The Otatara Community Group is the name adopted for the newly resurrected Otatara Ratepayers Association. Until an AGM is held in August, we are operating in accordance with the constitution of the Otatara Ratepayers Association, with an interim Executive Committee of 16, elected at a Public meeting in April 2008,

 

The ICC draft Annual Plan while being set out under useful topics and having good detail on expenditure is generally short on specific project details. Therefore it is difficult to make meaningful or knowledgeable input on specific details. It would be good if the draft plan includes some text on new initiatives and key projects.

Mayor Tim in his introduction to the Annual Plan talks about the increasing aging population and questions if we have the support services in place for them. He also states that we are facing a meltdown of the US economy and that has implications for our own economy. The Mayor raises important issues that, although he raises them in a different context, Council must consider very seriously before imposing any rates increase.

 

Fuel prices are increasing with flow on increases for all goods most noticeably food. Within this context, the Council needs to be frugal with its own spending. Elderly people are usually on fixed incomes and have a very limited capacity to absorb rates increases. Families are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet. Any increase in rates needs to justified and absolutely necessary. Council has a responsibility, particularly in the current economic climate to be fiscally prudent and responsible.

 

The Otatara Community Group hope that the Draft Annual Plan submission form survey questions will not be the sole means of consultation on the matters raised on the submission form. It is our belief that a very small percentage of ratepayers will read or make submissions on the Draft Annual Plan and that this is a totally inadequate way of consulting with ratepayers. While the question on waste collection in areas that do not currently receive a collection service is of specific concern to our group, we are sure our comments are equally relevant to all the groups of interest potentially affected by the results of the survey. Where there are specific communities of interest that the Council wishes to have a response from, it should target them specifically – there are many options for this: through a postal survey, (which could simply be put in the same envelope as one of the rates demand notices), through a telephone survey or through a door-to-door survey. If the Council truly wants to consult and hear the views of ratepayers it will adopt one of the above approaches. In the case of the Otatara community, our group will happily provide whatever assistance we can to ensure that there is a good (in terms of numbers) response to any questions the Council has for our community.

 

We note that the majority of identified measures are about outputs rather than outcomes. These tell us about volume but not about quality of service. We would suggest that measures that determine whether or not the service provided was adequate/appropriate and met the needs/expectations of the community would be more beneficial than numbers of use e.g. we would disagree that the proportion of the community registered as library users is a useful indicator of the value of the service, except in the context that the service is being used. Whether or not people are able to gain access to material they want, whether there are long waiting times for obtaining certain items, whether people are satisfied that the library is providing a quality service are all better indicators for the value of the library. This same logic can be applied to most if not all of the measures indicated in the annual plan. Where we have specific concerns we have made specific mention of them in our submission.

 

The Otatara Community Group supports the need for the Animal Control Division and the work it does. However, it would be easier to comment on the appropriateness of the budget and measures for the level of service for this activity if more detail was given on the functions of this division. We believe measures for the level of service should not just be about quantity but also about quality. We assume that all revenue from dog licensing goes into this budget, but that is not clear.

 

Otatara is an ideal and well-used area for dog owners to exercise their pets, and we would like to see increased information made easily available in the form of signs and leaflets about the areas available for on and off leash exercise and about dog owner responsibilities. This would hopefully also increase understanding from other users of dog exercise areas and reduce the number of conflicts between dog owners and other recreation area users. The ‘Walking your dog in Invercargill’ brochure is an excellent start, but fails to address use of areas such as Oreti Beach. There are people who believe that the requirement to keep dogs on leads at all times in public places is excessive given the limited number of off leash exercise areas listed, and the areas that are available and appropriate for such activity in the Otatara area. We believe more discussion on this matter would be beneficial.

 

The Otatara Community Group supports the need for the Building Division. This function is a little better understood but again we would make the comment that the measures of the level of service should be about quality as well as quantity and should include some measure of whether advice given is consistent between staff, and whether standards imposed by building inspectors are consistent – a possible assessment of this is through builders/developers and possibly goes beyond a simple customer satisfaction survey. Again we assume that revenue from building consents fees goes into this Division’s budget, but it is unclear.

 

The Otatara Community Group supports the need for cemeteries and the crematorium. We also support the need for the new cremator to meet resource consent discharge conditions. We have insufficient information to comment on the necessity for a new cremator. While there is nothing in the Annual Plan to indicate that there are any plans to establish new cemeteries or to expand existing ones beyond their boundaries. We hope that should such a situation arise in the future that the Council takes cognisance of overseas literature of the adverse effects of burial on waterways and groundwater and seeks advice from Environment Southland regarding factors to consider in the siting of cemeteries.

 

The Otatara Community Group supports the need to fund this work. However, again there is little detail on the work that this budget encompasses which again makes it difficult to comment on the appropriateness of the budget. Again the level of service measure is quantitative rather than qualitative. We note that one of the aspects of emergency management relates to risk reduction. We believe that this needs to be linked with risk assessment and we would like to see the Annual Plan give some indication of what work is involved in this aspect of Civil Defence Emergency Management.

 

We believe the Council needs to look closely at the framework within the District Plan to reduce risk, particularly in relation to building consents and subdivisions. While the Plan currently identifies hazard areas, the boundaries for some of these areas appear to have more to do with mapping pragmatism than actual risk. For example one side of Marama Ave South near Dunns Road is considered to be within the hazard area, while the other side of the road is not. There seems to be little difference on the ground in terms of possible risk.

 

The Council needs to attempt to future proof itself in this area and take into account issues of climate change, storm surge, increased flooding risk etc and consider whether allowing development in areas potentially subject to the types of events listed above may lead to issues of liability for the Council.

 

The Otatara Community Group is unsure what this Division of Council does and would like more information on the projects that are covered, to be able to comment effectively. What is the difference between the role of this Division and the role of Venture Southland? Would this Division be a possible source of financial assistance for projects that groups like ourselves may wish to undertake within our community?

 

Once again the measures of level of service are quantitative rather than qualitative. Of particular concern is listing the number of meetings the Youth Council has as a measure of the level of service. We believe it is more important to measure what the Youth Council is able to achieve or influence rather than how many meetings were held.

 

We note that the operating revenue budgeted for 2008/09 is significantly les than forecast in the LTCCP, yet there is no explanation given for this.

 

Again this is an important service, but again the measures for the level of service are quantitative rather than qualitative. These people are the face of the Council and perhaps the only contact some people physically have with Council. Therefore the quality of the service is very important. Issues such as people feeling respected and well treated, being given accurate and clear advice, particularly when seeking advice about how to participate in a formal process such as submitting on a resource consent application, are some of the aspects that need to be assessed. We note that the costs of this service are spread across all Council activities. This reinforces the need for the emphasis to be on quality of service.

 

The Council’s digital information services to the public are of particular concern. We note that the Council’s website ranked 59th out of 85 in a recent ALGIM survey of local government websites. Provision of quality municipal information technology services such as self service websites, wireless hotspots and fibre links have boosted the reputation of many other local authorities, business viability and community capability well above Invercargill City Council’s. No mention is made of any planned efforts to meet targets defined in the Government Digital Strategy. The current website measure, concerning availability of information on the website, is meaningless in the context of transformational council, which is the government target. It would therefore appear that more funds need to be targeted at this area.

 

The need for this budget is supported.

 

Once again measures of level of service are quantitative rather than qualitative. An example of this is the percentage of premises inspected annually. It is acknowledged that these inspections are important but perhaps an additional measure could be the number of food related notifiable illnesses that are tracked back to licensed food premises. The aim would be that there would be zero, but where these incidents occur; the aim would be that the source of the illness is identified within a specified time, e.g. 24 hours of notification and that there are no repeat cases from this premise.

 

The Otatara Community Group accepts that there is a role for the Council in providing grants for community organisations. However it is difficult to assess whether the organisations currently listed are the most appropriate without the ability to review the criteria for assessing how the grants are awarded. We have no particular issue with any of the groups listed, but we believe that the use of rate-payers money means that the process needs to be transparent. It is also important that these grants are available for different reasons than grants that are available from Venture Southland, otherwise this is duplication.

 

We particularly support the council providing grants to support significant social and cultural programmes, as well as sporting, recreational and other leisure activities. We also support grants to community and/or civic groups that provide advice or play an advocacy role for the community. Indeed we would be interested in knowing more about how to apply for these grants as our group meets some of these criteria. As a new organisation we will have some start up costs as well as ongoing administration and communication costs. We would also support of grants for environmental activities that enhance the city.

 

Again the measure of level of service is quantitative. A better measure would be that the organisations receiving the money meet the criteria Council set for allocating the money. Part of this should illustrate that the rate-payers are receiving services that give them value for their rates money spent in this area. We would assume that if the criteria are clear, and based around this premise, this is unlikely to be a problem.

 

The Otatara Community Group supports the provision of Libraries and Archives; these are facilities that our community utilises. Again there is a need for some qualitative assessment of these services. How easy are they to use? How helpful and friendly are the staff? How often can people not find what they are looking for? What is the level of use of interloans and how easy is that to use? Is there any pattern to the queries for information that the library does not have/or needs to get through interloans (i.e. are there obvious gaps in the collection)?

 

The Otatara Community Group supports the need to provide parks, reserves and open spaces. The Parks and Reserves Division has a very important role and is very well run by the ICC – we commend the city on its performance. The wider Otatara area has many special natural areas including some important reserves and recreational areas/playgrounds. We believe that two of the jewels in the crown of ICC Parks and Reserves are Sandy Point and Otatara Scenic Reserve.

 

Again we question the measures of the level of service as they only relate to Thomson Bush and the Management Plan for Queens Park, and again they are outputs rather than outcomes. To this end, we believe there should be better co-ordination between this area and the areas marked as areas of significant indigenous vegetation under the District Plan, some of which are within reserves managed by the Council. We would like to see:

1. The introduction of a measure that looks at monitoring results from measuring the area of significant indigenous vegetation i.e. aerial survey to show there is no reduction in the size of the area identified as being significant; (Maybe this work could be done in conjunction with programmed aerial photography flights by other local authorities or the Department of Conservation, to reduce the cost) &

2. The monitoring of the health of these areas i.e. the level of infestation of pest plants such as Chilean flame-creeper and blackberry, and pest animals such as possums. Perhaps this latter work could be done in conjunction with Environment Southland, or in the case of areas in Otatara, members of the Landcare group may be able to provide assistance. However, the Council needs to undertake its landowner responsibilities as specified in Environment Southland’s Regional Pest Management Strategy, so that people can refer to that strategy to get an accurate picture of the effort the Council is putting into this activity.

 

Specific requests for Otatara’s reserves are:

Note: While there are some very good Sycamore’s and we commend councillor Sycamore for supporting our group during its initial period, we feel that his namesake the weedy tree that is invading our reserve has to go!

 

Measuring the level of service provided by playgrounds, should include an assessment of the safety and maintenance of equipment provided, that across the city there are facilities to cater for all ages of children, taking into account their physical abilities, and the location of these facilities in relation to census data on where children live. There also needs to be some consideration for surveying use of playgrounds across the city. Who is using them, how often, what is most popular etc. It may be that this could form a nice project topic for one or more SIT students undertaking the Environmental management course, thus reducing the possible cost of such a project.

 

The current construction of the playground on Grant Road has seen this area being utilised by children for BMX type jumps etc. We acknowledge that this was not the intent of the current playground, but wonder if this does not portray a need for this type of facility somewhere in Otatara. For this reason we have added the need for a BMX/skateboard facility to the list of things that the community need to be asked about.

 

In addition we seek to know why no spending is proposed for Environmental Parks.

Perhaps in the long term, the Council could look at the creation of new wetlands, and possibly a subsidy/grant for significant native plantings/revegetation efforts by individual landowners?

 

The Otatara Community Group supports the provision of pools, particularly Splash Palace which is utilised by many members of our community on a casual basis and through clubs and swimming lessons. It is good to see some qualitative measures for the level of this service are included.

 

The Otatara Community Group supports the provision of public toilets, but would ask that measures of level of service be expanded to include qualitative measures. The Wachner Place toilets tend to be clean and tidy, due to the presence of the caretaker, but the automated toilets in Don Street and Windsor can on occasion be dirty, smelly and unpleasant to use.

 

The Otatara Community Group accepts the need for this function. Once again the measurement of levels of service are about outputs rather than outcomes. Although those outputs are important there needs to be some outcome related measures and these should tie back to the requirement for Plan effectiveness monitoring. It is difficult to tell from such a generic budget whether or not plan effectiveness monitoring has been budgeted for, but it is particularly necessary, in our opinion, for Otatara where there are questions about whether or not the Plan provisions are protecting the values that are important for Otatara, at the same time as allowing for development that is desired by the community in a manner that is acceptable to the community.

 

We have raised specific issues about monitoring of areas of significant vegetation and the need to collaborate between the Parks Division and the Resource Management Division to assess the extent and health of these areas. Another issue that requires monitoring is the change in land-use from pastoral/open space to residential, commercial or industrial within the Otatara sub-area. One of the characteristics of Otatara described in the District Plan is that it is a semi-rural area. It is important to know whether that characteristic is under threat.

 

In the section of this submission concerning things we would like to see added to the Annual Plan, we have discussed a survey we are conducting which will help set the stage for investigating the effectiveness of current Plan provisions for protecting the values that are important to Otatara residents. There needs to be a budget within the Resource Management Division to enable follow-up of these issues to occur.

 

In Otatara, since the demise of our Community Board, there has been no vehicle to give voice to the community, although we acknowledge that there are Councillors that live in our area. The Otatara Community Group was formed largely because of community concern at changes to our community in particular the erosion of features that characterise our community (i.e. the semi-rural nature of the area with open spaces and farmland; bush; piece and quiet) and recently an increase in commercial activity. This concern reflects concern that the voice of Otatara residents is not being heard by council and that there is insufficient consultation with our community regarding the development and services of the area.

 

Another matter we would like to raise in relation to the Resource Management Division is the question of notification of resource consent applications. We accept that current notifications follow the letter of the law but we believe many people who have an interest in applications are not finding out about proposed activity until after the time for submissions has closed. Unfortunately Public Notices are not prime reading for most people and often proposals are discovered by accident when people pass the proposed site and notice something on the fence and decide to investigate further.

 

We are concerned that the Council is not very inclusive in their selection of “affected parties”. Often only neighbours are considered affected parties despite the activity affecting features that characterise our community; being a non-complying activity and potentially having adverse effects that are more than minor in some cases.With this in mind we would like the Otatara Community Group to be considered as an interested party for resource consent applications in our area, and at the very least sent copies of public notices for applications in our area. We would also like the opportunity to view and comment on the criteria for determining whether or not an application should be notified, and the criteria for determining who is an affected party.

 

The Otatara Community Group acknowledges the need to fund the items listed under this Division. The sealed roading in the Otatara area is generally in good condition and well maintained - we commend the city on its performance. However there are some issues with gravel roads in our community. The maintenance of gravel roads in the area does not appear to be keeping pace with the increase in traffic levels. Some of our Committee members live on or cycle on gravel roads in our area. Comments have been made about the prevalence of pot-holes in these roads. We wonder if this is a unique approach to reducing vehicle speed.Otatara’s increasing population and consequent increasing pressure on roads presents a safety issue.The Council should consider a programme to seal some of these roads to keep pace with development in the area. We have included this in the list of issues the Council needs to survey the Otatara community about.

 

We would like Council to undertake roading surveys with a view to proposing solutions to concerns about speed, intersection congestion and safety of pedestrians and cyclists. While reducing speed limits on some roads may be a viable option, we would ask that Council investigate options and present choices to the community, as there are methods and practices available which may better manage traffic flows and use than simply speed reduction alone.

 

We refer you to our suggestions for adding items to the Annual Plan, for questions that we believe need to be raised with the Otatara Community regarding services that come under this Division. We are aware that there are some members of the Otatara community that have concerns, particularly if they have babies or small children, about a lack of footpaths. Part of this concern relates to safety due to the speed at which cars travel on roads around Otatara.

 

There are other members of the community who see a need for footpaths and/or streetlights on some of the busier roads (such as Marama Ave South, on the southernmost end after the intersection with Taiepa Road). The issue on these roads concerns the increasing number of school children who meander their way along the road each morning to catch the school bus at the Dunns Rd corner and who seem to be unaware of the risk of being hit by a driver running late for work. In winter months these children are virtually invisible to drivers and a serious accident is likely to happen if the children and cars are not separated. We acknowledge that there is a need for education, particularly of high school children who walk towards Niven Street, on the LEFT of Marama Ave Sth on dark mornings. They are often 2 or 3 abreast with dark clothing that makes seeing them a problem. If the council improved the edges on the right side of the road, maybe winding between roadside trees, it may encourage more people to walk on that side and would reduce the very real risk of an injury. If a path is not an option then some street lights that came on during the winter for the period the kids are on the road (8.00 - 8.30?) would at least make the kids visible.

 

There are also members of the community who do not support footpaths etc in Otatara because they believe strongly that these sorts of facilities detract from the rural aspect that is an important characteristic and value of Otatara. For this reason, the issue of footpaths has been included in our list of issues that we believe the Council needs to survey Otatara residents about.

 

While traffic speed on our roads was more the subject of the Bylaws than the Annual Plan, we wonder if there is anything that the Council can do to encourage traffic on the roads adjacent to the bush areas in particular, to go slower and watch out for tui and kereru. The main cause of death and maiming of these birds is vehicle damage. Perhaps signs could be designed and erected similar to the ones they have to warn traffic to slow near schools, to warn traffic to slow for native birds.

 

In relation to the urban environment of Invercargill City itself, we also would like to reiterate comments raised in a recent letter to the editor regarding access for people in wheelchairs or mobility scooters, and people with pushchairs and prams, or simply those with mobility issues. We would urge the Council to ensure that any new development within the urban area, takes the needs of these people into account and that over time the Council investigates existing issues for these people. This is something that could be added to the list of measures for the level of service provided.

 

We support the need for Council to provide this service. Sewage is one of the few services provided in Otatara. This service is limited within Otatara and currently limits development within Otatara. We are concerned at apparent problems at Clifton treatment station and support initiatives to improve the situation. We would also support an initiative to further upgrade treatment standards as the discharge is into the New River Estuary. The New River Estuary is part of the recently approved Awarua RAMSAR Wetland of International Importance and bounds Otatara on its southern and south-western sides.

 

We support the replacement of the pump at the foul sewer pumping station on Dunns Road. There have been a number of problems with this pump in the past and we commend the Council for taking action.

 

In our submission concerning items that need to be added to the Annual Plan, we have included issues that we believe need to be followed up through a Council questionnaire including some questions about the provision of sewage services. We refer you to those issues.

 

Waste collection options: There is currently no ICC funded waste collection or recycling provided to the Otatara community. There are privately operated waste collection services that some Otatara residents use. Many Otatara residents undertake composting of their green waste and also recycle by taking recyclable materials to the Bond Street recycle centre at little cost to themselves. Therefore many residents may not wish to use the service due to the cost when they choose to only utilise part of the service.

 

It is good that ICC is seeking to know if there is support for expanding the service to additional areas such as Otatara. A survey of Otatara residents is required to see if the majority favour this service.

 

In our submission concerning items that need to be added to the Annual Plan, we have included issues that we believe need to be followed up through a Council questionnaire including some questions about the provision of Solid Water Management services. We refer you to those issues.

 

The Otatara Community Group acknowledges the need for the Council to provide stormwater services. Again it is difficult to determine what money will be spent on with such a generic budget.

 

There is a need to liaise with the Resource Management Division, to ensure that any new developments are required to install methods that remove any significant contaminants from their stormwater before it is discharged into the Councils system. This is of most relevance in the urban area where stormwater is piped, but is also of relevance where stormwater, particularly from industrial or commercial sites ends up in stormwater drains that ultimately discharge into a waterway. This may be as simple as sediment traps, or grass swales but there should be a requirement that advice is sought and measures implemented to reduce the impact of stormwater from paved surfaces on water quality in the area where stormwater is ultimately discharged. Environment Southland is a source of advice on these matters.

 

There should also be a qualitative measure of the level of service that relates to the impact of stormwater drain discharges on the water quality of the receiving body. The aim would be to lessen the impact over time, initially by placing controls on new contributors to the Council’s stormwater system but overtime to look at upgrades when maintenance or repair work is undertaken and targeting of sources of contaminants of particular concern.

 

We would also like the Council to document and over time address areas where there are particular ponding issues, after heavy rainfall. Stead Street is one area that needs to be addressed, and another area that floods quite badly in major rainfall, is the corner of Taiepa Road and Marama Ave Sth

 

There is a very large increase to the Operating Expenditure for this budget above that forecasted in the LTCCP. We believe this large an increase needs to be explained in much more detail to be able to assess whether or not the increase is justified. We also note that the expected revenue is much less than forecasted, but no explanation is given for this.

 

The Otatara Community Group is concerned that there is no Otatara Community Board (OCB). As a result of the demise of the OCB we feel that we have lost our link to the council. The OCG was formed largely because of community concern at changes to our community in particular the erosion of features that characterise our community (i.e. the semi-rural nature of the area with open spaces and farmland; bush; peace and quite) and recently an increase in commercial activity. This reflects concern that the views of Otatara residents are not being heard by council and that there is insufficient consultation with our community regarding the development and services of the area. We have made further suggestions on this matter under the heading of Resource Management (above) and in the section relating to matters we would like to see added to the Annual Plan (below).

 

Again it is noted that there are no qualitative measures regarding the level of service that the democratic process provides.

 

There are a number of items that the Otatara Community Group would like to see the Council budget to investigate in our area. As the Council will be aware, there was a huge response to the meeting organised by the Resource Management Division of Council at the Otatara Community Hall in March this year. At that meeting a number of issues and questions were raised. If the meeting showed the Council nothing else it showed that the Otatara community is very interested in what happens in our community and there are some very strong opinions about what should and should not happen.

 

We believe that the Council needs to specifically engage the Otatara community to find out what the community as a whole wants. A public meeting is perhaps not the ideal vehicle for this; instead there is a need for a specific survey of the community. We would suggest that such a survey follows up on the one that we are undertaking. Our survey looks to determine what the vision is for Otatara. We ask why people have chosen to live in Otatara and what makes it special to them, we ask what could be changed to make it better and what changes, if they were to occur, would make Otatara a less desirable place to live. We then ask some specific questions about commercial development.

 

The open end nature of the first part of our questionnaire is designed to elicit information that will need further exploration, but will help to identify whether there are issues that need to be investigated further on the basis that a Plan Change may be needed. This is information that the Council should be looking for, not only because a Plan Change has been discussed but also as part of its obligation to assess the effectiveness of its Plan provisions.

 

In addition, the meeting in March identified a number of specific issues concerning services that are of relevance to our community and the Council needs to determine whether they are issues for the majority of residents and if so whether some action is needed in future.

 

Subjects that were raised at the public meeting that our group is not currently in a position to say whether or not the concerns expressed are those of the majority of residents were:

 

If the Council were to agree to undertake a follow-up survey in the 2008/09 financial year, the Otatara community group may be able to assist in reducing the cost by distributing the questionnaires to letterboxes, saving $600 in postage. The executive committee would also be happy to assist with the design and wording of the questionnaire.

 

In our comments on the things we have supported and opposed we have included examples of items that we think need to be added, particularly in relation to how the Council will measure the level of service it provides. Rather than repeat those items here, we refer the Council to our comments above.

 

In general we have taken the approach above not to mention suggestions that we have already made elsewhere in this submission. However there is one point we would like to reiterate. In Otatara, since the demise of our Community Board, there has been no vehicle to give voice to the community, although we acknowledge that there are Councillors that live in our area. We would like the Otatara Community Group to be considered as an interested party for resource consent applications in our area, and at the very least sent copies of public notices for applications in our area. We would also like the opportunity to view and comment on the criteria for determining whether or not an application should be notified, and the criteria for determining who is an affected party.

 

In the absence of a Community Board for Otatara, perhaps the Council could look at other models such as the community development committee model utilised by the Southland District Council. At this stage our group has not had the opportunity to investigate this model further, but may be in a position to comment about its appropriateness at the hearing for the Annual Plan submissions.

 

Finally we would like to thank the Council for the opportunity to make this submission.