  4. Overall rates rise of 2.5% just for 2 years, then next 8 years are at 3.5%. This looks like political expediency to conform to election promise, that will evaporate at next election. Noted that rates rise compares to Hamilton (9%) Wgtn & Chch (6%)
  5. CRL Project has Govt unconvinced about AC ability to extract efficiency gains. Legislation amended [ Clause 17(a)] so that every six years need to prove value for money expenditure. Noted that AC has recently formed new committee led by Mayor – against opposition within – to do just that.
  6. Coastal Protection investment – Very important
  7. Sport & Recreation – needs more investment
  8. Budget for Maori expenditure unspent – not helping themselves despite project funds allocated
  9. Need for Community Facilities funding – existing suburbs faced increasing density and require re-investment in such facilities to build cohesiveness.

Outcomes of the Auckland Plan 2020 – 2050

Outcome 1:   An Inclusive Auckland – belonging and participation – Six FOCUS AREAS

  • Focus area 1 (Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in, and enjoy community and civic life) appears to be in conflict with Focus Area 6 (Focus investment to address disparities and serve communities of greatest need) when it comes to any investment in Community in Remuera. Despite significant portion of funding coming from this suburb

Meeting Vote       Achieved YES 4                Achieved NO 0             Achieved Partially 18

Outcome 2: Maori Identity & Wellbeing – Seven FOCUS areas

Should be a Government led and Iwi led imperative, with funding. Noted that Ngati Whatua are helping their people in Orakei – e.g. health insurance for all

Singling out Maori without regard for the multiple ethnicities that make up Auckland is divisive and not inclusive. Not only is there a devoted Outcome, but Maori only needs are emphasised in several other Outcomes at the expense of others

Outcome 3: Affordable Homes – Five FOCUS areas

Needs of aging population not recognised or catered for

Focus area 4 (Invest in and support Maori specific housing needs) marginalises other ethnicities who have distinct needs. We are a multi-cultural city and need to recognise others needs as well as Maori.

Outcome 4: Transport and Access – Seven FOCUS areas

For many, and for a very long time, the car is and will be the most practical means of transport. It is unfair to “force” a change of mode when alternatives are not well developed, practical, efficient and safe

Outcome 5 : Protecting and enhancing our Environment – Four FOCUS areas

Focus area 2 (Restore environments as Auckland grows) – somewhat contradictory – why not just restore environment before Auckland grows and have a better chance of preserving them

Focus area 4 (Protect Aucklands significant environments and cultural heritage from further loss). Cultural Heritage is being treated as a sub-set of Heritage. Removal from the Plan of the extensive sections on built heritage in the 2012 version of the Auckland Plan is disappointing – the excellent definitions and aspirations need to be re-inserted.

Outcome 6 : Opportunity and Prosperity – equipping people for future jobs – Five FOCUS areas

Council is getting away from what it is elected to do – there is a big cross over between Government and Council, and the overlaps cause inefficiencies and missed priorities. ATEED spending to support some of these Focus areas is out of control and unnecessary

Question 7 : Shaping our Growth

The plan may well provide for growth, but the plan is hardly aspirational or inspirational – does hardly read like a plan for the world’s most liveable city

The meeting was encouraged to “Have you Say” via www.akhaveyoursay.nz before 8.00pm Wed 28 March

 

The Need for a Remuera Community Centre

  • Remuera is a substantial size district
  • Diverse population of 28,000     (Mobius Research claimed only 3,627 for needs assessment)
  • Large long-established town centre
  • Only 2 community facilities currently:
    • Remuera Library
    • 4 Victoria Avenue
  • Need to service a large area with a growing diverse community, focused on the town centre
  • Uncertain future of 4 Victoria Ave
  • If 4 Victoria Ave is sold, reinvest the funds in Remuera town centre with a community centre near the library = the community heart

The meeting strongly endorsed this sentiment – presented to David Wong, OLB Member – who encouraged us to bring the matter forward again to an upcoming Board Meeting. Refer the following pages for detail

Population Projections for Remuera and Meadowbank 2013 to 2043 2013 2018 2043 Geographic area
Source: Stats New Zealand Census 2013
statsnz.maps.argis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html
Remuera South 4,150 4,460 5,500 Omahu Rd to Green Lane East
Remuera West 3,550 3,890 5,040 Middleton Rd to Arney Rd
Waiata 4,440 4,680 4,990 Victoria Ave to Kelvin Rd
Waitaramoa 4,150 4,450 5,580 Arney Rd to Victoria Ave
Orakei South 3,650 4,020 6,090 Victoria Ave to Ngapuhi Rd
Mt Hobson 1,470 1,870 3,900 St Marks Rd to Omahu Rd
Abbotts Park 4,560 5,030 6,550 Ascot Ave to Koraha St
TOTAL 25,970 28,400 37,650
Meadowbank North 6,920 7,480 8,770
Meadowbank South 5,430 5,870 7,980
Sub Total 12,350 13,350 16,750
St Johns 2,880 3290 4930
Stonefields 2,370 4590 8820
Sub Total 5,250 7880 13750
TOTAL 17,600 21,230 30,500
Population difference between Remuera & Meadowbank without St Johns & Stonefields 210% 213% 225%
Population difference between Remuera & Meadowbank with St Johns & Stonefields 148% 134% 123%

 

WHAT IS REMUERA?

 

 

Comments are closed.