Auckland Council

Long Term Plan 2015-2025 Feedback

&
Auckland Transport
Regional Land Transport Program
(2015-2025)

2015

Benjamin Ross

Papakura Local Board Area

[address, email and phone number retracted for Talking Auckland copy)
www.voakl.net

Introductory Remarks
For ease of reading and following my feedback will follow the questions from the draft Long Term
Plan feedback found in the blue consultation booklet. Any supplementary commentary or feedback
will be provided at the end.

Feedback
Question 1a: Do you agree with the proposed overall average general rates
increase of 3.5 per cent each year, which will enable the proposed
investment and spending outlined in this document?
Disagree

Question 1b: If you do not agree, in which activity areas do you think we
should spend more or spend less, and what level of general rates increase
would you support?
To keep this straight forward I will be using the Activity Areas listed on pages 26-27 of the blue Long
Term Plan Consultation Booklet. Any further breakdown inside a respective Activity Area was drawn
from the Long Term Plan Budget Calculator on Shape Auckland.

Auckland Development: Increase (overall)

City Centre Improvements: Decrease. Council needs to both increase Targeted Rate in City
Centre, increase the coverage area of the City Centre Targeted Rate, and leverage off more
public private partnerships to deliver improvements to the City Centre
Waterfront Auckland: Decrease for same reasons as City Centre Improvements
Town Centres (including Metropolitan Centres): Increase substantially to allow upgrades to
run down town centres. For Metropolitan Centres it would allow Master Planning and kick
starting urban renewal projects in those Metropolitan Centres. However, like the City Centre
and Waterfront better utilisation of public private partnerships (via Development Auckland)
to leverage off for urban renewal needs to occur. For simplicity Metropolitan Centres
include the Manukau City Centre

Economic and Culture Development: Decrease (overall)

Business and Tourism: Decrease. I deem this not a core service of Council and a nice to have
when there is left over money in the Budget (to which there is not currently). What is
described in the Business/Tourism aspect of the LTP is the role of the Ministry of Tourism,
and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. With the new Auckland partnership
by Lewis Holden to be set up this would be a good place to start to leverage off
opportunities under the Business/Tourism banner. Thus using the LTP Budget Calculator I
dropped the funding for Business/Tourism from $614m proposed to $123m, enough residue
money to allow basic administrative functions alongside this new office coming from Central
Government

Regional Facilities: Hold. The budgeted amount for Regional Facilities is adequate for this
Long Term Plan. However, it might need to be increased if the budget line for grants to the
Auckland Museum, and MOTAT is moved from the Governance and Support lines

Environmental Management and Regulation: Decrease (entirely)

Rubbish, Recycling and Environment: Decrease. I believe there is some fat that could be
trimmed from this budget line including making sure all of Auckland is on user pays rubbish
collection and inorganic collection by 2016. Some private partnerships on community
education campaigns such as listed in the Waste Minimisation Plan can help keep the budget
down. Also making sure rubbish collection contracts are as robust and economic as possible
would assist as well
Storm Water Management: Decrease. Like above I believe there is some fat that could be
trimmed from this budget line. Making sure we get best bang for buck on storm water
projects would be a start. Staff efficiency would be another avenue to reduce the budget
line here. That is are middle and senior managers performing to expectations or do we need
to trim a few off for efficiency sakes? In any case this department needs a full line by line
review to make sure we are getting best bang for buck here as I suspect we are not

Governance and Support: Decrease (entirely)

Note: the budget line handling grants to Auckland Museum and MOTAT I have
moved to the Economic and Cultural Development section of the Long Term
Plan. Funding allocations can be drawn from that particular budget line rather
than the Governance and Support line

Governance and Support should be the budget line facing the biggest decreases in costs
while making sure returns are improved from council assets held by both ACIL and ACPL
(soon Development Auckland)
For sake of simplicity staff numbers in the Council bureaucracy will be mentioned here. The
question needs to be asked and Council is shirking around it on the matter are we getting
best bang for buck and efficiency with 7,000 staff (approximate) at a cost of $720 million a
year. I believe the answer is if we cannot get that bang for buck and efficiency with 5,000
staff at $500m a year then something needs to change inside the bureaucracy. So a full
review of the bureaucracy is needed to bring down staff costs by $220m/year or near $2.2b
over the life of this Long Term Plan. With the subsequent cull it should start from the
Executive Managers and make its way down through management before touching the
workers. As a rough target for efficiency and cost sake the bureaucracy should be able to cull
35% of all executive and senior managers and 85% of all middle managers. The full rationale
behind this can be read here: http://voakl.net/2015/03/06/and-this-is-why-thebureaucracy-needs-the-broom/

Parks, Community and Lifestyle: Increase (overall)

This budget line needs increases overall to handle the vital social/civic
infrastructure investment needed for a rapidly growing Auckland. In general
again best bang for buck in either building or maintaining these social (and
civic) assets to make sure our ratepayer dollar is being used as efficiently and
economically as possible along this budget line. It is possible that some
increases in user pays such as libraries and recreational facilities such as pools
or hiring of grounds and buildings is needed to help cover costs.

Parks and Leisure Facilities: Slight Increase. This allows Council and Auckland to be ahead of
the curve with a growing Auckland in investing in new facilities. Again an increase in user
charges might be needed to help offset the expenditure increase in this budget line
Park Maintenance: Slight Increase. This allows maintaining the adequate maintenance of
parks more so than what is currently happening. Any increase beyond the small increase can
be allowed but only if the Local Board in that area wanting the increase is willing to pay a
Targeted Rate for that beyond basic increase in park maintenance
Libraries, Community Centres, and Halls: Slight Increase. Again like above the small
increase allows the Council and Auckland to keep ahead of the curve of investing in
improving current facilities or building new facilities. Again possible increases in user charges
might be needed to help pay for this increase in this budget line especially with
Development Contributions no longer able to be used for social infrastructure. Also if a Local
Board wants more investment beyond the basic increase for these facilities then again a
Targeted Rate should be considered
Events and Community Services: Decrease. Better efficiencies and bang for buck in
providing these events and services needs to be found. Whether the private and non-profit
sector come on board more in partnerships or whether the bureaucracy itself needs to be
more efficient in handling these services and events costs need to be reduced in this budget
line

Transport
This particular budget line will be answered be in Question Two. That said
overall budget for transport was decreased in comparison to what was laid
out in the Long Term Plan

Question 2a: Do you support the basic transport network or do you think
we should invest more to get the Auckland Plan transport network that
would address our transport problems?
Neither. I support the Generation Zero and Transport Blog Essentials Transport Budget albeit
with some minor modifications to that particular budget proposal.

Question 2b: If we decide to invest in the Auckland Plan transport network,

how do you think Aucklanders should pay for it?
Neither of the two options Council has put to us in the Long Term Plan as outright (one or the
other) per-se. I am inclined to use a mix of revenue sources to help fund transport investment in
Auckland while adjusting the individual budget lines within the Transport budget itself.
Overall I believe the Transport Budget (even with the Essentials Transport Budget in play) should be
decreased overall. The breakdown of which individual lines got decreased and which got increased:

Public Transport: Increase significantly to allow the public transport aspect of the Essential
Transport Budget to be implemented
Cycleways: Decreased slightly (from $85m to $50m per the Budget calculator as a relative
example). This decrease still allows existing cycleway projects to be completed and new
ones to be built (albeit not as much as what $85m for 78km for new cycleways would have
given). This decrease does factor in Central Government money coming in for urban
cycleways but also continued pressure should be applied to Government to increase that
investment at least of health and safety grounds at the minimum
Roads: Decrease significantly as it factors in preferred and better roading investment in the
Essentials Transport Budget to which I support in general
Transport Maintenance: Slight increase to what Council has proposed (which would
maintain 65% transport infrastructure in good or very good condition). I estimate the slight
increase would allow 70% to be kept in good or very good condition maintenance wise.
However, to help supplement this budget line Council need to endeavour fare box revenue
capture increases from just below 50% as of current to 80% if not more. This is done
through mass patronage increases right across the network which can only be done once
public transport is fully reliable and punctual (something that it is not currently).
As for funding: a fuel tax while the public transport infrastructure is being built switching
over to tolls as a demand management tool once the infrastructure is FULLY built prior. Also
using dividends from Development Auckland either acting as a landlord or from proceeds of
sales from development should be used to supplement the funding source for transport
infrastructure investment as done overseas overseas (see:
http://voakl.net/2014/10/17/the-reaction-to-my-presentation-to-the-aucklanddevelopment-committee/ )

Question 2c: Are there any projects or priorities e.g. cycleways or more bus
lanes, we should focus on delivering as part of the basic transport
programme or the Auckland Plan transport programme?
A self-defeating question if you support either the Auckland Plan Transport Network or the Basic
Transport Network both set out in the Long Term Plan. As I support a slightly modified version of
the Essentials Transport Budget the answer to Question 2c was made in relation to Question 2b.
As for specific project in relation to the Regional Land Transport Program that will be made at the
end of this submission.

Question 3: Do you support the council taking a more active role in the
development of Auckland through replacing two existing Council
Controlled Organisations (CCOs) with a new development agency?
I Support the creation of the Development Auckland CCO in place of the two existing CCOs of ACPL
and Waterfront Auckland. In giving that support though I would like to see following with
Development Auckland:

The size of Development Auckland would benefit when teaming up with private or
community developers to engage on an urban development or renewal project.
If the development is on private land Development Auckland could help facilitate
development through easing the hassle of consents and urban design requirements so set
under the Unitary Plan. This would allow a quality urban development outcome in benefit of
Auckland.
If the development is on Council land then Development Auckland would be the lead on
developing a quality urban development although contracting a private developer to build
the project rather than Development Auckland doing it itself. This would be most apparently
around transit nodes and the Metropolitan and City Centre(s). Once the development is
complete Development Auckland in this instance would hang on to the land and
development and become a landlord (but hand operational control to a private firm like a
property manager. The revenue from being a landlord to its own developments on its own
land would be used to either fund more developments or as a dividend to Council to fund
transport improvements (especially if such a development was a transport node).
If Development Auckland has acquired land for development (and this is possible especially
in Town or Metropolitan Centres) then such development as if it owned the land in the first
place would occur but with the intent in selling it off for profit after the development is
completes. The proceeds from such a venture would be used for future investment in other
areas under Development Aucklands purview.

For Development Auckland to work effectively and efficiently (especially if it is to carry out the
strategies of the refreshed Auckland Plan (MK2)) the CCO needs to operate in a hierarchical
structure. That is you still have the parent organisation overseeing the smaller sub-sections defined
by sub-regions within Auckland (with the parent being overseen by the Council Auckland
Development Committee). Those sub sections being:

Central and West Auckland (the Isthmus and old Waitakere areas)
North Auckland (North Shore and Rodney)
Southern Auckland (Manukau, Papakura and Franklin)

Each of the above sub sections of Development Auckland would focus on the relative Spatial
Priorities set out in the Long Term Plan (and subsequently modified by the Auckland Development
Committee as required). Those first ten Spatial Priorities in the Long Term Plan I also agree with thus
support as well.

Question 4: What do you think the fixed portion of rates (UAGC) that
everyone pays should be?
$385 UAGC seems more equitable thus I support this level for the Uniform Annual General Charge
component of our Rates.

Question 5: Do you support gradually reducing business property rates

from 32.8 per cent of all rates to 25.8 per cent over the next 10 years?
No. I believe to help alleviate the Rates situation upon residents the Business Rates differential
should be held at 32.8% for the next three years until the 2018 Long Term Plan comes into effect.

Question 6a and b: Local Board Priorities and support

Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board Priorities
Support but do mention the need for a Manukau City Centre Master Plan (like the City Centre
Master Plan) be funded by the Council and completed by June 2016 ready for execution July 2016
as part of the Spatial Priorities for which Manukau is listed as one.

Papakura Local Board Priorities

Agree with the priorities set by the Papakura Local Board. However, a guarantee from the Governing
Body of Council for having the Takanini Library build and operating by 2017 needs to be in place
owing to the area rapidly growing.

Any other feedback

In regards to the Regional Land Transport Program set by Auckland Transport I have comments on
some project specific aspects of the RLTP.

MUST BE DONE BY MARCH 2016: The completion of the Manukau Rail South Link and the
full operation of services from Papakura/Pukekohe to Manukau via that South Link (at 20
minute frequencies from 6am until 10:30pm seven days a week). Pasifika that has just
been in Manukau illustrated the strong demand that will be there if the South Link was
built. In fact I guarantee rail patronage will increase even further with the South Link built
and services operating compared to those passengers having to transfer at Puhinui (as of
current) on any frequency level. The South Link would also connect a large proportion of
growing Southern Auckland to its heart and major centre Manukau City Centre.
Especially in light of a Ministry of Transport commissioned report indicating the bulk of
Southern Auckland commuting within itself (see: http://voakl.net/2014/08/21/aucklandscommuting-journeys-a-series-major-non-city-centre-employment-centres-overview/ _
The top 10 least safe rail level crossings in Auckland fully grade separated by 2021 to which I
believe the Essentials Transport Budget has allocated for. If not then a slightly higher fuel tax
(seeming one is being proposed anyhow) might be needed to help fund thus speed up those
level crossing grade separations

One final note

A cautionary note needs to be mentioned on investment especially in the Southern Auckland area
where a lot of urban development is to occur over the next ten years at least if not more. What the
Essentials Transport Budget from Generation Zero lacked and what the Spatial Priorities from
Auckland Council does not drill enough into is how to handle sub regional development, capital
investment and operational expenditure in a high growth area such as the South.
As noted before the South is not only growing fast people and employment wise (especially around
the industrial complexes) but also tends to commute within itself as well. So for transport as an
example alone can it handle increases in?
1. east-west commuting (both Council and Generation Zero transport plans focus on north to
south radiating out from the City Centre),
2. significant increases in localised commuting (the just announced AT fare increases suggest
no)
3. increases in freight movements (rail and road) from the growing industrial complexes in the
South
My answer would be No on all three questions above.
So Development Auckland, Auckland Transport, the Auckland Development Committee, and this
Auckland Partnership Office with Central Auckland need to be on the ball in making sure any
investment with OUR money (rates and taxes) is spent wisely and not on follies.

This concludes my feedback to the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan