North Shore City Council

Private Bag

Takapuna

24.04.2006

Re: NSCC Draft City Plan 2006-2016

We, the Greenhithe Residents and Ratepayers Association wish to make submission on the draft plan as follows:
 

Section A.

Summary:

1. We oppose the proposed level of rate increases. A level of increase close to triple the anticipated rate of inflation is completely unacceptable. Rate increases must return to a level that is in line with inflation within the 10 year period – say by year 6-7 at latest.

2. We urge NSCC to find ways to reduce the proposed levels of increase in Operating expenditure.

3. Whilst we broadly support the proposed level of new Capital expenditure, particularly as regards capital for infrastructure: Transport projects including the Northern Busway project, wastewater and stormwater, we believe that alternative funding options must be found in order to reduce the burden on ratepayers.

4. We believe that, in view of the high levels of capital expenditure on Transport et al, certain other areas of capital expenditure should be deleted or significantly reduced during this ten (10) year period in order to reduce the burden on ratepayers.

5. We welcome the proposed spend on Greenhithe Roads in the first three years of the plan.

6. We acknowledge Council’s previous efforts to consult with ratepayers regarding significant capital projects but believe that the financial implications of these projects, in terms of rate increases, need to be more fully explicated – particularly when, as now, there are a number of projects which cumulatively have a massive impact on rates.

1. The average rate increase over the 10 years is 7.1% including inflation (or 7.8% for the first seven years). This is nearly triple the anticipated rate of inflation which is allowed for at the rate of 2.8% for 2006/7 and diminishing to 2.0% by 2010/11 and on through to 2015/16. The effect of this is to see the annual rates for the average-land-value residential property increase from $1456 in 2006/7 to $2887 in 2015/16 – an increase of 98%! This compares to a 25% increase ($1456 to $1820) if annual rates increased in line with the rate of inflation. This comes on top of the previous 5 year period (2001/2 – 2005/6) during which rates increased at an average of 4.95% which was slightly more than double the rate of inflation being 2.36% on average. Such rates of increase over such a prolonged period of time are simply not reasonable for ratepayers, particularly those on fixed incomes. It is our submission that NSCC should commit itself to a return to rate increases of no more than the level of inflation within the period of the 10 year plan – say by year 6-7 at the latest.
2. We note that operating expenditure will grow 48.5% from $212m in 2006/7 to $315m in 2015/16. Apart from ‘Economic development’, which will increase at 16% and ‘Governance and Leadership’, which will grow at 25%; all other areas of operating expenditure will increase at significantly faster rates than the rate of inflation (25%). We acknowledge that the large capital works program will lead to increased asset maintenance and depreciation costs, but urge Council to find ways to minimise any levels of expenditure above the rate of inflation. In this respect we presume that the Council’s ongoing commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of it’s service delivery will see significant cost savings in some areas which may offset increases in others – as would be the case for any business operating in a competitive environment.
3. We accept the need for significant new capital expenditure on infrastructure but believe that alternatives to dramatic rate increases must be explored more fully. Our suggestions include: Corporate sponsorship of Council facilities (e.g. new ‘Telecom’ Albany Library, New ‘Ronald Macdonald’ Northern Recreational facility?); Further approach to Central Government regarding increases in Land Transport NZ subsidies; Reduce the rapidity of debt repayment – roll loans over so that the costs of this major period of capital upgrading is spread across a greater period of time (seek temporary exemption from Debt constraints if necessary); Drive down the cost of the capital works – if we are entering a period of  economic slowdown, then force contractor prices down.
4. Areas of capital expenditure that could be reviewed for possible deferment / reduction or deletion include: Council services $35m (including $5.5m on computers in first three years of the plan; Community services (including $7.3m on walkways in next three years,  $15m on the Northern Recreational facility, $19.7m on new Northern Library, and some portion of the $64m on parks/beaches which is not for land acquisition).
5. We welcome the proposed spend on Greenhithe Roads which have historically been under funded and is entirely appropriate in view of the presumably major development contributions Council has received in recent years from developments in Greenhithe.
6. While we acknowledge that historically Council has consulted with ratepayers regarding timing / costings for major projects (Northern Recreational Facility, Waste water upgrading, Northern Busway etc) we question whether the cumulative financial impact of these projects has been understood and so, also question whether such previous support for these projects would have been forthcoming and whether it is actually still valid.

Section B.

We do not intend to make submissions in person.

Section C.

Proposal 1: Transport Strategy Implementation – we support option one (status quo)

Proposal 2: Town Centres – we support option one (status quo)

Proposal 3: Wastewater charging by volume – we support option 2 (volumetric charging)

Proposal 4: Residential and Rural Rating – we have no opinion

Proposal 5: Basis of rating – we support status quo (land value)

Yours faithfully

Brain Carran

President (Greenhithe Residents & Ratepayers Association)

c.c. Councillor Margaret Miles