You are making a submission on behalf of: Yourself Do you wish to speak in support of your submission at a public hearing?

Yes

Your details
First name: Benjamin Surname: Ross Organisation: Postal address: Post code: 2110 Phone number: Mobile number: Email address: Ben.R001@gmail.com Preferred method of communication: By email Local board area: Papakura local board Date of submission: 20 February 2013

1. Service reductions
Do you agree or disagree with the proposals to reduce some of our services? I agree with the proposals in reducing some services such as Berm Mowing. HOWEVER Berm Mowing should be up for individual Local Boards to provide not the wider Governing Body. Meaning if say Papakura Local Board wanting berm mowing but no other Local Boards did, then full provision and authority via the Annual and Long Term Plans should be made for Papakura Local Board to charge a full targeted rate to cover the cost of the Berm Mowing. Basically a Local Board User Pay system that allows for better provision and funding of local services - while saving the wider city and Council money...

2. Rates
The proposed changes have reduced the projected average rates increase from 4.8 to 2.9 per cent. Do you agree or disagree with this level of change? Any rates increase reduction is a good thing - although I live in a Ward area that is getting full rates reductions of 5.56% capped. But still the Council and CCOs must try harder to bring our rates bills to more tolerable levels than now. Maybe the Council should readjust how it does its budget such as Line up all your revenue first, then do your expenses - not the other way around... While set in the 2012-2022 LTP, the UAC should of been at $450 and the business differential set to under 2.0 in comparison to residential rates... The idea is not charge us off our land, home and businesses

3. Fees
Do you agree or disagree with proposed changes to fees? Agree with the proposed changes to fees

4. Parks and open spaces

Do you agree or disagree with these proposals for additional funding? Agree with the proposals for additional funding in the parks and open spaces category

5. Community and events

Do you agree or disagree with these proposals for additional funding? Agree with the proposals for additional funding for community and events

6. Planning and economic development

Do you agree or disagree with additional budget for the overseas trade mission programme and to develop the Unitary Plan? Agree with the extra 753,000 to the budget if it means contribution to a full and robust dialogue (consultation often means monologue) facilitation between The City and Council in regards to the Unitary Plan However I disagree with the extra provision for Overseas Trade Missions as these missions should be attached or run through MFAT - the proper organisation to run such missions...

7. Proposed rates remission and postponement policy

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed policy changes? No comment on the rates remission and postponement policy

8. TelstraClear Pacific Events Centre

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to contribute to its development from the sale of surplus land (estimated at $20-30 million)? Disagree very strongly to the contribution and the sale of the surplus land at Telstra Pacific Events Centre. In no way shape or form should council be involved in this venture which is a pure commercial enterprise and should be able to from its so called merits stand on its own as a pure commercial enterprise with NO public sector financial assistance what so ever. I also strongly disagree with the TelstraClear Pacific Events proposal due to this reason: "This proposal will amend the LTP 2012-2022" No proposal of such scale should ever allow or force a change to an operational Long Term Plan, to do sets a precedence for anyone to come along, "convince council" and re-alter an operation LTP which would cause (due to a LTP setting our rates and debt policies) instability and uncertainty within the city due to that alteration. If this White Water Rafting facility so needed council support then it should wait like everyone else until the 2015-2025 LTP is up for consideration and becoming operational... NO SHORT CUTTING OPERATIONAL LTPs from a project that if the spin is correct in its so called benefits (which I believe are zero to the fact the costs will outweigh any benefits) then the project as I said should be able to stand on its own feet as a pure commercial operation with no support from Council. If it cannot, then it should not proceed as the money asked for would be better sunk into existing programs that deliver better economic, cultural and educational benefits especially for a struggling South Auckland...

9. Local communities
Which local board does your submission relate to? Papakura local board Do you agree or disagree with the local board priorities for 2013/2014 included in your local board's budget? I agree with the Papakura Local Board priorities for the 2013/2014 year. However I would like to make note for the record on a few things in the Local Board advocacy section of its 2013/2014 Document. I agree with all its points made in its 2013/2014 advocacy section especially bringing forward the Takanini Library at the new and under construction Takanini Village, and extending the Papakura Station's Park and Ride Facilities. However I do not agree with Papakura Local Board advocating for Park and Ride Facilities at the Takanini Station. This would be due to it contravening my submission to the recent Auckland Transport Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) and subsequent hearing in which I called for Takanini Station to be closed and relocated to the Glenroa Road (previously known as the Walters Road site) site equipped with full bus interchange and park-and-ride facilities attached to the Takanini Village development. This new station would serve an enlarged catchment more so than any improvements to the run down and unsafe existing Takanini Station. Papakura Local Board should be throwing its full weight behind closing Takanini and opening Glenora Road. More on this can be found here http://voakl.net/2013/02/07/back-from-hearing-panel/ a commentary on my hearing presentation to the AT RPTP. I also note no mention of Papakura Local Board continuing to advocate for the Manukau South Rail Link which it said it was throwing its support behind as the Board Chair told the November Auckland Council Transport Committee. The business plan for this South Link is nearly out and I would urge the Local Board to continue to throw its maximum weight behind advocating for this South Link as it would become a key fast transit connector for Papakura and Takanini residents to their major service and employment centre - Manukau City Centre. Do you agree or disagree with the local board's proposed changes? I agree with the Papakura Local Board's proposed changes

10. Other comments

Do you have any other comments on the draft Annual Plan 2013/2014? One other comment and that is from: Page 40, Volume 1, Draft Annual Plan 13/14). This in regards to the Mayor's Office asking for extra funding in the 2013/2014 year. $4,994,000 to run his office? I would like to see an itemised break down first before I even consider supporting such a request from the mayor. So the simple answer is: NO! No the mayor cannot have that $4,994,000 but like everyone else facing cut backs should have the office budget trimmed to a modest $1m/year for the upcoming Annual Plan Cycle. Unless I am missing something, $1m should be more than enough to run the core basic function of a mayor's office, anything more is inefficient and wasteful! 3 attachments Download all attachments

Extract from BR on AP in regards to stations pdf mode.pdf 431K View Download RPTP presentation pdf mode.pdf 3164K View Download Extract from BR for AP submission pdf mode.pdf 294K View Download