Ten Year Plan feedback results 15 April 2009
Juggling requests from ratepayers who responded to Thames-Coromandel District Council’s draft Ten Year Plan will be the order of the day for councillors next week.
Councillors will deliberate on the hundreds of comments and suggestions forwarded by residents with topics ranging from building new sports facilities in Thames and Whitianga to cutting back completely on all new projects in the current economic climate.
Whilst there were specific views on the timeframe and necessity of different projects, the overall messages were clear – most ratepayers agree on the need for the Council to cap spending.
Submitters have had the opportunity to speak to their submission at public hearings around the peninsula. Once elected members have deliberated on these submissions, and the extra information provided at hearings, submitters will be advised of the Council’s decision. The final document will be posted on the website www.tcdc.govt.nz and at all Council offices once it is adopted on 24 June.
Common themes that emerged from the consultation include;
* A strong theme for those who request a service to pay for it themselves
* No district-wide funding for capital works, but rather each ward pay for its own capital projects
* Calls to cut operational costs
* Calls for the Council to lower or cut rates
* For the Council to respond to the economic recession
* A perceived inequity between spending on the east and west coasts of the peninsula
* Additional community facilities in Thames
* Calls for developers to fund all growth costs
* Charges for tourists and visitors to assist in reducing rates
* A perceived duplication of services provided by Environment Waikato (EW)
Questions were asked to stimulate debate on the need to prioritise and the responses received will be balanced with other factors including the possible cost to future generations, legislative requirements and operational detail.
When asked about the Council’s proposal to stop mowing berms outside private property in all community areas, more than 900 people responded with 602 saying yes - conditional on the Council still mowing rural roads, reserve areas and main thoroughfares - and 319 saying no. Those opposing had concerns including the high number of non-resident ratepayers, untidiness, and berms providing pedestrian routes where there are no footpaths. Another 53 people had no opinion.
A high number of submitters indicated they would not use multi-sports facilities in wards outside their own and a number also stated that Thames was a better location for a district multi-sports facility and the economic base of the Peninsula, while others recommended one facility on each side of the Peninsula. Some 141 people supported the use of rates gathered district-wide to pay for such facilities while 900 people thought each ward should pay for their own facility. Those with no opinion totalled 114.
On the question of whether the Council should not provide water, sewerage or stormwater facilities in new developments outside of those that already exist, 679 agreed this was best while 164 said the Council should provide these services. A further 79 did not know or had no opinion.
Asked whether they were willing to pay for an increased service in the Natural and Cultural Heritage category costing an additional $5 per property, 283 said yes, 615 said no and said it was not a priority in the current climate, not a core responsibility for Council, and was a duplication of EW’s role. A further 44 had no opinion.
Ratepayers were consulted on the draft Ten Year Plan in January and February when open days were held via ‘coffee sessions’ with Mayor Philippa Barriball and staff.
Ratepayers were told the Council had pushed out spending on numerous projects to between 2012 and 2022 and were asked if they agreed with this. Submitters responded with comments varying from support for the Council not to reinstate any of the postponed projects; to only reinstating projects if they are funded through user pays; through to requests for each of the postponed projects to be reinstated.
When considering responses across all Council activities, submitters generally wanted the Council to focus on ‘core’ activities but were not prepared to pay more even for the highest prioritised of these – provision of water. The highest percentage of people prepared to pay more for this was only 22% of respondents.
Cemeteries, Natural and Cultural Heritage and Leadership were clearly considered to be a low priority with a very low willingness to pay more.