MUL Page 3

Transcription

1 MUL Page 2

2 MUL Page 3

3 MUL Page 4

4 MUL Page 5

5 MUL Page 6

6 MUL Page 7

7 MUL Page 8

8 MUL Page 9

9 MUL Page 10

10 MUL Page 11

11 MUL Page 12

12 Bev McShea From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Submissions Friday, 5 April :09 p.m. Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Follow up Completed From: website@ncc.govt.nz[smtp:website@ncc.govt.nz] Sent: Friday, April 05, :08:41 PM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name Ken Robinson Organisation represented (if applicable) Your address 30 Hoult Crescent Monaco Nelson Your phone number Your address ken.marion@xtra.co.nz Do you wish to speak at the hearing? No Would an evening hearing suit you better? No Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan Cricket world cup and FIFA support by Council appears to be another snow job on rate payers, to use rate payer money to bring business to Nelson for the good of a few. Why are those who are supposed to make the money from these events not required to pay more towards them. But from what I read in the News paper a lot of business are still waiting for the big boost in business from the Rugby World Cup, will this council ever learn. Their outstanding business acumen is shown in taking over the School of Music and Theater Royal buildings when they know it is going to cost the rate payers an arm and a leg to strengthen them to earthquake standard, I bet individual councilors wouldn't buy a second hand car knowing that the engine is shot. There seems to be little in the DAP to bring council into line with the new Local Government Act and one wonders if the council actually understands this act or are they just choosing to ignore it. Outwardly it appears council have staff who have jobs solely relating to old wellbeing provisions 1 MUL Page 13

13 which should now be disestablished e.g why do council still need a road safety co -ordinator surely that is a Police function. Optional demographic information Age Gender Male Have you made a submission before? Yes Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? 2 MUL Page 14

14 MUL Page 15

15 Natascha Van Dien From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Submissions Wednesday, 17 April :54 a.m. Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Yellow Category From: Sent: Wednesday, April 17, :53:56 AM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name Paul and Lenaire Crockford Organisation represented (if applicable) Mohua Motels Your address 220Willow Street Takaka 7110 Your phone number Your address stay@mohuamotels.com Do you wish to speak at the hearing? Yes Would an evening hearing suit you better? No Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan We would like to oppose the closing of the Golden Bay I-site and any financial cut backs to the tourism sector. As an accommodation provider that has been operating for 6 1/2 years, building our complex in 3 stages over 5 years our business is still growing, we employ up to 8 part time staff over the summer, and 4 during the winter months. Our occupancy is growing each year, but I know that there are a number of businesses that are struggling due to the lack of tourists and the world economy, and the debt of running the local I-site is reducing each year even though the tourist numbers are dropping. Tourism keeps Golden Bay buoyant, every shop in the bay and a lot of tradesmen benefit from 1

16 holiday makers/tourists each summer, we feel that the local authorities should supply as much information to the tourist as possible, this then encourages the tourist to stay longer benefiting other tour operators, which then helps all of us survive financially to stay open over the winter period. This also allows local residents to enjoy the benefits of businesses financially being in a position to stay open at normal hours 9am to 5pm. We have had a number of tourists staying with us that have eventually brought property in the bay hence another person paying rates. On the back of our rate invoice shows a number of different descriptions of Levies. As a New Zealander/rate payer there are a number of categories that we are charged for and don't use but send tourist to, and there are a number of other public facilities that councils provide that cannot stand alone financially. Our Waste water charges are outrageous; if we had occupancy of 100% we would not have a problem with paying this levy, with occupancy of less than 40% for each of the last two years, should we only pay 40% of our waste water tax? It is a bit hard to stomach when TDC provides a free dumping station for self-contained mobile homes 100 meters away from us. Suggestions to help with the yearly debt, 1) Increase the booking commission from 10% to 12.5 or even 15%, a number of on line booking commissions are generally more than 10% and it has no manual input involved, 2) Charge tourists for using WIFI or broadband at the libraries, 3) Charge self-contained mobile homes a fee for dumping their waste water, 4) Don't allow any freedom camping! The only people that benefit are the rental companies ( the traveller spends as little as possible and abuse our clean green image. Don't allow any freedom camping! The only people that benefit are the rental companies (the traveller spends as little as possible and abuse our clean green image). Back packers and camping grounds would have a financial gain from this. As a rate payer in both Nelson and Takaka there is nothing you supply us that is free, we end up paying for it in some way or other, so why are we selling ourselves cheaply? Optional demographic information Age Gender Male Have you made a submission before? No Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? 2

17 Natascha Van Dien From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Submissions Thursday, 18 April :03 p.m. Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Follow up Completed From: Sent: Thursday, April 18, :03:10 PM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name Dan McGuire Organisation represented (if applicable) Your address P.O. Box 582 Nelson 7040 Your phone number Your address dan.sullivan@kinect.co.nz Do you wish to speak at the hearing? Yes Would an evening hearing suit you better? No Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan The 1.8 million for the Cricket Cup and also for the Soccer Cup are expenses beyond the remit of council under the Local Government Reform legislation. These sorts of initiatives are only of benefit to a limited number of businesses. Most ratepayers are simply subsidising these costs while our rates get bumped up significantly each year as a result. The increased staff numbers and consequent cost of an additional 1.2 million a 6.4% increase are outrageous. Council should be pruning staff numbers, not adding. The continued cost of consultants is unnecessary expenditure. The existing staff would be able to do much of this work. Instead, we are paying very high salaries to staff and again big money for 1

18 consultants to do most of the work. The cost of environmental and social non-core activities is out of hand and unnecessary, for example the vision for Any initiatives to do with climate change are highly questionable, when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary that expose the dodgy nature of this theory, although such evidence is ignored by the mainstream media. The amount of money spent on PR by council is excessive, and needs to be corrected. The expenditure on artwork and sculptures must stop. This expenditure demonstrates clearly how out of touch most councillors and staff are with the community. Here is some information for council. Many low-income people live in this town. Stop spending on items that are no longer your remit to spend on. For many ratepayers, it is a struggle to meet basic expenses. The spending agendas of privileged well-heeled councillors and council staff who are paid wages well above the city average, do not have any place in the community. It is either sheer ignorance of the needs of the community, or else complete selfishness on the part of these councillors, that is driving extravagant spending outside of essential requirements. Who are the clowns who wanted to spend $25,000 on a feasibility study for a Gondola in the name of helping make Nelson the next Queenstown? In the first place, this should be a private enterprise initiative. If you want to provide funds, provide a loan. What benefit to the former residents of Queenstown were any of the commercial initiatives similar to those being initiated by the current Nelson council? Queenstown is now one of the most expensive New Zealand cities to live in, and this has been of no benefit to those who pay the high rates. Both borrowing and large rate increases must be reduced. Council now has double the income from rates that it received only a few years ago. Council should be able to live within its income if there is proper financial management. Ratepayers are constantly paying for things they do not receive. Budgets do not follow any criteria for allocating funds. Pet projects are being given priority for funding. Debt should be paid off now so that in the next ten years council can deal with major spending items without the huge rate increases we have seen in recent years. Council has not done proper analysis to consider what are the likely borrowings that will need to be made to fund different capital projects. Critical projects must be funded first to maintain the assets we already have. For example, earthquake proofing buildings has received little provision. Every ten million of debt adds $800,000 in interest payments each year for the ratepayers. Council seems to think we have a ratepayer base the size of Wellington. The annual plan is not transparent. For example, there is a provision for strategic land purchase. How are ratepayers to comment on this item without more specific information? Most people I know who are concerned about the lack of prudent financial management by council are no longer giving submissions for two reasons. First, council has ignored their concerns. Second, many of the councillors are unwilling to listen to these people, because these councillors believe they know best, although they have no previous background in managing public money. 2

19 This is why rates and borrowing have exploded over the last ten years, but especially during the last six years. Optional demographic information Age Gender Male Have you made a submission before? Yes Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? 3

20 MUL Page 21

21 MUL Page 22

22 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Submissions Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Monday, 22 April :19:41 a.m. APlanNHAG160413final2.doc Submission 97 Cat From: Sent: Monday, April 22, :19:38 AM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name Sarah Holman Organisation represented (if applicable) Nelson Heritage Advisory Group Your address 31 Bronte St Nelson Your phone number Your address richsarah@ihug.co.nz Do you wish to speak at the hearing? Yes Would an evening hearing suit you better? No Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan See attached Optional demographic information Age Gender Have you made a submission before? Yes Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? APlanNHAG160413final2.doc - Download File MUL Page 23

23 Submission 97 Cat 10 MUL Page 24

24 Submission 97 Cat 10 MUL Page 25

25 Submission 97 Cat 10 MUL Page 26

26 Submission 97 Cat 10 MUL Page 27

27 Submission 97 Cat 10 MUL Page 28

28 MUL Page 29

29 MUL Page 30

30 MUL Page 31

31 MUL Page 32

32 MUL Page 33

33 MUL Page 34

34 MUL Page 35

35 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Submissions Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Monday, 22 April :31:09 p.m. Generation-Zero-submission-to-NCC-on-the-Annual-Plan.pdf Submission 100 Cat From: Sent: Monday, April 22, :31:06 PM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name Rachel Ward Organisation represented (if applicable) Generation Zero Your address Old House Rd, rd2 Upper Moutere, Nelson 7175 Your phone number Your address rmw99@uclive.ac.nz Do you wish to speak at the hearing? Yes Would an evening hearing suit you better? Yes Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan The full submission (made on behalf of Generation Zero) can be found on the document attached. In sum: -we support the Rocks Road cycleway/ walkway development -we support the Bridge Street upgrade -we encourage the NCC to build solar panels on council buildings; and -we encourage the NCC to develop continuous cycleways Optional demographic information Age MUL Page 36

36 Gender Female Submission 100 Cat 10 Have you made a submission before? Yes Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? Generation-Zero-submission-to-NCC-on-the-Annual-Plan.pdf - Download File MUL Page 37

37 Submission 100 Cat 10 MUL Page 38

38 Submission 100 Cat 10 MUL Page 39

39 MUL Page 40

40 MUL Page 41

41 MUL Page 42

42 Submission 134 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Submissions Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Wednesday, 24 April :43:12 p.m. Submission-to Draft-Annual-Plan.docx From: Sent: Wednesday, April 24, :43:09 PM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name Chris Fitchett Organisation represented (if applicable) N/A Your address 33 Mount Street Your phone number Your address fitchett@ts.co.nz Do you wish to speak at the hearing? Yes Would an evening hearing suit you better? No Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan I would prefer to be heard in the first 2 hours of each days hearing, please. Optional demographic information Age 65 and over Gender Male Have you made a submission before? Yes Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? MUL Page 43

43 Submission-to Draft-Annual-Plan.docx - Download File Submission 134 MUL Page 44

44 Submission Mount Street Nelson Phone : Cell : fitchett@ts.co.nz 23 April 2013 The Mayor and Councillors Submission to 2013/14 Draft Annual Plan Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. As a former employee I had intended to keep out of politics when I left the Council almost two years ago. However I am unable ignore the new financial practices of this Council which are destroying the gains from the prudent financial management I tried to encourage during my 21 year working for the Nelson City Council. I started writing this submission in early April and since then I have had to amend it substantially as further information as become available. As a result the submission is not as fluid as it might have been if it had been written all at one time. I apologise for this, but it does illustrate the point I have made later in the submission about including in the Plan, in the appropriate sections, explanations for any significant variations or significant funding decisions. First I would like to follow up on my last year s submission. I must congratulate the Council on taking note of my comments, (and other submissions), on the smoothing loan proposal, and removing it from the Plan. In last year s submission I suggested that a significant portion of the $5.9 million net recovery costs from the December 2011 floods should be capital expenditure but was advised that that was not correct. I was therefore interested to hear at the April Audit, Risk and Finance Committee meeting that audit had pointed out that the $2 plus million for the Cable Bay reinstatement should be reclassified from operating expenditure to capital expenditure. I have no problem with the Council borrowing for capital expenditure, as there are then matching assets and liabilities, but there should be no borrowings to fund operating costs as then it just increases the Council s liabilities without the matching asset. Last year I commented on three issues affecting debt levels, and then summarised the combined effect of these issues on the Council s operating surplus/deficit. The smoothing loan proposal does not apply this year, but I will once again discuss the other two outstanding issues. I particularly wish to concentrate on one particular area of the Plan and that is the Council s new practice of funding operating expenses with borrowings, and the effect of this practice on debt levels, and future generations of ratepayers. Borrowing to fund operating expenses is like going to the bank manager and asking for a loan so that you can afford to go to the pub for a drink! I will also raise some other issues. 1. Funding of operating costs through borrowings (Deficit Budgeting). I am seriously concerned regarding the Council s current practise of funding operating expenditure through borrowings. I will concentrate on the Wastewater Cost of Service 1 MUL Page 45

45 Submission 134 Statement of page 16 of the Draft Annual Plan, as that accounts for half of the budgeted deficit, and is a good example of my concerns. There are other areas with similar concerns, but I will not cover them all. The budgeted operating expenses in wastewater are $13.5 million of which $10.4 million is being funded by rates and other operating income. The remaining $3.1 million is being borrowed. I note that the Payments to staff and suppliers has increased by 49.4% over the current year s budget. As there was no explanation for this in the Draft Plan I have looked back at the LTP and under Nelson North Wastewater Treatment Plant odour issues I have found a comment that; Maintenance aeration and sludge dredging is required to remove high points. Council confirmed funding for this work of $2m. in year 1 and $3.1m. in year 2. This does not explain that the first part is treated as capital expenditure, and the second as maintenance. I have now seen the staff reply to my concerns, i.e. that it was Audit NZ s view that the desludging costs should be treated as operating expenses. With such a significant decision, I suggest it would have been useful if this explanation had been included in the wastewater section of the Long Term Plan, and repeated in the Draft Annual Plan. As an aside, it seems strange that Maintenance aeration has been treated as capital expenditure, and yet sludge dredging has been treated as operating expenditure! If this item is to be treated as maintenance, and so an operating cost, the $3.1 million should not be funded through borrowings. When I raised this at the April Audit, Risk and Finance Committee meeting, I did not know the reasoning behind the decision as there was no explanation in the Draft Annual Plan. The meeting was advised that the reason for funding it from borrowings was because it was a major one off project, and that it will not have to be done again for thirty years. In that case my view is that it should have been capitalised and then written off, (depreciated), over the thirty years. Then I would not be concerned with the loan funding, as there would be a matching asset and liability. At least the accumulated depreciation would effectively repay the loan over the thirty years, before a new loan is required to fund the next dredging. It is interesting to hear that the Council initially thought it should be capital expenditure, but was persuaded otherwise by Audit NZ. I most definitely do not agree with Audit NZ s view and if the Council does not reclassify this item of expenditure I will be taking it up with the Controller and Auditor General to obtain her view of the correct treatment of this expense. When an infrastructural pipe is put in the ground the cost of digging the ditch, and filling it again, is all part of the capital cost of that infrastructure. When the pond was originally dug out the cost would have been capitalised. Therefore surely rededging out the pond, to make it operate more efficiently for the next thirty years, should also be capitalised. The existing capital value of the ponds should have been reduced through depreciation each year as the sludge built up. If this was not done it should have at least have be written down when the ponds were revalued every year. By capitalising the proposed desludging it would build the value of the pond back up again to its original value. The important thing about capitalising it is that the asset would then be depreciated over the next thirty years, and so the current ratepayers would be paying for the benefit they receive. I would point out that you do not have to always go along with what Audit NZ says. If you feel they are wrong you should stick with your original decision. Audit NZ has the option of 2 MUL Page 46

46 Submission 134 qualifying their report if they feel strongly about it, but It is most unlikely that they would do so in this case. In the past there have been a number of occasions where we have disagreed with the auditor s advice and stuck to our view. Audit accepted our decision. The staff explanation states Both parties agreed it is appropriate to loan fund this as the benefit will be received by both current and future ratepayers. This statement is incorrect. While the benefit will be received by ratepayers for the next thirty years, after thirty years the ratepayers will not be receiving any benefit. The problem is that the ratepayers who are receiving the benefit are in fact not paying for it. The way it is accounted for in the Draft Plan, combined with the policy of not repaying loans, means that at the end of thirty years the $3.1 million loan will still be outstanding and a new loan will have to be added to that so as to fund the renewed dredging. This will have an accumulating effect on the interest to be paid by future generations. Ratepayers after thirty years will be paying interest on the loan that was taken out to fund the original desludging for which they are getting no benefit. If the loan were to be repaid over thirty years I would have less concerns regarding the decision to loan fund operating expenses, (although it is fundamentally wrong), but as the Council has a policy of not repaying loans there is a definite intergenerational issue. I ask that you reclassify this $3.1 expense as capital expenditure and provide for depreciation accordingly. If this is not done I ask that you include in the final document an explanation for the major increase and fund it out of rates rather than loans. In reply to my letter to the editor of the Nelson Mail, (dated 26 March 2013), on this issue of deficit budgeting, the Chief Executive appears to be confusing the issue by stating (3) because accounting standards require some capital items to be treated as operating expenses. I assume she means operating income, and I agree that capital income does have to be shown in the income statement. That does not alter the fact that the income has been received to assist with the funding of capital expenditure, and so should be carried down as surplus in order to do this. Council does still do this in some activities, see the Water Cost of Service Statement on page 13. Here there is $626,000 Capital Income which is carried down, (plus $4,000?), through the net surplus to fund capital expenditure. I therefore ask the Council to cease funding operating expenses by way of borrowings, and so either increase the rates, or else eliminate significant levels of operating expenditure. 2. Loan Repayment Policy Up until the 2009/19 LTCCP was finalised, Council had a loan repayment policy that stated that loans would be repaid over 40 years i.e. at a rate on 2½% per annum. Due to the economic situation at the time it was decided that the repayments should be suspended for two years, and then phased back in over the following four years. During the preparation of the 2011/12 Annual Plan it was decided to extend the repayment suspension for another year. The 2012/22 Long Term Plan did not even include a policy regarding loan repayments and I understand that there is no intention to make any loan repayments other than short term repayments with depreciation funds that are not currently required to fund capital expenditure. Under the previous policy the Council would have been repaying between $3 and $4 million in the year under review. 3 MUL Page 47

47 Submission 134 Up until 2009 the Council was funding depreciation, as well as loan repayments over 40 years. I accept that is rather conservative, but that is why the debt level is at the reasonable level that it is today. (I did from time to time suggest that the 40 year repayment period could be increased, but Council decided to stay with the 40 years so as not to increase future interest payments.) The short term suspension of repayments in 2009 was probably justified due to the serious economic situation at that time, but the Council should at least be starting to commence repayments, even if it decides to amend the policy to spread the repayment over a longer period, say 80 or 100 years. If this is not done the debt level will simply keep increasing until it reaches an unsustainable level, and the Council is unable to borrow any more. This may not happen in the next ten years, but it is a serious future risk, and it is irresponsible to pass this problem on to the next generation. As debt levels increase, the interest costs increase in proportion. However there is an even greater risk here. I note that interest costs are forecast to increase from $6.4 million to $11.6 million over the ten years of the LTP. It should be noted that interest rates are currently at a very low level based on past experience. Imagine the effect on rates if the interest rates were to double. This may sound far fetched but when I joined the Council I inherited loans funding the Maitai Dam that were at an interest rate of 18%. I never had to borrow at this high level but I did have to borrow at double digit rates. The Council should be making repayments now using the savings from the reduced interest rates, so as to cushion the blow when interest rates increase again. I therefore submit that Council re introduce a loan repayment policy which at least allows for some level of annual repayment, even if at a lower rate than the previous policy, and that the forecast for 2013/14 be amended to take account of this. I suspect that some of you will say that the Council is repaying debt, i.e. the unused depreciation in any one year is used to repay loans. However these payments are not long term loan repayments. They are simply temporary investments of the funds until they are reborrowed to fund the replacement of the asset that had been depreciated. These loan repayments are only forecast to be $715,000 in 2013/14 3. Summary of effects of these issues It is the combined effect of these two issues that really concern me. The effect is that Council is not paying its way as the budget shows a significant deficit in its day to day operations. The Prospective Statement of Comprehensive Income shows a surplus of $3.9 million but this very misleading due to the high level of revenue of a capital nature. When the surplus is adjusted for these capital items it reveals a deficit of $5.7 million in the day to day operations. This is on top of a deficit of $7 million in the current year s budget. To summarise the true day to day operations included in the budget: 4 MUL Page 48

48 Submission / /14 Millions Millions Operating surplus as per Statement of Comprehensive Income $15.6 $3.9 Less: Extraordinary revenue: Vested assets $ Accounting for; Theatre Royal assets $ School of Music assets $ Other capital revenue $ Total capital revenues $22.6 $9.6 Real day to day operating loss $(7.0) $(5.7) During my 21 years working for the Council I always tried to encourage prudent financial management. I think that I was reasonably successful, and that is the reason the Council s debt level is as low as it is. The above figures clearly show that the Council is not acting in a prudent manner, and is setting future Councils up for major problems. If Council had budgeted for a breakeven situation, (which would still not allow for any loan repayments), based on the current level of operating costs, the rate increase would have been 14.5%. I accept that this would have been unacceptable and so the only alternative would be to make significant cuts in the operating expenses. If Council was to recommence loan repayments, even at just 1%, it would add a further 2% to the rates. Council can only continue deficit budgeting, and no loan repayments, for so long and when it stops doing so there will have to be a significant increase in rates. It would be irresponsible and immoral for the Council to proceed with the Plan as currently forecast. If Council agrees with my argument regarding the Nelson North Wastewater Plant and reclassify the $3.1 million dredging from operating expenditure to capital expenditure it would solve approximately half of the budgeted deficit problem. I accept that there may be a further $1.6 million of depreciation not being funded, but the $483,000 operating expenses for the 2011 Rainfall Event should be funded from rates. 4. Total Ratepayers Equity I note on page 55 of the Draft Plan that the Total Ratepayers Equity, (i.e. total net assets of the Council), is forecast to be $56 million less than the forecast in the Long Term Plan and $16 million less than the current years forecast. This raises the two vital questions that I asked in my presentation to the Audit, Risk and Finance Committee: a. Why are the net assets of the Council forecast to reduce by $16 million when it would normally be expected that they would increase significantly due to the revaluation of assets, plus the $9.6 million vested assets and other capital revenue noted in 3. Above? Part of the reason is obviously the deficit budgeting noted in 3. above, but that is only part of the reason. b. How can the net assets of the Council forecast as at 30 June 2014 be $56 million less than the forecast prepare only one year ago? 5 MUL Page 49

49 Submission 134 I would have thought there should be a note in the Draft Plan on page 55 to explain such significant variations. The staff reply to my presentation states that; The revaluation impact was noted on page 37 of the Draft Annual Plan and was $33 million. Yes on page 37 there was a comment; the estimated revaluation of assets has been revised down due to lower cost indicies. But it does not state the dollar value of $33 million which I would have thought was rather significant. At the April Audit, Risk and Finance Committee meeting on 16 April. Is there an error in the LTP? Obviously there was if the vested assets were overstated by $14.4 when it was already known in 2011/12 that they were well down, and likely to continue so, and the revaluations are out by $33 million. The 2011/12 revaluation was almost exactly in line with budget, and so it would appear that $26 million of the reduced revaluation must relate to 2012/13. This is 60% of the forecast. Why was the increase in asset revaluations almost doubled for 2012/13 in the LTP and then reduced again in 2013/14? Obviously an error. It is normal practice to be conservative in forecasting vested assets and revaluations, but this was obviously not the case with the LTP. I therefore ask that explanations for these significant variations be included on page 55 of the Final Annual Plan. 5. Cricket World Cup 2015 I do not support the allocation of $900,000 towards the hosting the two pool games in the Cricket World Cup The tournament is going to be shared with Australia, and so Nelson will most likely only get the most insignificant games of the tournament. The only justification for spending such a significant amount is if the games are going to bring in large numbers of followers from outside the region, and so add to the economy of Nelson. I do not believe that such insignificant games would provide any major input to the Nelson economy. If Nelson was to succeed in hosting one of the teams it would be slightly more justifiable, but I still find it difficult to believe that there would be a net gain to the City. The other point I would make is that the $900,000 is all operating expenditure and so has a major effect on rates. It is one of the items that should be looked at in order to make the accounts break even. I therefore ask that the $900,000 provided for the Cricket World Cup 2015 be deleted from the budget. 6. Other significant variations from the Long Term Plan Corporate I note in the Corporate Cost of Service Statement that the Capital Income is $4.9 million less that the LTP projection. I assume this is due to the reduced estimate of vested assets. However I also notice that Payments to staff and suppliers has increased $1.3 million (19.3%). Could you please advise me of the reason for this? 7. Mistake in Long Term Plan The Nelson Mail reported on 18 April that there had been a mistake in the Long Term Plan. 6 MUL Page 50

50 Submission 134 The report was based on a press release from the Council, but to my simple mind it does not make sense. It says The dollar amounts are correct in the LTP but the percentage increase quoted is incorrect and.the Draft Annual Plan document, now out for public consultation, reflected the correct information and that no change was required to the consultation process. You then go on to say; there would be operational savings by cutting budgets in areas that don t affect levels of service. Surely these comments are contradictory! From the first comment I assumed it was just the percentage rate that was incorrectly stated. If the dollar amounts in the LTP are correct, why are the budgets being cut? It would appear to me that the press release was trying to fudge the issue. If the Draft Annual Plan reflects the correct information, am I correct in thinking that staff are currently trying to cut $1.8 million, (approximately 3% of rates), out of the operational expenses in the current year so as to balance the opening figure in the Draft Annual Plan. This seems rather an impossible task! If this is correct then it implies that there is significant fat in the budget if it is possible to cut out $1.8 million in the last three months of the year. Please explain these contradictions, and indicate where it is that you are cutting expenditure from? Please also explain where the unanticipated income of $237,000 has come from? 8. The Mayors letter to the Editor dated 25 March In the Mayors letter to the Editor of the Nelson Mail dated 25 March he stated: Also, rates do not fund council debt, they pay for operating expenses. This is a rather misleading statement. He is correct that rates do not fund repayments, because the Council policy is to not repay debt, but in my opinion it should do so. On the other hand rates do fund the interest payable on the debt, which is the main cost of the debt. Interest is an operating cost and so is funded by rates. In conclusion, I am gravely concerned that the current Council policies on borrowing, debt repayments and debt levels are creating major problems for the future. Based on the Long Term Plan and this Draft Annual Plan, Council is simply not paying its way and is passing on current costs that our children and grandchildren will be left to shoulder. I would have hoped that you might have learnt from the situation in Greece, Cyprus and other such countries. They have borrowed to fund operating costs for many years and now can t afford the interest, let alone the repayments. I am delighted to see the mayor s statement that he intends to halve the Council s debt over the next five years. I will take my hat off to him if he can achieve such a miraculous turn around. Time will tell. 7 MUL Page 51

51 Submission 134 Summary of my submissions: A. That Council cease funding operating expenses by way of borrowings, and that the Draft Plan be amended to take account of this, either by increasing rates or else by eliminating significant levels of operating expenses. B. That Council reclassify the cost of dredging the Nelson North Wastewater Plant as capital expenditure, and provide for depreciation accordingly. If this is not done I ask that you include in the final document an explanation for the major increase in operating expenses, and fund all the operating expenses out of rates rather than loans. C. That Council re introduce a loan repayment policy which at least allows for some level of annual repayment, even if at a lower rate than the previous policy, and that the forecasts be amended to take account of this. D. That the final adopted Annual Plan include explanations on the very significant variations in the Total Ratepayer s Equity, and the increase in Payments to staff and suppliers in the Corporate activity. E. That Council delete from the budget the $900,000 provided for the Cricket World Cup F. The Council explain the contradictions in the press release on the mistake in the Long Term Plan, and indicate where it is that the expenditure is being cut from? Please also explain where the unanticipated income of $237,000 has come from? Thank you for considering my submission. I wish to speak to this submission, preferably in the first two hours of the day please. 8 MUL Page 52

52 Submission 134 It is interesting to note that on Monday 15 th April I rang the Council s rate department about the rates in the Draft Annual Plan, on Tuesday at the Audit Committee meeting I asked if there was an error in the Plan, and on Wednesday the Council puts out a press release admitting to an error it had known about for at least a month. A bit of a coincident? 10 MUL Page 53

53 MUL Page 54

54 MUL Page 55

55 MUL Page 56

56 Submission 142 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Submissions Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Wednesday, 24 April :06:20 p.m FF-MB-Sub-AP-NCC-MH.doc From: Sent: Wednesday, April 24, :06:16 PM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name Michael Bennett Organisation represented (if applicable) Federated Farmers Your address PO Box 1992 Christchurch 8140 New Zealand Your phone number Your address mbennett@fedfarm.org.nz Do you wish to speak at the hearing? Yes Would an evening hearing suit you better? No Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan Our submisison is appended. Please advise if you have recieved our submission soi know it is in. Michael Bennett mbennett@fedfarm.org.nz Optional demographic information Age MUL Page 57

57 Submission 142 Gender Male Have you made a submission before? Yes Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? FF-MB-Sub-AP-NCC-MH.doc - Download File MUL Page 58

58 Submission 142 SUBMISSION TELEPHONE I WEBSITE To: Nelson City Council Submission on: Draft Annual Plan From: Nelson Province of Federated Farmers of New Zealand Date: 24 April 2013 Contact: Michael Bennett Policy Advisor Federated Farmers of New Zealand PO Box 1992 Christchurch P: M: E: mbennett@fedfarm.org.nz Federated Farmers would like to be heard in support of this submission MUL Page 59

59 Submission 142 SUBMISSION TO NELSON CITY COUNCIL ON THE DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN 2013/14 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Nelson province of Federated Farmers welcomes the opportunity to submit in the Nelson City Council Draft Annual Plan 2013/2014 (the Annual Plan) Federated Farmers acknowledges the efforts of Nelson City Council to be accountable to the community and provide excellent customer service The Annual Plan is important to Federated Farmers because farm properties can be affected very significantly by changes to rating policy and often pay very high rates relative to use of Council services due to their high capital value and the compounding of increases from year to year. Rates paid by farmers in Nelson City are now at very high levels and bear little relationship to the current or potential use of their land, and do not reflect the positive value that rural land on the fringes of the city has for inhabitants of Nelson. In our submission we suggest several options for improving the situation for farmers while being fair to other ratepayers Federated Farmers appreciates the effort made to maintain performance and minimise rates increases, but considers that the Council needs to rely less on debt and more on uniform charges to achieve a sustainable rating outcome going into the future. These matters are also addressed in the main body of our submission. 2. OVERALL RATES INCREASES, ABILITY TO PAY, AND SERVICES RECIEVED 2.1. The Annual Plan proposes a total increase in rates other than targeted rates for water supply of 4.2% to $49,304,000 in 2013/2014. This increase compounds with past rates increases and is a source of some concern for Federated Farmers members in Nelson, many of whom already pay very high rates In recent years rates have increased markedly as a result of relative changes in land value, yet at the same time services received have not changed significantly. The revaluations that occurred this year brought little change in the relative amount of rates collected from larger rural properties within the city boundary and we remain very concerned about high rates paid by farmers Changes to resource management plans, have meant that future land use options for farm land have become much more limited in Nelson. District Plan controls on activities in significant natural areas are now well advanced and new requirements for management of the coastal environment through the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) are likely to result in a very restrictive planning regime for coastal areas. Subdivision and land development on rural land in the vicinity of Nelson City is much more limited than it was even a few years ago. At the same time, farmland in the vicinity of Nelson City has come to be seen as a valued rural backdrop and recreational resource by residents. The Nelson Province seeks that Nelson City Council consider measures to improve the rating system in terms of 2 MUL Page 60

60 Submission 142 equity and fairness to occupants of properties severely affected by current rating policies, particularly in light of the context of the situation outlined above. Recommendation 2.4. Council continue to undertake prudent financial management to keep proposed increases in rates at or below the rate of inflation. 3. RATING DIFFERENTIAL 3.1. Federated Farmers considers that a key underlying factor in the high rates paid by our members is that the revenue and financing policy has not been able fairly address the relative amounts of rates paid as a result of very significant rises in the relative value of rural land that has occurred over the past decade It is Federated Farmers submission that outside of substantial reform to the revenue and financing policy that it is critical that Council immediately address this situation by adjusting the rural rating differential Other Councils that rate on land value and that rely significantly on general rates make much more use of rating differentials. For example Invercargill City Council, a Council with a similar balance of rural to urban land as Nelson, has a rural differential of -70. Federated Farmers suggests that the rural differential is reduced to the same level. This would bring rates paid by farms in Nelson into line with rates paid in Marlborough and Tasman District, as can be seen from the following table: Table 1: Comparison of rates paid by equivalent properties in adjacent Councils 1. Area Land value Capital value Valuation Total annual rates number Nelson Farm (-35 Differential) ha $3,915,00 $4,500, $18,034 Marlborough Farm $1,775,00 $3,610, $6,119 Tasman Farm $1,750,000 $2,735, $7,891 Note: all of these properties are extensive sheep and beef properties with a substantial hill country component If the rating differential for the Nelson farm were -70 as we request, the total rates for this property would be reduced to a much more reasonable $9,360 in the current 2012/13 year Increasing the rural differential to -70 would also bring rating outcomes for Nelson farms into line with those in Councils further afield, for example: In Gore District a $4 million capital value rural property has rates of $9, (excluding local hall rates which would be between $20 - $60); In Opotiki District a $4 million capital value rural property has rates of $10, (excluding any rates for sewerage, water supply and waste disposal, which would otherwise increase the amount by $600); 1 The source of this information is the publically available ratepayer databases for Marlborough, Tasman and Nelson Councils. 3 MUL Page 61

61 Submission 142 In Whakatane a $4 million capital value rural property has rates of $8, (including any rates for sewerage, but including water supply and waste disposal) Federated Farmers prefers the option of altering the rural rating differential because it will have less of an impact on other ratepayers, and will involve less cost and disruption for the Council pending a full investigation and consultation on alternative rating options. Recommendation 3.7. Federated Farmers submits that if Council cannot change the rural ate differential as part of this years annual plan decision then it immediately undertake the following 1. Council consult on a change to the rural rating differential to If necessary undertake a special consultative procedure to amend the LTP to change the rural rating differential in If such a change has to be delayed until 2013/14 annual plan then Council introduce and apply a rates remission policy to avoid any further rates increases until a comprehensive review of the revenue and financing policy has been undertaken and consulted upon as part of that process 4. UNIFORM ANNUAL CHARGES 4.1. Nelson City Council currently sets the UAGC and targeted rates set on a uniform basis at 18.9% of total rates revenue which Federated Farmers considers is very low compared to the 30% limit for uniform charges and targeted rates applying City wide The Annual Plan includes an increase in the uniform annual general charge from $363.9 to $377 per property, which reflects the overall increase in rates of just over 4% Uniform charges and targeted uniform rates are the fairest system available for Councils to rate for people services which benefit individual ratepayers equally regardless of value held in property. Services that should be funded through uniform charges include governance, parks and reserves, community facilities, cemeteries, district planning, environmental health, solid waste/landfill, and a portion of roading (to reflect the community benefit of roads) Federated Farmers considers that many of our farmer members are paying a very significant amount in general rates for services other than transport, roads and footpaths and that many of these services are people rather than property based benefits. 4 MUL Page 62

62 Submission 142 Recommendation 4.5. Increase the proportion of rates collected from the uniform annual general charge and other district wide targeted rates to 30% of rates collected, as specifically provided for in the Local Government (Rating) Act TRANSPARENCY 5.1. Federated Farmers seeks that annual plans and information provided to ratepayers is sufficient for all ratepayers to make a decision on the value of a particular area of council spending or a particular project and understand what the impact of that council activity or project is on their rates Bill. This way ratepayers can make a value judgement on whether or not they consider that is worth the change in the amount of money they pay for the potential service level or availability of service to them Federated Farmers appreciates the provision of the rates database, which enables ready access to property information related to rates, and includes valuable information on rating history, but consider that this service could be used to much better effect. For example we can know that various activities are funded through the general rate, but can only infer the mixture of funding across different types of services, or what individual ratepayers are paying for each type or category of service. For example a farmer paying $17,200 in rates may wish to know the respective proportions of money allocated to transport and to other services that the Council provides. We can only infer that given that given that $8,007,000 2 or 21% of rates collected of $38,129,000 3 is allocated to transport, that the property in question is making a $3,612 contribution to roading and a $13,588 contribution towards other services that the Council chooses to provide. It would be better if ratepayers were able to access this important information directly in the rates database rather than by inference from the figures in the Annual Plan or that a rates breakdown for each area of council expenditure was given to each individual ratepayer with their rates notice and summary of the annual plan In addition and to enhance transparency and to increase use of the service, it might be helpful to provide reference to the rates database and the ways in which the public can access it on rates demands. Recommendations 5.4. Council provide a breakdown of contributions to various activity areas and services, in particular funding of transport on the rates database Council include reference to the rates database information, including the ways in which people can access it and a breakdown of how much each individual ratepayer is paying to each area of council activity in future rates demands. 2 Transport Funding Impact Statement, page 9 3 Funding Impact Statement, page 57 5 MUL Page 63

63 Submission USE OF DEBT 6.1. Federated Farmers is particularly concerned about the increasing levels of projected debt, both in the Annual Plan and in the Long Term Plan, and the impact on future generations. The Nelson Province of Federated Farmers represents people who are established in and committed to the District on a multi-generational basis, and the proposed debt levels, and the implications of it for both rural and urban residents is of key interest The Annual Plan includes a proposed increase in debt of $24,406,000 a figure $7,540,000 higher than allowed for in the Long Term Plan in 2013/14. Federated Farmers considers that this level of reliance on debt goes beyond what is appropriate in these economically uncertain times. Effectively debt is a transfer of cost from one generation to another. If debt is used to an excessive degree, unfair outcomes occur as the current generation uses debt, guaranteed by income from rates, to pay for a level of service that they could not otherwise afford, but must be paid for by future residents Unlike a householder, the Council cannot trade down to a smaller house if in financial difficulty. Instead, ratepayers will have to cope with the cost of debt, whatever it may be and whatever their ability to pay and whatever economic problems or demographic pressures impact on the region in coming decades; which leads to our key concern with the proposed debt levels; Future generations do not have a say in decisions made by the Council, even if the use of debt by the current generation is such that there is no certainty that future ratepayers will be able to service such high debt levels Federated Farmers are also concerned about inconsistencies between the Funding Impact Statement on page 57 and the use of debt reported in the funding impact statement for various activity classes, which appears to report a total increase in debt funding of $51,585,000, made up of: Transport $5,382,000 Water Supply $3,270,000 Wastewater $2,384,000 Stormwater $586,000 Flood Protection $2,223,000 Environmental Management ($162,000) Social $270,000 Parks $5,079,000 Economic $1,722,000 Corporate $30,831,000 This level is very high compared to the stated level of debt in the Funding Impact Statement on page 57 of the Annual Plan, and about three times that allowed for, in the 2013/14 year, in the Long Term Plan. Recommendations 6 MUL Page 64

64 Submission Council explain discrepancies in the proposed level of debt, both in the figures in the Nelson City Council Draft Annual Plan 2013/2014, and between the Annual Plan and the Long Term Plan Council restrict the level of debt to that allowed for in the Long Term Plan or undertake a consultative process to vary the Long Term Plan. 7. STOCK EFFLUENT FACILITY 7.1. The proposed annual plan includes provision for a stock effluent facility to be located near Richmond. Stock effluent facilities are very important to prevent nuisance or danger to road users and residents in Nelson and to enable efficient and trouble free use of the road network by stock trucks. There are wider community benefits to the whole top of the South from reduced community tension and reduced potential adverse effects on amenity and traffic safety for all who use, or live and work near roads. Recommendation 7.2. Proceed with plans to begin construction of a stock effluent facility in the 2013/14 year. 8. LEE VALLEY DAM 8.1. Federated Farmers wishes to draw the attention of Council to the Waimea Water Management and Augmentation (Lee Dam) Project, which will create economic and social benefits across the Nelson and Tasman regions. Farms will be able to increase production, change land use to more profitable enterprises, and achieve improved resilience in dry years, while the wider community can improve reliability of water supply. Increased water security will have a substantial social good in creating a more resilient and prosperous basis for the rural and urban economy The Lee Dam Project will also bring substantial economic and social benefits to Nelson City which should be recognised. The economic study of the Opuha Dam Project showed that irrigation schemes enable farms to increase production, change land use to more profitable enterprises, and achieve improved resilience in dry years, while the wider community can improve reliability of water supply. The Opuha Dam Study 4 also found that: For the entire economy of the study area, including Timaru District and Fairlie Basin, each thousand hectares of irrigation adds $7.7 million in output, 30 FTEs, $2.5 million in value added, $1.2 million in household income. 4 The Opuha Dam: An ex post study of its impacts on the provincial economy and community. August Appended. Also available online: ab&q=opuha+dam+study&oq=opuha+dam+study&gs_l=hp j1j0j c.1.7.psyb.o3gqrymnmzw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv ,d.cge&fp=8ca9661cd8c89ebc&biw=1024 &bih=597 7 MUL Page 65

65 Submission 142 A substantial proportion of these benefits were enjoyed in Timaru, even though this town is located some distance from the farms that were actually irrigated We seek to avoid a situation where the Lee Valley Dam project, which is essential to the on-going sustainable management of water resources in Tasman and Nelson, becomes untenable due to a lack of commitment from all potential partners across the region. Recommendations 8.4. That Nelson City Council support advancing the Waimea Water Management and Augmentation Project, recognising the substantial community and social benefits of irrigation, and benefits of improved security of water supply That in partnership with other key stakeholders that Nelson City Council seek to advance the project in close consultation with the community in a way that considers all potential sources of funding that recognises that there are multiple beneficiaries of the project. 9. ABOUT FEDERATED FARMERS 9.1. Federated Farmers welcomes the opportunity to submit to Nelson City Council on the Draft Annual Plan for 2013/ Federated Farmers of New Zealand is a primary sector organisation that represents farming and other rural businesses. Federated Farmers has a long and proud history of representing the needs and interests of New Zealand farmers The Federation aims to add value to its members farming business. Our key strategic outcomes include the need for New Zealand to provide an economic and social environment within which: Our members may operate their business in a fair and flexible commercial environment; Our members' families and their staff have access to services essential to the needs of the rural community; and Our members adopt responsible management and environmental practices. Gavin O Donnell Provincial President Nelson Province Federated Farmers of New Zealand 8 MUL Page 66

66 Submission 146 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Submissions Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Wednesday, 24 April :05:11 p.m. Submission-on Annual-Plan-NCC-Final.pdf From: Sent: Wednesday, April 24, :05:08 PM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name David Bonnett Organisation represented (if applicable) Nelson Tasman Cycle Trails Trust Your address PO Box 570 Nelson 7042 Your phone number Your address hdbonnett@gmail.com Do you wish to speak at the hearing? Yes Would an evening hearing suit you better? No Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan Please see the attached file Optional demographic information Age Gender Male Have you made a submission before? Yes Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? MUL Page 67

67 Submission-on Annual-Plan-NCC-Final.pdf - Download File Submission 146 MUL Page 68

68 Submission April 2013 SUBMISSION: FROM: Nelson City Council 2013/14 Annual Plan Nelson Tasman Cycle Trails Trust INTRODUCTION: The Nelson Tasman Cycle Trails Trust (NTCTT) commends the Council on its funding and operational support for cycle trail development, and encourages the continued development and promotion of cycle infrastructure throughout the city. The Trust s mission includes promotion and enhancement of cycle assets for recreation, tourism, health, scenic, economic and education purposes. We are the New Zealand Cycle Trail (NZCT) representative for the Dun Mountain and Great Taste Trails, thus acting as the voice of Nelson within that organisation. Over 100 businesses in Nelson/Tasman are Official Partners through the Trust in the NZCT Great Rides, recognising their potential economic benefit to the region. We support the Council s planned cycling-related expenditures and activities as bringing benefit to all ratepayers and visitors to the city. Nelson is in the enviable position of having two of the New Zealand Cycle Trail Great Rides originating within its boundaries, both of which are highly popular with residents and tourists. For cycling visitors to Nelson, their experience riding the section of cycleway leading to the I-Site through the heart of the city can set the tone for their memories of their trip to our region. The Council has shown great initiative in constructing cycling infrastructure and setting goals in the Long Term Plan , for significantly increasing the number and frequency of trips by bike. Reaching the goals set out in the Long-Term plan will require closing the gaps between the existing sections of cycleway and shared paths. The Trust encourages Council to approve the projects necessary to do so. This is critical for both community cycle use and to gain the economic benefits from encouraging tourists from the cycle trails into Nelson city. FUNDING: The Nelson Tasman Cycle Trail Trust supports the retention of NCC s $250,000 of funds for the feasibility study of the Rocks Road shared walk/cycleway (page 7, Statement of Proposal and page 59, Transport). This project addresses a key part of the preferred route for the Great Taste Trail, improves a vital cycling commuter route and will benefit both ratepayers and visitors to the city. This does not, whoever ameliorate the need for an immediate solution to cycle access from the railway reserve cycle track at the top of St Vincent St into the city centre (I-site). MUL Page 69

69 Submission 146 The project to improve the Maitai shared path from Ackerston St to Trafalgar St (page 59, Transport) is a vital part of the link between Rocks Road and the I-Site. The $1,000,000 proposed will better connect the waterfront to the CBD for all non-motorised users and will benefit both ratepayers and visitors. The Trust encourages Council to move forward with this project. The Trust also supports the expansion of funding for the Bishopdale-Ridgeway shared path by $100,000 (page 59, Transport); providing an off-road connection between the heavily used Railway Reserve shared path and the Ridgeway will improve the safety and access for commuters from the Enner Glynn and Ridgeway neighbourhoods, especially the many students travelling to Nelson Intermediate or the Colleges. While there is no current year expenditure directly associated with the Velodrome at Saxton Field, the Trust is supportive of this project, which will strengthen the attraction of Nelson as a cycling destination. The realignment of overhead power (page 64, Parks and Recreation) is necessary for the velodrome to proceed, so we urge Council to advance this project. MARKETING With the development of the Dun Mountain Trail and Great Taste Trail, as well as other cycle resources (e.g. Codgers Mountain Bike Park, Kaiteriteri Mountain Bike Park) and other cycling infrastructure in the region, cycling is becoming a much more significant tourism and economic development activity. There is also a lot of activity in other parts of the country, both under the banner of the central government supported Great Rides and independent trail development. In a highly competitive environment, it is a key time for the region to invest in marketing as a cycling destination. The Trust s aim, as construction project manager for the Great Taste Trail, is that by next summer (December 2013) the Great Taste Trail will provide predominantly off-road riding from Nelson to Wakefield and Riwaka/Kaiteriteri. The Trust is developing marketing material for the trails and has over 100 businesses that are Official Partners for the Great Taste and Dun Mountain Trails. This provides excellent leverage on any funding the Council puts towards regional marketing of cycle tourism. This also links well with marketing as a food, beverage and arts destination. Nelson Tasman Tourism has incorporated cycling and the Dun Mountain and Great Taste Trails into its destination marketing. There is value in a central agency in Nelson Tasman that incorporates cycle tourism into regional tourism promotion and acts as a contact point for marketing activity. We support Council s on-going commitment to funding Nelson Tasman Tourism, as well as highlighting the need/opportunity for targeted funding for promotion of Nelson as a cycling destination. The Trust would like to speak to this submission at the public hearings. Submission on Behalf of Nelson Tasman Cycle Trails Trust. H. David Bonnett Trustee MUL Page 70

70 Submission 153 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Submissions Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Thursday, 25 April :46:53 a.m. Generation-Zero-submission-to-NCC-on-the-Annual-Plan-1.pdf From: Sent: Thursday, April 25, :46:48 AM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name Monica Nelson Organisation represented (if applicable) Generation Zero Your address 27 Victoria Heights, Nelson Your phone number Your address monochico548@gmail.com Do you wish to speak at the hearing? Yes Would an evening hearing suit you better? Yes Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan I support the development of the Rocks road cylceway/walkway. A safer, more enjoyable route along Rocks road would greatly benefit Nelson. Just yesterday I saw a cyclist get hit on Rocks Road, this can be prevented. I also support the Bridge Street upgrade. I support the continuing development of continuous cycleways through and around Nelson. It is important that not only are there safe cycle lanes within the city, but also that they extend out to all the suburbs. I would also encourage the Council to further work on the NBus system. The income from parking may be down, but eh buses are still too expensive and the routes need some work. If these problems are fixed more people will ride the buses. Also, what happens if there are already two bikes on a bus and you want to get on with yours? Lastly, I support the proposal for council buildings to mount solar panels on their roofs. Nelson is seen as the sunshine capital-we should be using that source of MUL Page 71

71 energy that is so abundant here. If the council leads the way, residents will follow on. Optional demographic information Age Under 21 Gender Female Have you made a submission before? No Submission 153 Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? Generation-Zero-submission-to-NCC-on-the-Annual-Plan-1.pdf - Download File MUL Page 72

72 Submission 153 Submission to the Nelson City Council on the Annual Plan 2013/14 Submitted by: Rachel Ward, on behalf of Generation Zero Address: 58 Old House Rd, RD2 Upper Moutere, Nelson 7175 Phone: or We would like to speak at the oral hearing Content: 1. About Generation Zero 2. The Annual Plan 2013/14 and the Long Term Plan 3. Other possible projects 4. Concluding remarks 1. Generation Zero Generation Zero is a youth-led, non-partisan organisation that was launched in 2011 and now has over 3000 members. Our vision is for a zero carbon Aotearoa by We aim to achieve this by pushing for a comprehensive government plan to reduce greenhouse gas and fossil fuel dependence, complemented by engagement with local government to achieve the same ends. We believe that New Zealand has the ability to rise to its climate and energy challenges and create a better, more prosperous future in the process. Nelson has significant role to play in helping New Zealand move beyond fossil fuels. 2. The Annual Plan 2013/14 and the Long Term Plan a) Rocks Road cycleway/walkway We support the development of the Rocks Road shared walkway/cycleway. This project would encourage walking and cycling, both for recreational purposes and as a form of transport- encouraging residents to use the walkway/cycleway to commute into Nelson City, rather than travelling by motor vehicle. Offering a diverse range of transport options would reduce reliance on fossil fuel dependent modes of transport and congestion along the main routes into the city. 3. Other possible projects There are a number of other projects that we encourage the Council to go ahead with: a) Bridge Street upgrade We support the Bridge Street upgrade, and urge the Council to continue this project despite funding setbacks. The upgrade would make this part of Nelson City more liveable- fostering MUL Page 73

73 Submission 153 community interaction and encouraging walking through the city centre. b) Solar panels on Council buildings It would be fantastic to see Nelson capitalising on this renewable energy resource by building solar panels- working towards becoming the solar capital of New Zealand, as well as the sunshine capital. We encourage the Council to investigate the feasibility of developing solar panels on Council buildings. c) Continuous cycleways We encourage the Council to ensure that cycleways into the city centre are continuous, to promote cyclist safety and encourage people to cycle. In some areas, such as along St Vincent St and Vanguard St, the lack of continuity of cycle-ways means cyclists are forced to enter the traffic flow. This is dangerous and deters people from choosing to cycle. 4. Concluding remarks We encourage the Council to be bold in its approach and support projects that would allow Nelson to move beyond fossil fuels. We would like to present this submission as a group at the oral hearings for the Annual Plan. Thank you for taking our views on board. MUL Page 74

74 Submission 155 From: To: Subject: Date: Submissions Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Thursday, 25 April :11:09 p.m From: Sent: Thursday, April 25, :11:06 PM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name Bevan White Organisation represented (if applicable) Your address 9 Hill St Your phone number Your address bevanne@orcon.net.nz Do you wish to speak at the hearing? No Would an evening hearing suit you better? Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan I have two separate points to make regarding the draft annual plan, one being Natureland Zoo and the other Peak hour traffic flow. 1. Natureland zoo should continue to be supported by the council as it provides valuable social and recreational benefit to young and old alike through enjoyable interaction with animals and staff providing animal and conservation education. It should also be upgraded to include new native species such as a kiwi enclosue to attract tourists as well as locals. The council should provide a part time fund raising manager to approach businesses, charities and goverment agencies to support this initiative. It is currently well run with a vareity of healthy, exotic,native, marine and farm animals but has potential to be an iconic attraction. A management model the council could consider is that of Brooklands Zoo run by the New Plymouth City Council which is a similar size to Natureland and is free to the public and enjoyed by all. 2. Peak rush hourtraffic The average delay times in the plan of 1-3 minutes does not reflect the MUL Page 75

75 minutes delay experienced most days. The only exception is during school holiday periods when there is minimal delays which was probably when the study was taken. Provision should be made in the plan to have two lanes all the way along Waimea Road from Stoke to the city but only during peak times by using /modifying the existing roadway and using no stopping /tow away signs. The same could be acheived on Rocks Rd but in the evening rush hour from City to Stoke. This simple measure would alleviate traffic congestion in the interim until funding for motorway continuation is allocated. Optional demographic information Age Gender Male Have you made a submission before? No Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? Submission 155 MUL Page 76

76 Submission 157 From: To: Subject: Date: Submissions Administration Support FW: Submission on draft Annual Plan Thursday, 25 April :25:02 p.m From: Sent: Thursday, April 25, :24:54 PM To: Submissions Subject: Submission on draft Annual Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Submission on draft Annual Plan Your name Emily Narbey Organisation represented (if applicable) Generation Zero Your address 49 Newman Drive, Enner Glynn, Nelson 7011 Your phone number (03) / Your address e.narbey@hotmail.com Do you wish to speak at the hearing? Yes Would an evening hearing suit you better? No Share your thoughts about the draft 2013/14 Annual Plan We support the Rocks Road cycleway/walkway. Having this would encourage people to commute on foot or by bike, instead of by car, therefore putting Nelson on 'track' to becoming less dependent on fossil fuels, moving beyond them and really living up to our country's slogan of being "clean, green and beautiful". As well as improving environmental conditions this cycle/walkway would also decrease congestion and encourage people in the Nelson community to get get outdoors and get active! We also support the Bridge St upgrade, despite setbacks, this would beautify Nelson even further, make it a more welcoming and safe environment to be in, promote community interaction and encourage citizens to walk through Nelson's city centre. To see the Council investigate the feasibility of having solar panels on council buildings would be great. Not only would we be putting to good use our city's MUL Page 77

77 Submission 157 sunshine hours we would also be investing in a renewable energy source, oppose to a fossil fuel; this would really claim our stake as the solar capital of New Zealand. Using solar panels on Council buildings would be a fantastic example to the rest of the City and show that you can "talk the talk and walk the walk." We would like to see that the Council ensures that cycleways around the Nelson area are continuous, as disjointed pathways are dangerous and can force cyclists onto the, often hectic, Nelson roads. This lack of completion can deter citizens from cycling, especially younger people, which negatively promotes cycling in Nelson. Nelson, and it's drivers need to become more cycle friendly and aware. Improving cycleways would positively promote cycling, increase cyclists' safety and get more people on their bikes. In conclusion, we, Generation Zero, want the Council to strive to and support local projects that allow Nelson to move beyond fossil fuels; as we think about our City's future we can't be reliant on something so historic that it's 'fossil'. Thank you for taking our views on board. Optional demographic information Age Under 21 Gender Female Have you made a submission before? No Would you like to attach a file in support of your submission? MUL Page 78

78 MUL Page 79