Tag Archives: Local Boards

Question on Local Service Provisions

Posted on by

Local Services or Centralised Services – That is the Question

 

On Monday I had written the LOCAL BOARD SERVICE PROVISIONS FALTER post which included photos about our Local Boards and communities suffering from scarce funding and either lack of or poor civic service provision from Council contractors:

Just recently Manurewa Local Board Chair – Angela Dalton posted some rather sad pictures on the state of affairs in regards to maintenance to civic places like parks and berms in Manurewa. I’ll let the photos do the talking here:

Now after Angela had posted the photos, the Council contractor raced out with the mowers to err trim the grass – and leave it all behind (which would have made great hay for my chickens) (oh and miss the edges too). However as the Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards will attest to, service provisions for these Local Boards from the main Council and its contractors who look after civic places has basically fallen off a cliff. And these Local Board Service Provision stories I keep seeing on Facebook due to either Local Boards facing cuts in their budgets to fund provisions or services, or super city amalgamation being a catalyst to decrease in either services or quality of services are appearing time and time again.

You can read the rest of the article by hitting the link above.

 

After I had posted the original article’s links into Facebook along with a question to Communities and Residents, this reply came back from the Deputy Chair of the Orakei Board (a note to readers, I am not a member or affiliated to C&R):

http://voakl.net/2012/11/12/local-board-service-provisions-falter/

Would Communities and Residents support a methodology change into how our Local Boards are funded and how local service provisions are catered for?
Real Local Democracy and Local Services or a Soviet Style Centralist Nightmare from the Main Council?

Local Board Service Provisions Falter

voakl.net

Local Boards Starved of Needed Cash – So Another Way to Provide Local Services? Just recently Manurewa Local Board Chair – Angela Dalton posted some rather sad pictures on the st…
  • Mark Thomas Sounds like great idea Ben. The Mayor is convening a political working party of councillors and LB members to develop a “fairer” local board funding policy, but defining what “fair” is will be the most challenging part.
  • Ben Ross Sounds like good news from the Mayor, Mark. Will be interested to see what comes from this Political Working Party although the word “political” brings the cynical side out in me ;);) You able to keep us updated on how the working party progresses please? Could have a major influence on the Local Boards after the elections next year

 

So it seems the Mayor IS convening a working party to discuss “fairer” Local Board funding policies and probably how Local Board Service Provisions are provided for. It will be a case of wait and see how this all turns out and how this will impact the Local Boards after next year’s Local Government Elections.

 

And that brings me to the question I want readers to ponder over when it comes to Local Board Service Provisions.

The question is:

Do you want the status quo as currently; or do you want something like bulk funding and increased “power” over your Local Board service provisions whether it be the method I suggest OR the method Jami-Lee Ross suggested. Which ever option you chose will be the option pushed to lobby the main Council/Governing Body!

 

The alternative options from MP Jami-Lee Ross and myself:

From Jami-Lee Ross

1) have a clear definition of what is local and what is regional
2) everything regional is funded from a general rate set by governing body. They are accountable for it. 
3) everything local is funded from a local services targeted rate, funded from within that ward and kept within that ward. Local board set this targeted rate and are accountable for it. No cross subsidisation on local projects. Complete control for local boards when it comes to local issues. High spending local boards can spend whatever they want. Frugal local boards can likewise do so and not see their savings going back into the general pool.

This model would ring-fence local funding for local initiatives, but would still see regional infrastructures and services funded. It would empower local boards much more as well as demand greater accountability.

 

From me:

Bulk Funding the Local Boards goes like this. Orakei currently pays $106m in rates to the “Council” yet “Council” only gives $10m (about 10%) back to Orakei to run its Local Board and services. The proposal I am running with is Orakei pays $106m to “Council” and Council gives back (and that is a must, no if’s buts or maybes) 25-33% (up to Local Board’s decision on level) back to Orakei so Orakei can run and maintain its Local Community Services, Events plus any CAPEX spending as it sees fit (of course with dialogue with its residents and businesses).

The Governing Body can not touch the 33% as it is ring fenced to Local Boards. This also includes the Governing Body unable to hike the rates beyond 1.6x the rate of inflation at max with all spending spelled out per the current Better Local Government MK II Bill/Act/Paper

 

As I said in my earlier post about these options for Local Board Service Provisions:  I will go look into these ideas some more and get back to you (which I have with the update from Mark Thomas). However I am willing to run in my election to Papakura Local Board next year stating that; If elected to Papakura Local Board 2013, I will advocate and push for a full and frank discussion with the residents and businesses inside the Papakura Local Board area on Local Board Funding and Service Provision; advocating for the service and funding provision option they chose.

 

So go have a ponder and maybe a cup of tea or that coffee with your neighbour, shop-owner, friend, or others out there in your community on how you want your Local Board funded and services provided. It is your Local Board, your local community, your home, your place of business, your place of living, working or bringing up your family – your place you take pride in.

 

I am open to your constructive feed back so that an informed decision in advocating for Local Board Service Provision can be made.

 

Again:

 Your Local Board, your local community, your home, your place of business, your place of living, working or bringing up your family – your place you take pride in.

 

 

Auckland Council Has Another Moment

Posted on by

Someone Can’t Allocate a Budget Properly?

 

Tonight I am going in and giving a shout out to a person who is in an awkward situation: The Chair of the Manurewa Local Board.

I am publishing his Facebook comment on Auckland Council cocking funding towards Local Boards. A story was even run at Stuff to which the mayor admitted the cock-up in that article. You can read the Stuff article here: Funding `whoopsie’ leaves budget hole

A brief introduction to the article (actually here is the whole article):

Confusion over what millions of ratepayer dollars should pay for has left a gaping hole in one local board’s budget.

Earlier this month the Manurewa Local Board chose not to fund the Auckland Botanic Gardens Festival and Southside Gig, worth $1.7 million over 10 years, because of funding pressures.

But last Wednesday the Auckland Council’s strategy and finance committee voted 12-11 to take $1.7 million out of the board’s budget and fund the two events.

Manukau councillor Alf Filipaina says he was told the money was given to the local board in error so it should be given back to allow both events to go ahead.

“It’s like the Westpac bank giving someone $10 million by mistake.”

But before the vote, council officers told the meeting they had reviewed both events and decided it was up to the local board to fund them rather than the council.

“If the local board decides not to go ahead with it, that’s their decision.”

After the vote, officers informed councillors cuts would have to be made to the Manurewa board’s budget because of the decision.

Manurewa Local Board chairman Daniel Newman says the funding cut is a huge setback.

“The decision means we are now much worse off. It really has ripped the guts out of our 10-year budget.”

The cuts mean funding that pays for Nathan Homestead’s opening hours or the future development of Totara Park could be affected, he says.

The decision was also unpopular with some local board members from other areas, who heckled councillors from the public gallery.

“You’ve stolen money from a local board,” they shouted.

Mayor Len Brown says he hopes those kind of “whoopsies” won’t happen again.

“Both sides were mistaken as to what was intended.”

Mr Brown voted against stripping the local board of the money.

This is what the Chair of that Local Board had to say – complete with comments underneath. [A note with Facebook: VOAKL will publish Facebook remarks that are marked "Public" (indicated by the little globe symbol next to when the post was posted). I will not publish Facebook remarks from "non public" settings unless I have permission from the poster. With a "public" posts I follow the "fair-game" rule, so if you do not want your public comment here in VOAKL, then don't post on a public posting...]

VOAKL supports Newman in his challenge to the Mayor – especially when someone Council acts politically (Alf Filipaina) or just being inept (the Officers?) 

Your Move next Len

English: Len Brown - New Zealand politician ht...

English: Len Brown – New Zealand politician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Brown (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Local Boards have their “Moment”

Posted on by

Muppets and Moments

And it seems some people representing their local communities on Auckland’s Local Boards have decided to enter into the POAL dispute and issue a nice press release backing MUNZ and the port workers.

Talk about a muppets’ Moment in spades.

Look Local Boards might want to express opinion of their community about POAL as it is a city issue – but please do it right.

Please consult your community first and make sure you have absolute support from all Local Board members on your board.

All you muppets have done is made a partisan issue even more partisan by coming out as individuals rather than the collective.

Then again looking at the list of names – a sandwich short of a picnic or a beer short of a 6 pack sounds more apt for these muppets – having their moment…

The Draft Auckland Plan (#3) (Serial)

Posted on by

The Centralised Master (Community) Plan

 

In the last Draft Auckland Plan Series post I gave an introduction and outline into the land use and transport aspects of my submission. In particular the post looked at the Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation system I had devised, and the two LADU methods also devised in the submission. The two LADU methods (f0r both Greenfield and Brownfield land use) were; Centralised Master (Community) Plan (CMCP) and the Semi-Liberal Planned District (SLPD). Both methods had to follow the Regional Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation Philosophies (R-LADU-P) also mentioned in The Draft Auckland Plan (#2) (Series) post as basic requirements for a healthy (yet still affordable and economically viable) physical AND social environment.

Centralised Master (Community) Plan and Semi Liberal Planned District Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation briefs can be found by clicking on the respective hyper link and going to PAGE 14 of the submission document on Scribd.

 

The Centralised Master (Community) Plan is where the subject LADU is performed under a strict prescription criteria. The reason behind that is due to the land or area having:

“significant value or consequences (both positive and negative) to either the surrounding area or the entire city thus land allocation/development/utilisation inside these CMCP’s could not be left strictly to more market forces (as would be seen in a Semi-Liberal Simplified Planned District development).”

 

Basically so called sensitive areas in Auckland would be put under the CMCP-LADU method. These sensitive areas (as per Table 8.2 Page 132 of The Auckland Draft Plan (Urban Auckland)) are:

  • International City Centre
  • Metropolitan Centres
  • Any urban (or rural) centre marked with an (*) in Chapters Seven and Eight of The Draft Auckland Plan
  • Tamaki

The reason why those areas were placed under the CMCP-LADU method was due to their sensitive nature in Auckland and could not be left to the more liberal Semi Liberal Planned District LADU method. The sensitivity ranges from large economic, social environmental and/or physical environmental effects the areas bullet pointed above have and thus in my opinion need a LADU method that is performed:

“under a strict prescription. That prescription would provide the covenants on land allocation, land utilisation, urban design and “rules” around what types of activities or future activities that could or could not be carried out.”

The Draft City Centre Master Plan provides an extensive and comprehensive example of what a Centralised Master (Community) Plan can look like. The Draft Waterfront Plan could also be another example of a CMCP based on the sensitive social and physical environmental effects the area has in and for Auckland. In any case both examples are indicative on what a CMCP can do.

However with time short and only just me and my computer, I could only focus on selected areas for the CMCP LADU method however room was left for further development if Auckland Council takes up the idea in the final Auckland Plan.

The areas I thus focused in my submission were:

The above mentioned areas had significant value or consequences and were therefore put under the CMCP-LADU method. If the CMCP-LADU method is adopted into The Auckland Plan then the following would occur:

Local Boards, Auckland Council (mainly in regard to the International City Centre Zone), stakeholders and developers would need to work together to form the Centralised Master (Community) Plans to takes these centres forward for the next 30-50 years. However while developing a CMCP, the primary goal of “The Plan has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and Sustainable while still making Auckland „The Most Liveable City.” So rule of thumb, the CMCP (as one person said) if printed on A4 paper should be no thicker than an average person‟s thumbnail – anything thicker means it is too complex and/or inefficient.”

Detailed individual Central Master (Community) Plans for the five areas mentioned above will be not attached or added to this submission per-se. For one the idea of a CMCP has to be approved by Auckland Council first in finalising The Auckland Plan, second if a CMCP model of land allocation/development/utilisation is adopted then a second phase of “planning” has to be undertaken in order to create the CMCP. That planning work would and should be down collaboratively with Local Boards, Auckland Council (mainly in regard to the International City Centre Zone), stakeholders and developers. That planning work would be done either in preparation for the Unitary Plan or the Long Term Plan.

 

As quoted it would happen through the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan that is set out for both the Auckland Council and the Local Boards (both affected with the CMCP or not). However I am a bit concerned as the Long Term Plan (the action plan and budget (including rates) mechanism ) is already drafted and can not be easily changed despite public consultation that will happen next month. I am wondering if The Draft Auckland Plan is already set regardless of its public consultation that happened last year and thus the Long Term Plan is a natural follow on from it.

In any case, my submission mentioned five areas that I had placed under the CMCP-LADU method due to their significant value and/or consequences to further development.

The next round of posts on The Draft Auckland Plan Series I will look at each of the five areas in my submission mentioned under the CMCP-LADU method and why.