Should Waiheke Island De-Amalgamated from Auckland Council?

Forums › Off topic › Should Waiheke Island De-Amalgamated from Auckland Council?

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek

#168550 18-Mar-2015 09:57

What is your impression of Auckland Council? Do you think they are doing a good job? Check out this infographic which compares Waiheke with other councils around the country that have a similar population.

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

224 posts

Master Geek

#1261439 18-Mar-2015 10:00

Here is the press release that goes with the infographic.

The Our Waiheke Working Group (OWWG) has been looking at communities New Zealand-wide with similar populations and revenues to Waiheke Island to understand how they measure up on rates, revenue, spend, and management. OWWG has focused in on five communities ranging in population size from 7,536 to 12,033, from south to north – Gore, Waimate, Carterton, Stratford and Otorohanga - three of which have populations higher than Waiheke’s 8,340 (as at the 2013 census).

Out of all of these communities, Waiheke, while lower in population and with more modest amenities, has the highest income from rates and revenue. Waiheke also has the lowest kilometres of roading, and no water reticulation or significant sewerage infrastructure to maintain. Feasibly, Waiheke’s costs could be considerably lower than these comparable communities.

The compared councils spend on roads and water comprises between one third and one half of their overall revenues - between $5.6 million and $10.6 million. As Auckland Council has not made figures on the Waiheke spend publically available so, no direct comparison for this is possible, however it could be conservatively assumed that the roading and water spend is unlikely to come close Waimate’s $5.6 million - the lowest spend of the five councils.

The spread of figures for the different councils shows how widely population, revenue and expenditure can vary. Gore with a population of 12,033, has only 3000 more people than Otorohanga, but a very different revenue and expenditure. For example, two-thirds of Gore’s revenue ($13 million) goes on community needs other than water and roads, whereas Otorohanga spends nearly the same proportion ($10.6million) on water and roads leaving only $4.7 million for other expenditure for a population of 9,138. The figures show that all the compared councils, regardless of their revenue or spend, come in on or under budget.

The OWWG feels that these initial comparisons support the assumption that Waiheke Island would be in a strong financial position to pursue a case for independent governance. The accompanying graphic shows some information provided by Auckland Council, some dating back to 2007, and not inflation adjusted. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have not provided 2014 expenditure figures.

Go to the Our Waiheke website for more information. Other figures from websites: www.goredc.govt.nz , www.stratford.govt.nz , www.otodc.govt.nz, www.cartertondc.co.nz , www.waimatedc.govt.nz/home, Census 2013

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

8119 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1261453 18-Mar-2015 10:04

Good luck with that!

Sincerely,
North Rodney District

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1261470 18-Mar-2015 10:12

My experience of councils so far (mainly South Wairarapa) is that they cost a great deal and achieve very little of use.

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek

#1261483 18-Mar-2015 10:27

SaltyNZ you make a good point about Rodney. What do you think about the infographic?

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1261487 18-Mar-2015 10:36

I think it shows very little of use: you cannot tell how well they spend the money, just how much.

For example, SWDC road maintenance is appalling - their contractors verge on incompetent, the management of the contracts is hopeless and most of the work ends up being done again within 18 months if not sooner. This is at least as important as how much they actually spend.

They are also wasting $6 million on a new 'community centre'. My advice to the mayor when she asked me what I thought they should do (the old one is not earthquake code compliant) was "bulldoze it and sell the site as it is not worth spending money on something used only for a few AmDram productions and a couple of concerts in a year." but no - we need a new, expensive one with a lovely Maori name....a HUGE waste of money IMV.

Our rates bill exceeds $3500 now and we get precisely SFA for that really - they do not even empty our bins. No doubt they will expect us to pay more for the pointless community centre as well.

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek

#1261490 18-Mar-2015 10:40

Yes that is right Geektastic, the reason we don't have a breakdown of the spend figures is because they don't want to give the figures or the figures are lumped into a big pot and they can't give us a break down. Either way it is not good.

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

SaltyNZ

8119 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1261491 18-Mar-2015 10:44

cyberhub: SaltyNZ you make a good point about Rodney. What do you think about the infographic?

I think the extreme north, south and the gulf islands are, from a lifestyle and economic basis point of view, not really Auckland. Looked at solely from that perspective I believe that the north of Rodney, the south of Franklin, and Waiheke have a case for separation.

However, all three areas are the playgrounds of Auckland. Where do Aucklanders go on the weekend to relax? North Rodney, South Franklin, and Waiheke. When you figure this in, it's only right that Auckland as a whole make a contribution to the public services in the regions. If they split, then all that money dries up, and I don't think any of the three could raise the revenue required to maintain their services at the level we expect, without a dramatic rise in local rates.

I could be wrong, for sure; I don't know the details. But it seems to me that that would be the cost of 'freedom': either services would suffer, or rates would go up. Possibly both.

Finally, it's also the case that a lot of people living in these areas work in Auckland city. I live in Warkworth, and work in Newmarket. My wife works in Albany. There are several people who either do or have worked here that live on Waiheke. So there's also the legitimate position that we should contribute to the public services of more central areas.

Where I live doesn't feel like Auckland. I can just see the beacon on top of the Sky Tower on a clear night; nothing at all during the day. My nearest neighbour is about 50m away. When the northern motorway extension is finished, my road will become a local back road. So I understand your point of view; I don't feel like an 'Aucklander'. But financially, I think it is the right decision to remain part of the super city, and I suspect it's probably true for Waiheke too.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Regs

4064 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#1261530 18-Mar-2015 11:31

if waiheke went on their own, would we drop any akl/govt subsidies for ferries etc, and levy a charge of maintaining the wharves at both ends just on the waiheke community? no roads, but still transport... why should the rest of the country pay for infrastructure they don't use?

some of those other communities with different spending would be screwed if there was no national highway running through them. they don't have to pay for those national roads themselves, and they wouldn't exist if they did.

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek

#1261556 18-Mar-2015 12:05

Can you please include the rest of NZ in the proposal, we are all sick of hearing Aucklanders are going to be late to work because theres a crash on the southern motorway.

It sometimes seems like New Zealand is attached to a country called Auckland.

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek

#1261581 18-Mar-2015 12:30

Geektastic: I think it shows very little of use: you cannot tell how well they spend the money, just how much.

For example, SWDC road maintenance is appalling - their contractors verge on incompetent, the management of the contracts is hopeless and most of the work ends up being done again within 18 months if not sooner. This is at least as important as how much they actually spend.

They are also wasting $6 million on a new 'community centre'. My advice to the mayor when she asked me what I thought they should do (the old one is not earthquake code compliant) was "bulldoze it and sell the site as it is not worth spending money on something used only for a few AmDram productions and a couple of concerts in a year." but no - we need a new, expensive one with a lovely Maori name....a HUGE waste of money IMV.

Our rates bill exceeds $3500 now and we get precisely SFA for that really - they do not even empty our bins. No doubt they will expect us to pay more for the pointless community centre as well.

$3500 is alot for Wairarapa, tell me how would you feel if your council suddenly decided it was going to increase rates 5.6% compounding yearly for the next ten years. Which effectively means 70% increase in rates?

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek

#1261599 18-Mar-2015 12:50

SaltyNZ:
cyberhub: SaltyNZ you make a good point about Rodney. What do you think about the infographic?

I think the extreme north, south and the gulf islands are, from a lifestyle and economic basis point of view, not really Auckland. Looked at solely from that perspective I believe that the north of Rodney, the south of Franklin, and Waiheke have a case for separation.

However, all three areas are the playgrounds of Auckland. Where do Aucklanders go on the weekend to relax? North Rodney, South Franklin, and Waiheke. When you figure this in, it's only right that Auckland as a whole make a contribution to the public services in the regions. If they split, then all that money dries up, and I don't think any of the three could raise the revenue required to maintain their services at the level we expect, without a dramatic rise in local rates.

I could be wrong, for sure; I don't know the details. But it seems to me that that would be the cost of 'freedom': either services would suffer, or rates would go up. Possibly both.

Finally, it's also the case that a lot of people living in these areas work in Auckland city. I live in Warkworth, and work in Newmarket. My wife works in Albany. There are several people who either do or have worked here that live on Waiheke. So there's also the legitimate position that we should contribute to the public services of more central areas.

Where I live doesn't feel like Auckland. I can just see the beacon on top of the Sky Tower on a clear night; nothing at all during the day. My nearest neighbour is about 50m away. When the northern motorway extension is finished, my road will become a local back road. So I understand your point of view; I don't feel like an 'Aucklander'. But financially, I think it is the right decision to remain part of the super city, and I suspect it's probably true for Waiheke too.

Interesting point of view SaltyNZ, yes Aucklanders do go to those places to play and go on holiday but they also go to Coromandel, Ruapehu, Whangarei, Bay of Islands, Rotorua etc. So I don't see how that is a strong argument.

Essentially compared with other Councils around the country with a similar population Waiheke pays, the most in rates for far less infrastructure. What we are essentially paying for is a giant amount of bureaucracy, CCO's overhead, massive Council IT blowouts etc.

Check out this article about how much the CEO's of Auckland's CCO's earn. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11340122

Although there are some from Waiheke that use Auckland transport infrastructure, I think it will be a very minimal amount of people. Like people from Coromandel and Rotorua also use Auckland infrastructure. However it is known that well over a million people come to Waiheke from Auckland per year and use our transport infrastructure.

Also there are lots of elderly people on Waiheke that are on fixed incomes, they are going to be hugely impacted by 70% increase in rates to pay for roading and trains that they will never use.

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek

#1261616 18-Mar-2015 13:03

Regs: if waiheke went on their own, would we drop any akl/govt subsidies for ferries etc, and levy a charge of maintaining the wharves at both ends just on the waiheke community? no roads, but still transport... why should the rest of the country pay for infrastructure they don't use?

some of those other communities with different spending would be screwed if there was no national highway running through them. they don't have to pay for those national roads themselves, and they wouldn't exist if they did.

There is a wharf tax which more than covers the cost of maintenance for the wharf. When Waiheke was a County Council this fund was at approximately $1,500,000 got swallowed up into a black hole. Back in 2007 the yearly take on the Wharf Tax was $1,693,075

Auckland Council has not provided updated figures for this wharf tax, but it would be fair to assume that inflation plus additional passengers would mean that this figure is now much higher.

Here is an article which shows the income Auckland Council got from Waiheke broken down

http://www.ourwaiheke.co.nz/waiheke-island-hands-over-at-least-21-million-to-auckland-council-coffers/

Oh also the only subsidy for the ferry is the Gold Card, that is provided by central government and would remain the same if Waiheke split. Turns out that taking a ferry to Waiheke is one of the most expensive per/km ferry rides in the world - but that is a different subject.

We know approximately 1,000,000 people come across to Waiheke per year from Auckland, so it does get used by non Waihekians.

I have just been learning about national roading. The way it works is the big highways are paid for by central government and the local sealed and unsealed roads are part paid by NZTA around 50%. So everyone does pay for roads and the small places are generally looked after.

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

mattwnz

20045 posts

Uber Geek

#1261692 18-Mar-2015 13:52

The problem with many small councils is that they don't have adequate resources. They have district plans but often don't have resources to keep it upto date and police it. Most revenue they get comes from ratepayers, so you often see that small communities pay more in rates than in areas with large councils, as there is a smaller pool of people to pay for infrastructure. Merging councils shares that cost across more ratepayers. There have been examples of small councils getting into trouble financially when they have had to pay for things like new sewage treatment plants or other key infrastructure replacements. We also simple don't need all these small councils and duplication of mayors, CEOs , and staff. The whole rates thing in NZ, by measuring what people pay in rates being tied to either the GV or LV of the property is also a grossly unfair way of measuring rates, as it discourages improving your property, especially if rates on the CV. It should be based on actual people living in a property, due to that being proportional to the infrastructure that is needed to support that population, and is how they rate overseas.

mattwnz

20045 posts

Uber Geek

#1261701 18-Mar-2015 14:03

I have noticed that a lot of Wellington region councils at the moment have been spending up big on new projects at the Moment. I presume they realise they are going to be merged into a supercity, so the cost will get absorbed into they new council. Although some of the projects may end up being white elephants, such as council office rebuilding work, where they buildings may not been needed after the merge.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1261708 18-Mar-2015 14:13

This is a tricky one, in the Wellington Region we are going through the debate as to should we have a super city. There is a case for and a case against and both camps have some merit. Personally I am opposed to super cities. I also don't have a lot of faith in Local Government, I would rather see it dealt with by central Government.
As for Waiheke Island I am not sure that their funding requirements could be met by the residents alone.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5