|
Question
|
Feedback
|
|
What do you think
of our proposed average rates increase of 7.58% across all ratepayers
(which is lower than the 8.48% signalled in the Long Term Plan
2024–34) and an average residential rates increase of 7.40%?
|
The Board’s
view is that a proposed rate increase which is close to 5% higher than the
rate of inflation is very concerning. Our city’s residents have been
facing significant financial strain for several years now and have had to
make difficult choices about what they can afford. There is a perception in
the Community that the Council has not reviewed its expenditure with the
same discipline.
|
|
Do you have any
comments about our proposed spending on our transport network, including
the staged approach to delivering Papanui ki Waiwhetū Wheels to Wings
major cycle route, or the proposal to defer the Lincoln Road (Curletts to
Wrights) Public Transport project from 2026/28 to 2029/30?
|
The Board supports
the staged approach to delivering the Papanui ki Waiwhetū Wheels to
Wings major cycle route. The connection between the Nor’West Arc and
Northern Line routes is comparatively uncontroversial and makes sense.
However, the ongoing controversy about the middle section along Harewood
Road shows that the Council needs to do more work to get the Community on
board.
The Board believes
that a piecemeal approach to transport planning in the Harewood/Bishopdale
area has contributed to concerns about the cycleway project. For example,
the Board received advice that both the cycleway and Greers/Langdons
intersection project outcomes were contingent on upgrades to Sawyers Arms
Road (particularly the Sawyers Arms/Greers/Northcote intersection) which
would ease demand on Harewood Road and Greers Road. The fact that the
Council subsequently removed the Sawyers Arms Road project from the Long
Term Plan without reviewing the implications on the other relevant projects
is deeply concerning to the Board and has reinforced a perception that the
Council does not have a strategic plan for the transport network in the
area.
The Board’s
view is that the Council needs to work with the community on a strategic
transport plan for the Harewood/Sawyers Arms/Greers/Northcote area. This
will give the community the opportunity to give feedback on how they want
the network to function and understand how all the constituent projects
relate to each other, instead of considering all the separate projects in
isolation.
|
|
Do you have any
comments about our proposed spending on our three waters network?
|
Water
infrastructure is a core Council function and the Board agrees with this
investment, particularly where it should result in a reduction in
maintenance expenditure.
|
|
Do you have any
comments about our proposed spending on our parks and reserves?
|
The Board’s
view is that any enhancements need to be backed by a robust business case
demonstrating significant demand for the service, or evidence that the
investment will offset ongoing maintenance costs. Otherwise the Council
should focus on maintaining what it has got instead of enhancements.
|
|
Do you have any
other comments about spending on our capital programme in general, for
example our facilities?
|
|
|
Should we pause the
collection of the targeted rate for the Christ Church Cathedral
reinstatement for the remaining three years we were due to collect it, and
factor the saving into our proposed rates increase of 7.58%?
|
The Board agrees
with the suggestion to pause the targeted rate and invest the current
balance to accrue the remaining funds required to meet the Council’s
funding commitment. Continuing to collect this rate while the project is
mothballed would be confusing for the community.
|
|
Should we increase
our rating for renewals by a further $2 million a year ($12 million in
total over six years) in order to keep our borrowing costs lower over time?
This would result in an additional rates increase of 0.25% in 2025/26 but
will generate $2.6 million of overall rates savings over the next six
years, and $21.3 million over 30 years
|
The Board agrees
that this is a sensible proposal. Even though it will have a small rates
impact in the short term, it will quickly pay itself back.
The Board remains
concerned that there is an underlying issue which is not being addressed,
that having a capital programme which is fully debt funded is not
sustainable in the long term.
|
|
Do you have any
comments on our proposed changes to fees and charges?
|
The Board
recommends that the Council reviews its fees and charges for meeting room
hire. For example, some of our public meeting rooms with full AV equipment
are hired to commercial users for as little as $10/hour. The Board has no
problem with community/not-for-profit groups receiving free or discounted
booking rates, but for commercial users this appears to be well below
market rates.
|
|
What do you think
of our proposal to change how we charge for trade waste? Which option do
you prefer:
·
Option 1: Three-tiered
volume rate (the Council’s preferred option)
·
Option 2: Two-tiered
volume rate
·
Option 3: Fixed volume
rate
|
The Board chose
not to respond to this question.
|
|
Tell us about the
services
·
You value the most and
would not want reduced.
·
You could manage
without.
·
Where there could be an
opportunity for savings.
|
The Board urges the
Council to ensure that its levels of service are aligned with community
expectations. Cost cutting does not need to be the main motivation, but is
likely to be an outcome of ensuring our services are targeted at what the
Community expects. For example, we hear anecdotal evidence that our local
Fendalton Library experiences very low demand after 6pm. This suggests that
the opening hours at this facility are not aligned with community
expectations. This is an example of Council expenditure that could be
redirected to another library or a different service where there is unmet
demand.
|
|
Do you have any
feedback on the draft Climate Resilience Fund Policy, specifically how the
Fund will work, what the Fund can be used for and how long it will be held
in reserve before being used?
|
The Board is deeply
concerned at the Council’s proposal to establish a fund before
knowing the fund’s purpose or governance arrangements. Regardless of
how commendable the intended outcomes are, we believe the Community expects
the Council to have these details ironed out before agreeing to establish a
fund.
|
|
Should we proceed
with our proposal to grant the Air Force Museum $5 million towards an
extension of its site?
|
The Board
cautiously supports this proposal, and acknowledge the significance of the
aircraft to be displayed in the new hanger. However the Board would expect
the grant to be backed by a high quality business case.
|
|
Should we allocate
up to $200,000 for a scoping study for a central city shuttle service?
|
The Board does not
support this proposal. The Board has no problem with the concept of a
central city shuttle service, but we receive a lot of feedback from the
community imploring the Council to focus on its core business. Public
transport routes are a core function of Environment Canterbury and not the
City Council.
Furthermore,
Environment Canterbury’s Long Term Plan included provisions for
investigating local connector routes and network enhancements. We believe
that this is the appropriate avenue for investigating the central city
shuttle.
|
|
The Council has a
small number of properties which are no longer being used for the purpose
for which they were originally acquired. Do you have any feedback to help
us decide the future or next steps for these properties?
|
The Board agrees
with disposing of under-utilised property, as it is a poor use of capital.
However, the Board’s preference would be for this capital to be
recycled into new capital expenditure with an expected rates-reduction
benefit, not a one-off rates reduction.
|
|
Any further
comments?
|
The Board chose
not to respond to this question.
|
