SC36804203 17050210102 - Rotorua Lakes Council [PDF]

1

2

3

501

-----Original Message----From: "Mark Armstrong Sent: Monday, 17 April 2017 10:37 a.m. To: "'Ian McLean'" Subject: RE: Rotoma Rotoiti sewerage Ian – thanks, and I do really appreciate your efforts here as your task is a tricky one. I realise you may get this email after today’s ratepayer/scheme user meetings, but as I explained in my 31 May 2015 submission to RDC, the MauriOMeter cultural assessment tool the RDC opted to used was essentially little more than junk science and would not have survived a peer review. This has been privately acknowledged by an RDC staff member. On the basis of MauriOMeter’s flawed assessment, a suboptimal option was adopted. A close reading of that report will indicate the objections to Option 2 and 5(a) were always going to happen. I think there is a case to consider to hold the MauriOMeter authors or its insurers responsible for the additional costs associated with the current objections. I have to accept your point MoH has indicated that the Preferred Option is acceptable, although it hadn’t as of 31 May 2015. Can you provide the MoH letter that confirms this? You do not indicate whether the Medical Officer of Health has now confirmed its support for either Option 2 and 5(a), or the STEP proposal. Again, can you provide the letter that confirms this. I come back to my basic point – a flawed option was presented as a fait accompli, which has exposed the rate payers and scheme users to (a) a suboptimal outcome and (b) potential payments to objecting parties to make the apparent problem go away. I ask you put to the meetings that Option 1 is progressed without haste. Regards Mark Armstrong From: Ian McLean Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 3:44 p.m. To: Mark Armstrong Cc: Stavros Michael; Greg Manzano; Sarah Pauli Subject: Re: Rotoma Rotoiti sewerage

Mark Thank you for your email. The sharp point is that in the choice of a system, RDC had to take into account cost and environmental and cultural values. It also needed a scheme that had the backing of the community and which was likely to obtain a resource consent. The RRSSC was faced with a sharp division in the community on the issue of whether some form of on-site treatment like Biolytix would be used or not. Cultural considerations were one of the significant elements. In order to get a

4

501

consensus, different pumping systems were proposed for Rotoma and for Rotoiti. In particular, the Preferred Option brought on board those groups that had objected to the previous scheme in the Environment Court. A community consensus that met the criteria was the outcome we were seeking, and I and RDC were neutral on the form of the option. As to the risks of using Biolytix: most of these are mitigated by undertaking the trial which is now underway. MoH have indicated that the Preferred Option is acceptable, and Ministerial approval has continued. Informal discussions with MoH indicate that STEP, as a well proven system, is likely to also be acceptable. Formal application will be made if the community give an indication that the STEP system with its costs is acceptable. One thing that MoH and successive Ministers have made clear is that we can’t expect them to go on extending the subsidy deadline. In particular, there would not be time to the necessary fresh design to take the sewage to the Rotorua plant. Mark, the issue that community now has to consider is whether to proceed with the consent application processes, with the risks from a significant objection; or fully to investigate, and if no problems arise, adopt the STEP system for Rotoma. In a perfect world we could go back to reconsider past decisions, right or wrong. But there is no way we could do that and retain the MoH subsidy. Without that subsidy the scheme is dead. Kia ora Ian

On 14/04/2017 5:47 p.m., Mark Armstrong wrote: Ian – my parents forwarded a copy of your April 2017 update on the East Rotoiti-Rotoma sewerage scheme, which is attached. Also attached is your late 2015 update, along with my 31 May 2015 submission to the Rotorua District Council. The concerns in my submission that the option recommended by RRSSC was both suboptimal in terms of the cost to ratepayers, and that it carried risks which had not been satisfactorily mitigated seem to have crystalised. The STEP proposal now being floated was not one of the options presented by RDC, nor apparently analysed by RRSSC or RDC in 2015. There is no evidence the Ministry of Health or the Medical Officer of Health support it, in the same way there is still no evidence the

5

501

Ministry of Health or the Medical Officer of Health support Option 5(a). My sense there is limited confidence STEP will perform. My view RRSSC, MauriOMeter and RDC had a pre-determined outcome in mind with the Combined Option 2 and 5(a) solution and the consultation was therefore flawed seems to have been borne out. My recommendation is the RRSSC asks RDC to abandon the Option 2 and 5(a)/STEP solution and start work on the Option 1, which “The Technical Advisory Groups’ Report on East Rotoiti and Rotoma Sewerage Options” identified as its preferred option in August 2014.

Regards Mark Armstrong

6

-----Original Message----From: "Rotorua District Council" Sent: Monday, 17 April 2017 3:00 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: RDC Website - East Rotoiti Rotoma Sewerage Scheme ref: RDC-QF-170417-8XMC111RU

RDC Website - East Rotoiti Rotoma Sewerage Scheme Reference: RDC-QF-170417-8XMC1-11RU Attachment: not attached Name: Leon Vincent Address 107 & 109 State Highway 30 Lake Rotoma Phone: 07 362-0103 Email: [email protected] Your feedback Good Afternoon Council This morning I have attended a meeting at the Rotoma Fire Station, and wish to give my approval for the STEP system installation as proposed for the Lake Rotoma households. Clearly this is the best alternative to the LPGP system previously proposed, as oer the concerns raised by Rotoiti Iwi. I wish to say well done to those involved with the steerage committee, and hope the scheme progresses smoothly forward from this time based on the common good of all. Regards Leon Vincent PS: I own two properties at Rotoma, Nos. 107 & 109 SH 30

7

8

503 24/04/2017 The Chief Executive Officer Rotorua Lakes Council By email: [email protected]

Submission on: Conversation #1 – Proposed East Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Scheme for 770 lake properties. From: Bernard and Lauren Cruickshank: We would like it known to Council that we do not agree with the proposal to commence payments in July 2017 by ratepayers of East Rotoiti/Rotoma for the costs Sewerage Scheme as set out in Conversation 1 of the Annual Plan Consultation document. Our objection to this proposal is based on    

Uncertainty of the final costs of the system Lack of a successful Resource Consent Service is unlikely to be available before July 2018 Cost of borrowing to Council will not come in until at least the 2018/19 financial year.

We do not want to speak to our objection should a hearing take place.

9

504 27/4/17 Taken down from phone call as per customers request. Not happy with the rate increases. Does not think all the beautification should be ahead of general maintenance and waste money. Carolyn Mckelvey-spitz

10

11

25/4/17 Richard Campion. From: "YOLO Campion" Sent: Tuesday, 25 April 2017 8:03 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Rural seal extention Hi there, we live at ...... in Paradise valley and have been here for 21yrs. Have just read the annual plan for 17-18. We live on a bush clad property of 18 acres and pay a hefty annual rates bill. We have to supply our own water, deal with our own sewerage, have no footpaths or street lighting and access is via a single lane shared paper road which we personally have to maintain.We choose to live here so naturally accept these conditions, but in the years we've been here the rate bill just gets bigger and bigger and we personally gain very little, subsidising the rest of town. Having read the annual plan we've noticed there is to be road maintenance and seal extensions so would ask that you consider including our road on that list as there are 5 properties on this short paper road. Yours sincerely Richard Campion.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

-----Original Message----From: "fiske" Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2017 5:19 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Proposed changes to recycling WE are unable to make the meeting at Waikite regarding changes to rubbish collection. Our thoughts are as follows. We voted for Rubbish collection. Therefore we would expect our rubbish to be collected at the gate at $200 per year. We would NOT be prepared to pay $200 for a collection point because that is what we already have to do now, therefore a collection point would be no different than before. Thanks Rocky and Rebecca Fiske

516

28

517

-----Original Message----From: "Michael" Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2017 7:02 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: changes to waste and recycling services Hi there, My family received the letter in the mail recently regarding the proposed changes to waste and recycling services. Due to the letter arriving the same day as the public meeting close to me, I am unable to attend. I would like to appose the proposed changes to the rural waste management services. Lets break it down. As a rural property owner, where we live we pay a pretty hefty lump in rates paid to the council. We receive NO water, NO footpaths, NO sewerage, NO curbing, NO streetlights out of that money paid. Any logical person would be asking what are we actually paying this chunk for?? Frankly I find it cheeky that the council thinks we should pay extra for waste and recycling services that are not wanted. When we recycle we take it to town or the landfill drop off station. I'm all for user pays so maybe there should be a charge at the proposed new sights rather than blanketing the whole of the rural community to pay for something they may never use. Enough is enough guys.

29

518

-----Original Message----From: "Rory Antony" Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2017 7:32 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Waste Services in Waikete/Ngakuru HI there I only just realised that the meeting for our region is actually on right now so I am writing to voice my opinion on the proposal to have a curbside collection or a collection centre in our area. Personally I am happy with not having a collection from the gate or collection point. I go into Rotorua often enough that I can do recycling and get rid of rubbish then. The proposed fee of $187.50 would be doubling my current cost of waste disposal & recycling. Please keep the status quo Regards Rory

30

519

-----Original Message----From: "Laraine Barker" Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2017 9:28 a.m. To: "Info RDC" Subject: Re: PROPOSED CHANGES TO WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES [#22BA7G] I would tend to veto anything that will add to our rates. They are already onerous for people whose only income is superannuation and we often wonder how Council can come up with such a high figure when we get no street lighting, no sewerage, no waste water facility, no water supply. We were quite happy with the recycling depot just behind Pak n Save. In fact, I was quite impressed when I first saw it. It seemed to have a place for everything. Okay, it’s a pain having to pack all that stuff into our car and get rid of it before we can do our shopping, but the only thing that will be different if Ngakuru has a collection point is we won’t have to drive as far. I also understand that at one time Ngakuru did have some sort of rubbish collection area and that it landed up looking worse than a “landfill” dump. If Council does put in these facilities they will, therefore, needed to be policed. They shouldn’t have to be, but the fact is most New Zealanders don’t much care how they get rid of their rubbish (the roadside will do, judging from what one sees on the side of the road as one drives to town). Kind regards Laraine

On 19/04/2017, at 8:37 am, Info RDC wrote: Kia ora Laraine, Ngakuru is currently not serviced by council's waste management services however in this years annual plan council is proposing to offer a collection point service and we are asking residents of Ngakuru to provide us their feedback on this. At this stage council hasn't identified where collection points will be based because this is subject to this consultation. For example residents might tell us that they dont want a service or that they want a kerbside service and this is why council at this stage has only indicated on the map at a very high level that this side of district boarded by SH 30 and SH5 is proposed to be covered by collection points. We are holding a public meeting at the Waikite Hall tonight at 7pm where our staff will be able to answer questions, please feel free to attend if you can. Otherwise please feel free to ask your questions via this email address. Please feel free to contact the Rotorua Lakes Council on 07 348 4199 or [email protected] (Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm) and one of our friendly Customer Advisors will assist you. Kind Regards,

31

519

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ __ Rhonda Ticklepenny Customer Advisor Customer Solutions, Rotorua Lakes Council P: 07 3484199 | F: 07 3463143 E: [email protected] | W: rotorualakescouncil.nz A: 1061 Haupapa St, Private Bag 3029, Rotorua Mail Centre, Rotorua 3046, New Zealand ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________ Customer Service Team of the Year 2013 - Association of Local Government Information Management Ultimate Customer Service Team of the Year 2012 - Association of Local Government Information Management

Caution: The content of this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If it is not intended for you, please email the sender immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Thank You.

-----Original Message----From: "Laraine Barker" Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2017 4:03 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: PROPOSED CHANGES TO WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES Judging from the letter sent to ratepayers (received today, 18 March) Ngakuru isn’t covered by proposed waste and recycling services (we are way off the map enclosed with the letter, to the left past the Rotorua Landfill!) and the map is so badly done (even a kid could do better than this) that it isn’t vaguely possible to work out where the proposed collection points are going to be. We are therefore unable to give any feedback at all.

Kind regards Laraine A Barker http://labarker.com

32

33

34

35

520

-----Original Message----From: "Kevin & Judy Nicholas" Sent: Friday, 21 April 2017 6:53 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Rural waste This is our submission on the proposed changes to rural waste and recycling services. Currently we do not have access to waste and recycling services and do not pay the targeted rate. For 35 years we have disposed of our rubbish by ourselves. This includes waste minimisation. It is practical, cheap and efficient and we find a way to dispose of or reuse all of our waste. We DO NOT wish to have a Council-imposed system available to us. It appears that the waste disposal system designed for 'our area' is an upgraded transfer station in Reporoa Village. The map with Council's letter made nothing clear. To use the Transfer Station in Reporoa Village would require a twenty kilometre round trip to a place we seldom otherwise go. We would NOT consider this 'our area'. We would NOT consider that this is 'available to us'. The targeted rate like all Council charges will only go up - our waste disposal costs under Council's proposal will go from near zero (provided for and paid for by us) to over $215 in one hit plus the cost TO US of travel to the facility plus the cost and inconvenience of storing our rubbish until it is convenient for us to go to the facility. We will continue to provide our own waste disposal systems because the Council-imposed system will prove too INCONVENIENT and unnecessarily COSTLY for us. We note that we have already been paying 7% of our rates towards waste management. Currently, that amounts to $137.01 We believe Council would do better to address the waste generated in our District by dealing with it at source. The krill at the heap (ie families, individuals) have this waste imposed on us and are expected to pay the costs of disposing of it. Kevin and Judy Nicholas

36

37

522

-----Original Message----From: "Jose Franco" Sent: Monday, 24 April 2017 1:10 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: proposed changes to waste 7 recycling Hi, I'm in Waikite Valley,

I received three letters advising me of the proposed changes to waste and recycling services with an enclosed map indicating the proposed collection points and transfer stations; unfortunately no street addresses were indicated. Can I have the actual street addresses of these points/stations?? Or an approximate street address if the final site has not been finalised. At first glance with the help of google maps it seems that none of the CP or TS are close to me (oh what a surprise ?!) which probably means that I'm going to be charged for a service that I will not be using which is really aggravating as you saw fit to increase my rates by over 30% last year. If I could have my way I would decline this " service" and NOT pay the extra charge and just continue with Waste Management who actually pick up my waste. Jose

-Jose Franco Zoetermeer Agriculture Ltd

38

523

-----Original Message----From: "Ronald Joseph marsden" Sent: Tuesday, 25 April 2017 1:20 p.m. To: "[email protected]" < Subject: Waste Solutions Ron & Annette Marsden

We live at the extreme end of the above road and do not have any form of waste service. We were supplied with both bins and the other containers initially but because Millar Road was deemed to be unsafe for the collection vehicles we were supplied with the plastic bags and told to drop these at the end of the sealing half a kilometre away down the bottom of the gorge which requires us to drive every Monday both up and down the hill before 9am. We have no recycling of glass, metal or plastic collection. The location of the proposed CP Collection Points certainly do not provide any kind of satisfactory solution and to have a targeted tax imposed when nothing is received In return is draconian. Presently we must drive into the city to get rid of glass etc which is another expense imposed on us which together with having to put up with an unsealed road within 10 km of the Mayor's office and then being expected to pay an extra tax is hard to accept. The solution is to leave things as they and accept that there are rate paying residents that do not receive value for the rates or so called services and should in fact receive a reduction in the high rates now paid. Please consider the following: We live on an unsealed road. We have no reticulated water supply. No satisfactory rubbish collection. Depend on the Rural Delivery for our mail and a day old news paper and consider that we still live in Paradise! Yours faithfully Ron Marsden

39

524

From: John Douglas Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2017 4:12 p.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: ANNUAL PLAN

This is submission on some of the subject in the annual plan. I wish this submission to be read by the Mayor and Councillors but I do not wish to speak at a meeting. CONVERSATION #2 – THREE CHANGES PROPOSED FOR WASTE SERVICES. Option 1 The options being considered (and costs) appear to be not up for discussion. The council’s preferred option says – ‘In some areas the collection options will be designed as appropriate for the local conditions. This would introduce a targeted rate of $187.50 to these properties which they have not previously had. Option 2 – DO NOTHING. Do not extend the service to these properties. This puts the responsibility to manage waste generated in these areas directly onto the property owner. I live in Waikite Valley at ........ Road and have done so for 22 years. My household rubbish is collected from my house by Dial-a-Drum every 3-4 weeks. This costs me $20 for each collection. I am able to put my rubbish into bin liners which are then tied and transferred to the large drum that is supplied. (On average I would replace the household rubbish collected in my home bin liner at least every day.) This ensures that rats, mice and feral cats are not able to get to the rubbish within, if I have to store plastic bags until I can take them to the collection point it would encourage these pest to my property (the Dial-a-Drum would be removed as I won’t be paying for two services). I also compost quite a bit of the rubbish. Once a week I travel into town and that is when I drop of my recycling at the Land Fill recycling area. The fact that the large Dial-a-Drum truck is able to come to my property and deal with my rubbish is the main attraction for me at this point in time. A large number of Farm Owners in the area have large skips which take household rubbish and farm rubbish at the same time. In your proposal you intend to dispose of household rubbish only. The farmers would still have to retain their skips for farm rubbish. That is not cost effective for the farmers. I feel that it is very difficult to agree to Option 1 when I have no idea where the collection points are going to be. At the meetings that have been held there has been much discussion on WHERE the collection point could/should be but I have been told that only when a decision has been made would the collection points be discussed and then established. This is where things get difficult as far as making a decision is concerned. Does all the rubbish have to be in the red bags? Are the red bags supplied for free? Would the red bags hold one week’s worth of household rubbish? In other words, are they as large as the brown paper bags used to be and are they as strong? How often would the rubbish be removed from each Collection Point? As stated earlier, I travel into town once a week. I have no wish to continuously get my car out of the garage to drive my rubbish to a collection point that may – or may not be – some distance from my house. There has been talk of it being put at the intersection of Tumunui Road with State Highway 5. That would be a drive of about 14 kilometres for me just to have my rubbish collected! It also would not look good for the many tourists that use Tumunui Road to get to the Waikite Hot Pools. This may suit all the people that work in town every day but certainly not those of us that live and work here in the valley.

40

524

It seems to me that Council has already decided that we are going to have these collection points regardless of what we say and that we will be made to pay the $187.50 whether we use the service or not. The decision has already been made for us! Thank you for taking my submission into consideration. Regards, John Douglas

41

-----Original Message----From: nikki Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2017 6:31 p.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: Annual Plan waste management for Ngakuru We dont agree and dont want it. John and Nikki Steens

525

42

526

-----Original Message----From: "Allan" Sent: Monday, 1 May 2017 10:11 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Proposed Changes to Waste and Recycling Services. Gisborne Point, Rotoiti. Attention Waste Solutions Team

The suggestion to charge a fee to unoccupied properties is totally unacceptable as no costs are incurred. The vehicles do not stop and there is no waste or recycling to be processed. In my opinion this would be theft.

You should also be providing a discount to properties that are occupied less than 50% of the time. A 50% discount would be acceptable.

It would also be appreciated if the management of response to advice/requests for the preferred option of collection could implemented instead of being ignored.

My opinion of your organization is at an all time low.

Regards, Allan Estcourt for Vaunne Estcourt Trust (Ref 06971 296 00)

PS. Acknowledgement of receipt of this email this week will be appreciated.

43

527

-----Original Message----From: "Roger Feather" To: "[email protected]" Subject: propsed changes to waste & recycling services File No:55-27-01014 Doc NO 716330 Val no I have tried in vain to pass on my feedback via letstalk site but find it far to complicated ...hence an email Bexley Trust is not in agreeance at all at paying an annual sub for education purposes ....we are in favour of paying for a service but at 640 Tutukau Road we recieve NO servises Its totally unfair to expect rural ratepayers to subsidise an isuue we currently have no such service to our property with thanks Kay Feather

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

Best thing council can do for Rotorua is resign. Parking for workers has been taken away and parking is getting further and further out of town. Empty shops. Rural gravel roading not graded as often as it used to be, cut in half since this current council, rates going up with nothing being done. For the second time in 12 months we are asked about refuse collection. No thank you. Is it going to be collected from our gate? which gates are often a long way from the road. If not, do you really expect people to try to find the time to take it to a collection point? Get real. If we have to do that it is much easier for us to take what needs to be disposed of to the tip. Locals, not tourists, are the heart of this little town. C. Hull-Brown

77

78

79

80

81

543

9 May 2017 The Chief Executive Officer Rotorua Lakes Council By email: [email protected]

Submission to the Annual Plan 2017/18 of the Rotorua Lakes Council on: Reticulated waste-water system for the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays at Lake Rotoehu (in connection with conversation #1: reticulated waste-water for Lake Rotoma/Lake Rotoiti which scheme is to include Rotoehu properties other than those at Kennedy and Otautu Bays and which it is agreed the treatment plant design will include capacity for Kennedy and Otautu Bays.) From Owners of Dohnt property at 11 Chingford Road Otautu Bay Lake Rotoehu

The communities of Kennedy and Otautu Bays are engaged in a consultation process towards identifying a possible reticulated waste-water solution for those communities. The relationship with the Rotoma/Rotoiti sewerage scheme is briefly outlined above. The question of subsidy funding assurance for these Rotoehu communities (Kennedy and Otautu Bays) remains unsolved. We therefore make the following submission:

1. We believe that RLC has a responsibility to fully support the provision of a reticulated system for Kennedy and Otautu Bays as an important piece of infrastructure. Therefore we request that Council resolves to declare support to a full waste water reticulation and treatment scheme serving all communities of Lake Rotoehu including Kennedy and Otautu Bays.

2. We request that council continue to provide funding support for the consultation process of the Rotoehu Sewerage Steering Committee beyond the current financial year. Without funding for the financial year 2017/18 this process will not be able to continue beyond the limits of its current funding.

3. We believe that as one of the four critical lakes under the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme, Rotoehu is entitled to a fair share of available funds within the $72.1M MfE funding managed by Te Arawa Lakes Programme for restoration of the four critical lakes.

82

543 We therefore request that council resolves to jointly apply to access the overall Mfe Water Quality Funding as a support to the Rotoehu community’s waste water reticulation objectives. More specifically that this funding can be achieved by reducing the contingency dollars (25%) held in the East Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Scheme to 20% thus releasing $1,725,425.00 MfE funds (thereby making it $2430.17 per HUE more affordable to that scheme) the amount of MfE subsidy required for Kennedy and Otautu Bays. 4. We also request council to agree to work with the community to approach other funding agencies so that subsidy support for reticulated sewerage for Lake Rotoehu communities can be achieved at the same level as is the case for the Rotoma/Rotoiti scheme (currently 75%). 5. We request RLC to make provision in its 2017/18 Annual Plan for the $1500 per household funding for sewerage reticulation (decommissioning of septic tanks) for the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays.

I wish to speak to our submission when a hearing takes place.

Graeme Dohnt For and behalf of Owners 11 Chingford Road Lake Rotoehu

83

84

85

545

9/05/17 The Chief Executive Officer Rotorua Lakes Council By email: [email protected] Submission on: Conversation #1 – Proposed East Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Scheme for 770 lake properties. From: Lake, Rotoma – Hugh and Susan Goldsmith We would like it known to Council that we do not agree with the proposal to commence payments in July 2017 by ratepayers of East Rotoiti/Rotoma for the costs Sewerage Scheme as set out in Conversation 1 of the Annual Plan Consultation document. Our objection to this proposal is based on  Uncertainty of the final costs of the system  Lack of a successful Resource Consent  Service is unlikely to be available before July 2018  Cost of borrowing to Council will not come in until at least the 2018/19 financial year. We do not want to speak to our objection should a hearing take place. Hugh Eric Goldsmith Susan Goldsmith

86

546

8th May 2017 The Chief Executive Officer Rotorua Lakes Council By email: [email protected]

Submission to the Annual Plan 2017/18 of the Rotorua Lakes Council on: Reticulated waste-water system for the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays at Lake Rotoehu (in connection with conversation #1: reticulated waste-water for Lake Rotoma/Lake Rotoiti which scheme is to include Rotoehu properties other than those at Kennedy and Otautu Bays and which it is agreed the treatment plant design will include capacity for Kennedy and Otautu Bays.) From: Sam and Anita Stewart

The communities of Kennedy and Otautu Bays are engaged in a consultation process towards identifying a possible reticulated waste-water solution for those communities. The relationship with the Rotoma/Rotoiti sewerage scheme is briefly outlined above. The question of subsidy funding assurance for these Rotoehu communities (Kennedy and Otautu Bays) remains unsolved. We therefore make the following submission:

1. We believe that RLC has a responsibility to fully support the provision of a reticulated system for Kennedy and Otautu Bays as an important piece of infrastructure. Therefore we request that Council resolves to declare support to a full waste water reticulation and treatment scheme serving all communities of Lake Rotoehu including Kennedy and Otautu Bays.

2. We request that council continue to provide funding support for the consultation process of the Rotoehu Sewerage Steering Committee beyond the current financial year. Without funding for the financial year 2017/18 this process will not be able to continue beyond the limits of its current funding.

87

546 3. We believe that as one of the four critical lakes under the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme, Rotoehu is entitled to a fair share of available funds within the $72.1M MfE funding managed by Te Arawa Lakes Programme for restoration of the four critical lakes. We therefore request that council resolves to jointly apply to access the overall Mfe Water Quality Funding as a support to the Rotoehu community’s waste water reticulation objectives. 4. We also request council to agree to work with the community to approach other funding agencies so that subsidy support for reticulated sewerage for Lake Rotoehu communities can be achieved at the same level as is the case for the Rotoma/Rotoiti scheme (currently 75%). 5. We request RLC to make provision in its 2017/18 Annual Plan for the $1500 per household funding for sewerage reticulation (decommissioning of septic tanks) for the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays.

We do not wish to speak to our submission if a hearing takes place.

SJSTEWART

88

547 07/05/2017 The Chief Executive Officer Rotorua Lakes Council By email: [email protected]

Submission to the Annual Plan 2017/18 of the Rotorua Lakes Council on: Reticulated waste-water system for the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays at Lake Rotoehu (in connection with conversation #1: reticulated waste-water for Lake Rotoma/Lake Rotoiti which scheme is to include Rotoehu properties other than those at Kennedy and Otautu Bays and which it is agreed the treatment plant design will include capacity for Kennedy and Otautu Bays.)

The communities of Kennedy and Otautu Bays are engaged in a consultation process towards identifying a possible reticulated waste-water solution for those communities. The relationship with the Rotoma/Rotoiti sewerage scheme is briefly outlined above. The question of subsidy funding assurance for these Rotoehu communities (Kennedy and Otautu Bays) remains unsolved. We therefore make the following submission:

1. We believe that RLC has a responsibility to fully support the provision of a reticulated system for Kennedy and Otautu Bays as an important piece of infrastructure. Therefore we request that Council resolves to declare support to a full waste water reticulation and treatment scheme serving all communities of Lake Rotoehu including Kennedy and Otautu Bays.

2. We request that council continue to provide funding support for the consultation process of the Rotoehu Sewerage Steering Committee beyond the current financial year. Without funding for the financial year 2017/18 this process will not be able to continue beyond the limits of its current funding.

3. We believe that as one of the four critical lakes under the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme, Rotoehu is entitled to a fair share of available funds within the $72.1M MfE funding managed by Te Arawa Lakes Programme for restoration of the four critical lakes. We therefore request that council resolves to jointly apply to access the overall Mfe Water Quality Funding as a support to the Rotoehu community’s waste water reticulation objectives.

89

547

4. We also request council to agree to work with the community to approach other funding agencies so that subsidy support for reticulated sewerage for Lake Rotoehu communities can be achieved at the same level as is the case for the Rotoma/Rotoiti scheme (currently 75%). 5. We request RLC to make provision in its 2017/18 Annual Plan for the $1500 per household funding for sewerage reticulation (decommissioning of septic tanks) for the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays.

We do wish to speak to our submission if a hearing takes place.

Signed Ross Mowry

90

8th May 2017 To The Chief Execu6ve Officer Rotorua Lakes Council email Geoff[email protected]

Submission to the Annual Plan 2017/18 of the Rotorua Lakes Council on: Re#culated waste-water system for the communi#es of Otautu and Kennedy Bays at Lake Rotoehu (in connec6on with conversa6on #1: re6culated waste-water for Lake Rotoma/Lake Rotoi6 which scheme is to include Rotoehu proper6es other than those at Kennedy and Otautu Bays and which it is agreed the treatment plant design will include capacity for Kennedy and Otautu Bays.) From: Jill Walker and Brian Po#ki 9 Tombleson Road Lake Rotoehu The communi6es of Kennedy and Otautu Bays are engaged in a consulta6on process towards iden6fying a possible re6culated waste-water solu6on for those communi6es. The rela6onship with the Rotoma/Rotoi6 sewerage scheme is briefly outlined above. The ques6on of subsidy funding assurance for these Rotoehu communi6es (Kennedy and Otautu Bays) remains unsolved. We therefore make the following submission:

1. We believe that RLC has a responsibility to fully support the provision of a re#culated system for Kennedy and Otautu Bays as an important piece of infrastructure. Therefore we request that Council resolves to declare support to a full waste water re#cula#on and treatment scheme serving all communi#es of Lake Rotoehu including Kennedy and Otautu Bays.

2. We request that council con#nue to provide funding support for the consulta#on process of the Rotoehu Sewerage Steering CommiJee beyond the current financial year. Without funding for the financial year 2017/18 this process will not be able to con#nue beyond the limits of its current funding.

3. We believe that as one of the four cri#cal lakes under the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme, Rotoehu is en#tled to a fair share of available funds within the $72.1M MfE funding managed by Te Arawa Lakes Programme for restora#on of the four cri#cal lakes. We therefore request that council resolves to jointly apply to access the overall Mfe Water Quality Funding as a support to the Rotoehu community’s waste water re#cula#on objec#ves.

91

4. We also request council to agree to work with the community to approach other funding agencies so that subsidy support for re#culated sewerage for Lake Rotoehu communi#es can be achieved at the same level as is the case for the Rotoma/Rotoi# scheme (currently 75%).

5. We request RLC to make provision in its 2017/18 Annual Plan for the $1500 per household funding for sewerage re#cula#on (decommissioning of sep#c tanks) for the communi#es of Otautu and Kennedy Bays.

We do/do not wish to speak to our submission if a hearing takes place.

Signed

92

549 8 May 2017 The Chief Executive Officer Rotorua Lakes Council By email: [email protected]

Submission to the Annual Plan 2017/18 of the Rotorua Lakes Council on: Reticulated waste-water system for the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays at Lake Rotoehu (in connection with conversation #1: reticulated waste-water for Lake Rotoma/Lake Rotoiti which scheme is to include Rotoehu properties other than those at Kennedy and Otautu Bays and which it is agreed the treatment plant design will include capacity for Kennedy and Otautu Bays.)

The communities of Kennedy and Otautu Bays are engaged in a consultation process towards identifying a possible reticulated waste-water solution for those communities. The relationship with the Rotoma/Rotoiti sewerage scheme is briefly outlined above. The question of subsidy funding assurance for these Rotoehu communities (Kennedy and Otautu Bays) remains unsolved. We therefore make the following submission:

1. We believe that RLC has a responsibility to fully support the provision of a reticulated system for Kennedy and Otautu Bays as an important piece of infrastructure. Therefore we request that Council resolves to declare support to a full waste water reticulation and treatment scheme serving all communities of Lake Rotoehu including Kennedy and Otautu Bays.

2. We request that council continue to provide funding support for the consultation process of the Rotoehu Sewerage Steering Committee beyond the current financial year. Without funding for the financial year 2017/18 this process will not be able to continue beyond the limits of its current funding.

3. We believe that as one of the four critical lakes under the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme, Rotoehu is entitled to a fair share of available funds within the $72.1M MfE funding managed by Te Arawa Lakes Programme for restoration of the four critical lakes. We therefore request that council resolves to jointly apply to access the overall Mfe Water Quality Funding as a support to the Rotoehu community’s waste water reticulation objectives.

93

549

4. We also request council to agree to work with the community to approach other funding agencies so that subsidy support for reticulated sewerage for Lake Rotoehu communities can be achieved at the same level as is the case for the Rotoma/Rotoiti scheme (currently 75%). 5. We request RLC to make provision in its 2017/18 Annual Plan for the $1500 per household funding for sewerage reticulation (decommissioning of septic tanks) for the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays.

We do not wish to speak to our submission if a hearing takes place.

Darrin Knowles and Toni Brown

94

550

95

550

96

551

-----Original Message----From: "Altus van As" To: "[email protected]" Subject: Submission on Annual Plan

Good morning

My submission relates to sewerage for the eastern part of Lake Rotoiti and for Lake Rotoma. 1.

I support the use of a STEP system at Rotoma in order to make the approval of a resource consent much more likely.

2.

I don’t support a rate for the scheme starting in the 2017/2018 year. I support having a sewerage scheme.

Altus van As

97

-----Original Message----From: "Francis Lunt" Sent: Tuesday, 9 May 2017 11:09 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: submission on annual plan I support the proposed[STEP]system for the Rotoma district. F.T.Lunt

552

98

553

-----Original Message----From: "steve burton" Sent: Monday, 1 May 2017 5:01 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: easy money Hi Waste solutions Team Re: proposed changes to waste and recycling services Greedy , greedy Again let’s find a way to charge rate payers that currently have a vacant property that isn’t using any services to pay up . I am currently being charged for water and am not connected yet As a rate payer for 12 years I have never seen any news letters from the council Regarding any discounts to , hot pools , etc And as for the serviceability rate funding , I don’t live in the area so don’t litter Or do any illegal dumping , which you should be fining offenders to cover costs Not try and squeeze it out of vacant landowners We seem to be an easy target what next ?

Concerned ratepayer That’s a no from me

99

554 -----Original Message----From: "Karen Barker" Sent: Monday, 1 May 2017 12:19 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Rubbish collection at valuation 07030*.... To Whom it may concern, re: Valuation No; 07030*..... We do not have a residence on this property as it is a bare block of land, and so we do not require rubbish collection. We do not wish to be charged for something we do not receive thank you. Can you please clarify if we will be charged the $93.75 mentioned in your letter of 24th April? Yours sincerely, Karen Barker

RL & KJ Barker Family Trust

100

555

-----Original Message----From: "Marian Sandrey" Sent: Monday, 1 May 2017 4:27 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Waste Solutions Team We are not in favour of the proposal re waste & recycling services for Waikite Valley as we find it more convenient to use the recycling at the Landfill and in town, when necessary , when we are already passing by. This would alleviate having to have Collection points in our area ( an eyesore we don't want in the Valley) John & Marian Sandrey. Sent from my iPad

101

556

-----Original Message----From: "Michael Smith" Sent: Tuesday, 2 May 2017 1:53 p.m. To: "'Info RDC'" Subject: RE: Proposed changes to waste and recycling services [#231C5K] Ok, as most people use either Tumunui or Whirinaki/Waikaukau Roads into town I recommend CP’s there…preferrably not within visual or ‘smelling’ distance of nearby residence.

As mention, please put me down as ‘for rubbish collection’

Regards, Michael Smith

102

557

-----Original Message----From: "sandra tadema" Sent: Tuesday, 2 May 2017 4:11 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Targeted waste rates.

I oppose the proposed change to these rates because I don't use this service and I object to being made to pay just because it's available. It's supposed to be user pays not pay whether you use it or not! There are so many things rural people are forced to contribute to already, why not leave this as an option you can pay for if you choose to use it. Sandra Tadema. Sent from my HUAWEI P9

103

558

-----Original Message----From: "Jim " Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2017 8:54 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: proposed waste cost recovery Hi

I’ve just received letters on your proposed changes to waste service charges. I’m an industrial & commercial LL in Rotorua Most of my tenants don’t use this service!! So I don’t see why the LL should have to pay this extra cost! In Tauranga we all have waste bins which are cleared weekly each person pays for this service as required. I believe Rotorua should consider a similar service it is cost effective for everyone!! Please look at & review the Tauranga model

Regards Jim Verran

104

559

-----Original Message----From: "snfairweather" Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2017 7:52 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: PROPOSED CHANGES TO WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES I have already sent an email about this 'stupid proposed waste and recycling service' and I have said that we are not paying for this service. You emailed back to say that someone would be in contact with me, but I haven't heard from anyone, which is typical. We have received yet another letter which indicates to me that the council has made up it's mind and the charge is going to come in no matter what people want or think. The first letter was written on 12 April stating it was a proposed charge, the second one was written on 24th April asking for the number of houses per property. I have spoken to a number of people and nobody I have spoken to is in agreement with this charge. We have been dealing with our rubbish ourselves for over 60 years. Leave the country folks alone and go look in your own pockets for the money you are needing for all your expensive projects. Ngaire Fairweather

105

560

-----Original Message----From: "Beange, Timothy" Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2017 7:32 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Hi There ,

Just some feedback for you in reply to your recent letter in your planned changes to waste and recycling . As we are rural ( about 20 minutes drive out of Rotorua ) we are on a septic tank and we do our own recycling at the Rotorua Landfill . At this stage we would not be happy to be charged for recycling that we currently manage ourselves , as there are two adults at the above address we do not produce much in way of recycling . Hope this helps .

Tim Beange

106

561

-----Original Message----From: "Tracey Hopkins" Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 3:47 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Annual Plan proposed changes to waste management costs RE: Royal Court Apartments I am writing in opposition to your proposal to apply a targeted rate to every property in the district, for waste and recycling services. As an apartment owner, we have currently opted out of this service. The layout of the apartments does not allow the council to collect waste efficiently. Seventy four separate wheelie bins obviously can't be stored in each unit and all wheeled out for collection. We already pay waste management to clear the apartment bins and it would be extremely unfair to expect us to pay for a service we cannot use on top of this. We are currently paying 20% towards waste management which already seems excessive for the proportion we use. I will be interested to see your feedback on the matter. Yours Sincerely Tracey Hopkins

107

Rotorua Lakes Council

562

10 May 2017 To Whom It May Concern, I am just looking through the rating info you sent out on the proposed waste and recycling services. There seems to be a few problems with your records, and a few corrections on houses on our property, so will try to explain below. 07000*570*04 has 1 house – that is correct. 07000*538*12 – has 1 house – that is corrections 07000*568*62 RDC says there are two houses – we dispute this. There is a small one room hut by the lake which has no bathroom, no heating, very rustic and no one would live in it. It is just used if we want to go to the lake for a picnic. Secondly, there is a portacom which we use for an office/coffee room since we drive 20 minutes to the property to work daily and our worker driver from Taupo. No one lives here either. Lastly, we have our own Waste Management skip bin that we pay for on a monthly basis. We are 40 minutes from Rotorua and 20 minutes from the centre of Waikite Valley and are as close to Taupo as we are Rotorua. I think if we can prove we provide our means of waste disposal we should be exempted from the tax. Can you please call me further to discuss this please?

Will look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Sherrie Stokman

108

563

From: Thomas Kaminski Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 1:15 p.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: Submission for Infrastructure Development: Fairy Springs/ Ngongotaha

Hi We are a new tourism operator at 525 Ngongotaha Road. With Adventure Playground to the North and OGO, Mitai, Rainbow Springs and Skyline Gondola in the South, the area of our operation is now in the centre of a major cluster of adventure tourism operators and contributing significantly towards local tourism. While Skyline Gondola and Rainbow Springs enjoy a great infrastructure with well-built roads, cycle and foot paths, as well as connections to the waste water network. This is less satisfactory for operators North of Rainbow Springs, i.e. Mitai, OGO, Orbserver and Adventure Playground. Roads are narrowing, footpaths and cycle paths are partially non-existent and there is no connection to the waste water network. An additional investment to provide similar infrastructure to the operators South of Mitai would significantly assist the other operators to provide the same class facilities and would, over time, benefit Rotorua in regards to image and services provided to regional visitors. With the Government’s funds for tourism infrastructure development, it would be great to see this happen sooner rather than later. http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/tourism/tourism-infrastructure-fund Kind regards, Thomas Kaminski

109

564

Contact name: Claire Cornwell Organisation: Rocking Horse Therapy Preferred contact method: Email Feedback message Re: Rural rubbish collection I do not wish to have collection points out in the valley, making areas messy and open to dumping. I wish to continue with bringing rubbish/recycling into town. since if having to pack all into a car, then no point having CP/ dumping areas out in the beautiful valley.

110

Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 12:06 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: (no subject)

DEAR Sir/Madam, We have received the letter last week regarding the potential to increase the rate to target rate. we strongly do not agree with this , since our body corporate fee already cover dumping the rubbish and cleaning building. not much need to do for this side of work, nor addition requirement for it in the future. If that target rate implemented, will affect the investment confidence and make landlord hard to meet bank loans and relevant costs. If there is anything you would like to discuss, feel free to contact us. Sincerely yours, Hong LI Jackie (Loo lan)

565

111

P & L INVESTNENTS. P.O.Box 33 Whangaparaoa Auckland 0943 New Zealand `Ph./ Fax; +64 (0)9 4241837 Mobile `Ph: +64 (0)21 963 464 E-Mail: [email protected]

The Manager, Waste Solutions Team, Rotorua Lakes Council, Pvt. Bag 3029, Rotorua 3046

Date: 11th May 2017

Dear Sir or Madam, REF: Your Letter dated the 24th. April 2017 Royal Court Apartments Apartment 311 1193 Hinemoa Street File Ref: 55-27-01014 Valuation no: 06500 108 00 CK This will serve to formally voice my opposition to your proposal to apply a targeted rate for waste and recycling services to every individual unit in the subject apartment block. I also wish to record my preference to continue to “opt out”. I consider that your Council may not be familiar with the practicalities running of such a large apartment block. Like the rest of the owners, I have currently opted out of this service which is the subject of your proposal. The layout of the apartments does not allow the council to collect waste efficiently on an individual basis. You must be aware that seventy four separate wheelie bins can't be individually stored in each unit and all wheeled out for collection. Or perhaps this is your intention? We already pay waste management to clear the apartment bins, plus our Body Corp. pays a percentage to cover running the waste disposal facility. I submit that it would be extremely unfair to expect us to pay for a service we cannot use in addition to the current charge. According to my information, at the proposed new rate of $187.50, your proposal would increase my previous waste levy by almost 160%. I therefore urge you to re-consider your proposal as it applies to The Royal Court Apartments. Yours sincerely, Pieter Hopkins

112

-----Original Message----From: "Jeanie Benseman" Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 10:52 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Waste services To whom it may concern: File Ref: 55-27-010/14 Doc No: RDC-715984 Valuation number: 07000*512*01* With regard to Conversation #2 -Waste services Both my husband and I would prefer option 2 - Do nothing at this stage while the current landfill is available with the option to renegotiate with council if the current landfill becomes unavailable in the future. Yours sincerely Murray and Jeanie Benseman

-----Original Message----From: "Jeanie Benseman" Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 11:30 a.m. To: "[email protected] Subject: To whom it may concern: File Ref: 55-27-010/14 Doc No: RDC-715984 Valuation number: 07000*512*01* Further to our previous email we would also like to see Ngakuru district to be considered as a separate district as we are the only district of the four listed that the current landfill services . Yours sincerely Murray and Jeanie Benseman

567

113

568

-----Original Message----From: "Ross at Stanways" Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 5:37 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Proposed targetted rate for "Waste and Recycling Services" To the Waste Solutions Team I write on behalf of ADC Forest Ltd , owners of a forest block on Dods Rd Ngakuru Valley. There is no dwelling on this property, no water supply, no sewerage system, no power etc . It exists solely as a forest block ( pinus radiata) We have no need whatsoever for any waste and recycling service. Can you please note this and respond, indicating on what basis any proposed rate for a non required service is justifiable ? Thank you Regards Ross Stanway

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

-----Original Message----From: " behalf of "suereed" Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:06:59 +1200 Good Afternoon, I am recording my objection to the proposed changes to Waste and Recycling Services. It is only recently that the bin system was introduced. The proposed changes would suggest that the current situation is proving costly hence the need to gather more revenue from ratepayers. I oppose all three proposed changes. 1) I oppose increasing the targeted rate from 80% to 100%. It is reasonable that the general rate carry 20% of the cost. Having a viable rubbish and recycling service is of benefit to the whole community. 2) I oppose the notion that a ratepayer will not be able to opt out and pay half the targeted rate. This is reasonable. To opt out and still be charged the full amount is unreasonable. If a residential home with a separate granny flat can manage with two bins and one crate why should these people be charged two targeted rates? These residents might then choose to have four bins and 2 crates thereby doubling the Council pick up costs. Where is the sense in that? 3) I oppose the proposal for the SUIP. Some ratepayers use other providers for rubbish and recycling. Why should those ratepayers pay twice? Why should Council undermine the business of other providers? If Council is moving towards user pay for waste and recycling services then it should charge the occupier of the SUIP not the property owner. A property with one SUIP and twenty workers pays one rate. A similar property with two SUIPs and only two workers in each pays two rates. Is that fair? If Council seriously wants to reduce littering and illegal dumping, the way forward is not education but to reduce the costs people have to pay to get rid of waste and NOT increase them. Ron Reed

574

125

575

-----Original Message----From: "Willie Shaw" Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 4:25 p.m. To: "'[email protected]'" Subject: Proposed Changes to Waste and Recycling Services In response to your letter of 24 April 2017: RDC 716331 I have the following comments: 1. Your letter is dated 24 April but was only received 5 May, and comments are due today 12 May, which is only 7 days after receipt, and is a very short consultation period. 2. The new kerbside rubbish and recycling collections are fine. 3. Council needs to adopt more proactive and stronger roles in relation to: - policing of illegal roadside rubbish dumping, and - the promotion of free recycling services available at transfer stations, the main recycling centre, and at the landfill site. I suspect that many in our community are simply not aware of these free services, which is why there is so much illegal dumping. Your sincerely Willie Shaw

126

576

-----Original Message----From: "Kirstine Jolly" Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 4:01 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: waste solutions team - public consultation Greetings, I have opted out of your RDC waste management scheme because my property at 512 Hamurana Rd has a very long driveway and I am unsure whether I would successfully wheel a bin down it on my own when full. We pay an operator to come and collect our waste (recycling and also general rubbish) at the top of the drive and if you were to offer this service I would be happy to extra for it! So I am not supportive of having to pay yourselves for a service I don’t expect to use, in addition to a private operator which is convenient and works well for me and my property. Regards Kirstine Jolly

127

577

-----Original Message----From: "Tim Wild" Sent: Monday, 1 May 2017 10:50 a.m. To: "[email protected]" My property is 07040*123*07* and I am also the chairman of the Pukehangi Parklands Bodycorp. I have just received the proposed changes to Waste charges letter. There are 34 properties at Parklands with approx. 19 of these now built on. They will all be in your database as 275 Pukehangi Rd. You refer to us as “opting-out” of the waste collection service. This is incorrect as the service is not being provided to us at all, despite us wanting collection. I have met with Tim Senington in the past to find a way of the council providing waste collection services to all Parklands properties, and he was to come back to me once the collection changes had bedded in. To date no service has been put in place.I have no objection to council providing the service, but I speak as Chairman that no one wants to pay for a service that you are not providing to us. Please let me know when we can expect the service to start. Thanks

Tim Wild

128

-----Original Message----From: "Kim Lorigan" Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 12:30 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Waste and Recycling charges 07030-326-00 Hello team We have a property at Broadlands Road, Reporoa. We have a single separately used property under this valuation number. Whilst we applaud the council for dealing with waste and rubbish, it is difficult for us to opt in for the solution you have as our bins, get blown off the road/stolen etc. Therefore we believe we should not be charged for the cost of collection if there is none available, and the local refuse centre that is the alternative is not open at convenient times. Please can you provide us with a different solution for this collection, or we should have a nil cost to us for waste and recycling services. Thanks for your time, Kim

578

129

579

-----Original Message----From: "Keith Lambeth" Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 9:19 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: waste and recycling We live in Atiamuri on a rural property. There has been no mention in any of the correspondence about services to the Atiamuri area so presumably our collection point will be in Ngakuru or Waikite. This is completely out of the way for us and would require a special trip to drop off rubbish / recycling adding greatly to any costs for us. As a farming business we have taken the step off hiring a skip for our rubbish. Therefore we would not utilise rubbish collection unless it was collected at our gate. If you add a cost to our rates we would be paying twice and feel this is unfair. We do take recycling into Rotorua to drop off. This fits in with other trips into town. So yes we do utilise some recycling services but to be charged for rubbish collection is ridiculous as we would not have rubbish collection which would be viable for us. Our rates have risen substantially over the last few years so to be charged for another service we would not use seems unfair Thanks Wendy Lambeth

130

580 Submission on Conversation #2 – changes to waste services -

Extending waste services to 1400 rural properties that currently do not have it at a cost of $187 plus GST per house/business/etc and providing different levels of service in different areas for the same cost does not make sense and is inequitable. What is the council’s rationale for charging the same to everyone and yet some will get their bags picked up at their driveway and others will have to drive to a collection point? If everyone is paying the same amount they should get same level of service (or they are subsiding urban rubbish collection.)

-

Collection points will be impossible to keep clean which was demonstrated in Atiamuri when there were recycling bins at the hall. They were a constant mess and ended up being removed as the amount of rubbish dumped there was unmanageable.

-

Are people going to drive to a collection point if it is out of their way i.e. if they are going to town and it is the other way?

-

The rural community has a range of residence some with resources and some without. Many workers do not have transport or are unable to drive due to their age or other reasons, and are unlikely to drive to a collection point. If they are able to put rubbish bags out at their drive they are more likely to do so (not to mention those on home detention and unable to leave the property, how would they manage getting rubbish to a collection point).

-

Two bags per household per week which is what the proposed number of bags per year equates to, is going to have a minimal impact on reducing rural rubbish. If you are able to put it out at your driveway you may comply. However if you have to drive somewhere you are unlikely to as it would be easier to put it with other rubbish you have to dispose of.

-

The reason we see rubbish dumped on the side of the road like Bryce rd is because it will not fit in a bag so that will continue to occur as people cannot afford the landfill charges. Implementing rubbish collection or collection points is not going to assist with this problem.

-

The current Rotorua landfill or recycling centre in town can be used for recycling which a lot of rural people already do. This is easy as you are passing. Our current rates should cover the cost of this.

-

There is currently a provider who will pick up rubbish at your doorstep for a very comparable fee to what the council is proposing. Yet with the councils proposal we would need to drive to a collection point. Therefore it is more economical to use the other provider and far easier to do as they pick it up at your doorstep.

-

The other option of user pays at the landfill would also work out cheaper than the 2 bag per week system and you could dispose of all your rubbish at once. Of course this would only suit those with the financial ability to pay for the landfill charges. Others will continue to dump rubbish on roadsides.

131

580 Recommendations: -

Option one - All properties within the Rotorua area receive the same service for the same price (Kerbside rubbish collection and recycling.)

-

Option 2 – If this is not feasible then status quo remains. Rural properties continue to use recycling centres and dispose of their own rubbish. No fee applies.

-

Option 3 (least preferred option) – For a significantly reduced and minimal fee (to encourage people to do it rather than dump their rubbish or dispose of it with their other rubbish) rural properties can use the recycling centres already available and receive the suggested 2 bags a week for rubbish which they can drop off at the recycling centres. They can then dispose of other rubbish as they currently do.

Name: Sharon Andrews

132

581

-----Original Message----From: "Tony and Michelle Peters" Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 9:00 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: File Ref 55-27-01014 Doc No. RDC 716332

Your letter dated 24 April 2017 refers. We DO NOT want council proposed changes to the waste and recycling services in our district of Ngakuru, we are happy with status quo.

We also feel that Ngakuru should be separate from the other districts on your map; our district is unique in that the Landfill on SH 30 (Atiamuri) is on our way to town, it is by far the most cost effective and convenient way for us to deal with our rubbish and recycling. Perhaps you could save some money and keep the landfill area (or part thereof) open.

We would like your assurance that this is still under consultation - as it seems like it is a foregone conclusion, when you start asking people to confirm the number of dwellings on a property. Is this yet another incidence of the poor management we have come to expect from our local council?

As for the Annual Plan I would prefer option 2 – waste management services are self-sustaining and transparent, with targeted rates.

Michelle Peters

133

582

-----Original Message----Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 9:14 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Annual Plan Consultation - Proposed changes to waste and recycling services Rural property owners File ref: 55-27-010\14 Doc No: RDC-715984 Valuation number: 07050*026*00* We wish to receive waste and recycling services to our property at ......, Tarukenga, Ngongotaha Valley. We have lived at this property since 1987, but have never had a rubbish collection provided, even though the rubbish truck drives past our property after exiting Dalbeth Rd. We are only six kms up the highway from the Ngongotaha roundabout. Many rural roads are supplied with rubbish collection/recycling, even those which are narrow and winding and potentially dangerous if a vehicle drives around a corner to find a recycling truck stopped in the middle of the road. Our property has a wide entrance where a truck could pull off the road to empty our bins. There are also three other residences down the same driveway. It seems crazy that we have to find public rubbish bins to deposit our rubbish. The supplied map for collection points in rural areas do not clearly show what is or would be supplied to our area. We have not previously been contacted concerning this.

We look forward to be able to discuss this further Yours faithfully John and Robyn Currie

134

-----Original Message----From: "Gordon Lindsey" Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 6:43 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Waste and Recycling services feedback. Dear Sir/ Madam My valuation number is 07000*490*01* and I live in Ngakuru. At my home I have no water supply and no sewerage supply and I do not want a rubbish collection. You wish to charge me a further $187.50 ontop of my almost $1300 rates for which I get very little service. Regards Gordon Lindsey

583

135

584

From: RLC engagement team [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 8:33 a.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: maria55 completed Submission form

maria55 just submitted the survey 'Submission form' with the responses below. Environmental protection, rural and gateways We want to know what you think... - Have we allowed for enough farmland to be protected from growth? - Have we grouped the lakes correctly? My feedback is: No Answer Freight, tourism and industry We want to know what you think... - Should industrial designations in Ngongotahā and Te Ngae be changed to commercial or residential? - Should we locate new industrial areas to the edge of the city or closer to the forests and transport routes? - Do you agree with the location of the tourism zones? My feedback is: No Answer Lakeside Villages We want to know what you think... - Do you think residential expansion that respects the existing village feel should be considered at Ōkareka and Tarawera? - Do you think Ngongotahā and Hamurana are important growth areas for the district in future? - Do you think a separation between Ngongotahā and the city needs to remain? - Would you prefer development in other parts of the district instead? My feedback is: No Answer Residential expansion around urban Rotorua We want to know what you think... - What kind of home would you want in the future? - Do you agree with a focus on residential development within current urban boundaries? - Do you think we need to identify more options for residential expansion? If yes, where? My feedback is:

136

584

No Answer Inner city We want to know what you think... - Do you think higher density housing (flats, accommodation, apartments) should be focused around the city? - Do you support the reduction in city retail footprint? - Do you support an integrated plan for Kuirau Park, lakefront and Government Gardens that includes some commercial activity? - Do you agree that there needs to be higher quality of urban design, limited to the city? My feedback is: No Answer General comments Do you have any other general comments? My feedback is: Waste and recycling services I attended the meeting at Waikite hall on 19/04/2017, re waste services. I am concerned about my escalating rate costs, should this proposal go ahead the cost of $187.50 + gst and a general rate increase of 3-4%, my rates will increase by about $300.00. At this rate I worry about being rated off my property. With capital valuation the situation is worse. I recycle, I am happy to drop it off in town, a proposed drop off centre would be on my way to town, all vegetation is composted, I burn one small shopping bag per week. It was said at the meeting that you wanted farmers to stop burying their rubbish, aren't you doing the same thing, granted the waste site is lined.This site will be producing methane gas which I believe is not being captured. Drop off sites are to cost $100,000 per annum, given the current situation I do not see this as cost effective and that it will not improve the recycling of waste. I am not in favour of the proposed rural waste management plan for Ngakuru/ Waikite. yours sincerely, Maria Luscombe

137

8th May 2017

585

Submission to council for Okaro and Waimangu Roads waste collection. I would like to put this submission forward to council regards the proposal for the waste collection of the wider Rerewhakaaitu district and more specifically on Waimangu/Okaro Roads. Having attended the meeting last week in the Rerewhakaaitu Hall I certainly have a better idea of the scale of the refuse collection problem and am quite surprised with the council’s expectation that householders in the currently ‘un-serviced’ rural areas will be satisfied with the ad-hock choices being offered them. It was very evident at the meeting that the people were far from satisfied. I am left wondering how much homework was done BEFORE the new waste and recycling service was implemented. Was council aware there were going to be approx. 1500 households left in the lurch? Was the set targeted rate of $187.50 calculated before or after the 1500 leftovers were discovered? Oops, did that not ring some alarm bells at the time? I don’t understand the workings of council, the wherefore and why’s about policies or politics or even claim to know anything about organising waste management but I understand people very well. - If you hurt folk in the pocket they will react badly unless you can quantify the decision. - If you take something away and replace it with something inferior they will be disgruntled. - If you offer them a deal of any sort - they will want parity. That’s just human nature. And these very reactions are to be expected. At the conclusion of the meeting it agreed a submission would be put forward on behalf of the community requesting a costing be done for kerbside collection - be it bags or bins. It was obvious that householders in the wider Rerewhakaaitu area were in favour of a kerbside collection and were prepared to pay for it. However, I have come away from that meeting a little unconvinced that our voices will be heard. I got the feeling that the decisions were almost set in concrete already and the meetings were a formality. I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this. We are Waimangu Road residents and along with our neighbours our preference is a kerbside collection. Our current option is to drop our rubbish bags into the Rotorua Landfill. Whilst this is a little inconvenient, we appreciate this service is currently free for the interim. However, we note that the Reporoa area gets a waste and recycling service. The rubbish truck passes our road to get to Reporoa to do this. We would suggest it would be possible to include Waimangu/Okaro Road (being a loop road) with minimal disruption, time and expense. Keep in mind that ratepayers want parity and respond best if offered a reasonable deal. If it is deemed not viable to run a kerbside service in some rural areas then having further perused your map it appears to me that there are insufficient collection points. There are too few and they are too far between. People have to travel too far to drop off rubbish. Keeping in mind it was stated 1500 households may well be expected to use these drop off points, then I would think the 4 proposed CP’s would also be well overflowing on collection day. Perhaps council would consider installing some extra ones where the population density demands or better still installing well fenced Transfer Stations. At least the householder could deposit their recycling here as well. My concern would be the potential ‘mess’ at these collection point sites. The artist’s impression indicates a wall/roof structure but to what capacity? Surely transfer stations would be more beneficial? And to what benefit is it to install a Transfer station in Reporoa as well as kerbside collection? Another suggestion is that tourist stops, rest areas, picnic spots at lakes etc. all get bigger rubbish/recycling facilities. Oftentimes I pass these areas and see rubbish bins overflowing. I thank you for the opportunity to have a say and look forward to improved services in the future. Regards Rosemarie Lyon

138

586

-----Original Message----From: "Kelly" Sent: Monday, 8 May 2017 3:58 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Proposed changes to waste and recycling services To whom it may concern In response to feedback wanted from your recent letter dated 12 April 2017 and a recent meeting held at the settlers hall with regards to Proposed changes to waste and recycling services, I understand that something needs to be put in place, and this will result in us having to pay extra on top of our rates without the option to opt out, therefore the main thing I want to make clear is, "that if we are paying the full proposed amount, the same as the homes whom currently have this service already, then we must have that same service of a kerbside pickup, a collection point will not be acceptable given we would be paying the same as those who receive the full service at their own driveway, when some us would have to drive many kms out of our way". If you require further communications please don't hesitate to contact us. Regards Ratepayers Tyron Gerrard and Kelly Marshall

Sent from my iPad

139

587

Submission re Waste: Reporoa Resident Hi Shirley. Hey I was unable to get to our local meeting the other night but a few of my friends who attended have given me a wee up-date. Shirley i feel very strongly about the compulsory charge for the rubbish collection, for some farms and some farmers/situations the collection method just will not work or suit ! From what has been explained there could be several different collection methods ... some having a bin (large volume) others bag (small volume/capacity) some having to deliver their rubbish to certain points and others have a gate collection ... a blanket charge for this service would be an outrage. How can i follow this through ... i look forward to your reply cheers diane herdman You accepted Diane's request.

Hi Dianne. Have only found your message now. It is something that is a theme popping up across reporoa and rerewhakaaitu. There is a submission process you can do online. I have your comments which I can turn into a submission for you. What do you want to see happen. Uniform service across the district? All bags or all bins? Pick up at gate? Does Hancock road have a pick up FRI 08:43

Good morning Shirley thank you for your response... I will reply from your last question and work backwards, currently no pick up for Handcock Rd, I feel strongly that there should be a uniform form service regarding bags or bins, But because we are rural and rural has its own geographic challenges I believe there should be some sort of opt in/out with no added cost for those rural whom opt out, I realise with that in mind it would create pick up problems ie some requiring collection and others not and all dwelling up the same road! So there would have to be drop off areas with in a reasonable distance ( Not the Village) at the mo I notice that several drop their bags off in a common collection point ... I get the feeling this subject/service that is being proposed is a revenue making mission for the District Council! A blanket change with only a percentage using the service, yes please would you put my words into a submission ... thank you again Shirley for your time and help with our rural concerns cheers Diane

140

588

-----Original Message----From: "Craig" Sent: Sunday, 7 May 2017 2:17 p.m. To: "'[email protected]'" Subject: waste and reycling services Kia ora Waiotapu Thermal Wonderland has always been self-sufficient with recycling and waste disposal. Sustainability has always been part of Waiotapu’s ethos. Currently our staff run recycling into the Rotorua recycling centre twice a week. Having a collection point and a nearby transfer station would be extremely beneficial to this business. It would also be a consideration to have a scheduled recycle service for rural businesses, I think it would be quite an eye opener as to the volumes of recycling these businesses produce. Naku noa, na

Craig Wishart

141

589

-----Original Message----From: "Jan Veal" Sent: Friday, 5 May 2017 4:31 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Annual plan consultation - Proposed changes to waste and recycling services. File ref: 55-27-010\14 Doc No: RDC- 715984 Val number: 06962*016*02* The proposed bag drop off service with recycling and rubbish bag collection points is commendable but as I fall outside the serviced areas it is of little use to me.. At present I take my paper (self bought) rubbish bags to Rotoma school parking area and all my recycling to the centre in Te Ngae Rd. I do not consider a targeted rate would be appropriate for my property as I would still not be receiving a service there, I doubt the Council would pay for my car use and petrol to get to a collection point. I frequently collect roadside discarded drink items etc to keep the road litter free to discourage litterbugs and also pick up same when at Manawahe Beach. I realise the problem Council is facing but feel the $187.50 per yr plus GST will actually encourage more illegal and unsightly dumping of rubbish particularly in rural areas. Yours faithfully, Jan Veal pp Denise Coleman council

142

590

From: Amanda Druery Sent: Friday, 5 May 2017 2:26 p.m. To: Tim Senington Subject: Submission to council for Okaro and Waimangu Roads waste collection.

Afternoon Tim This is our official submission to council regarding the proposal for waste collection on Waimangu and Okaro roads. We attended the meeting in Rerewhakaaitu Hall on Wednesday night. We are not happy with the idea that we all are to pay for a service that we are not offered. If we are expected to pay for it, then this is remarkably unfair and I cannot see how it is expected. We would like a kerb side collection preferably with bags. This to us is not an unreasonable request as they have been able to do it safely in the past, travel our road to get to Lk Okaro and we are more than happy to make sure our bags are all on one side of the road. Our road especially is one that tourists travel on in great numbers and having a transfer station or a drop off area will look horrific and also could well be used by freedom campers etc. Please accept this as our preference and with luck you are able to take our and the many others want for a kerb side service and devise a plan for this to be an option for us on both Waimangu and Okaro Roads Thanking you Amanda and Mathew Armer

143

591

From: Pamela Pedersen [ Sent: Friday, 5 May 2017 10:29 a.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: Waste strategy

Hello We own a bach at Otaramarae and have concerns about the waste management proposals for baches in the region. We understand the logic which you propose for requiring property owners to pay the full annual targeted rate even though we would only be infrequently using the service. There are other costly waste issues all members of the community have a responsibility to address. However, and also in light of the fact many bach owners also only infrequently use the service I would urge you to consider special arrangements for the collection of waste at holiday homes. Many visits to baches are over the weekend and putting your rubbish out in a bag on a Sunday for Monday collection worked well. A move to bins only would mean that bins would remain on the roadside until an owner returned some time in the future to collect them in. In many cases this might be weeks rather than days. I did register on the site, but found it difficult to see info about this issue. I was not successful in finding specific details anywhere. I look forward to your feedback. Kind regards Pamela Pedersen

144

592

-----Original Message----From: "GLTravis" Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017 7:13 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Proposed changes to waste and recycling services file ref 55-27-010\14 To whom it may concern In reference to your Proposed changes as above, effecting our property I don't see the need for the proposed refuse collection service in this area. We actively recycle our bottles & plastics, compost any vegetable waste & burn any unwanted cardboard & paper or use it to light our fire. Every so often we have a trip to the dump to dispose of any other rubbish we cannot handle ourselves. I think if you were to talk to the locals you would find most people in the area do the same.

We are a retired couple & I feel our rates are high enough already for the minimum services the rural community receive. I for one struggle to pay the rates as they stand now, let alone finding ways to charge us even further.

I see no need to supply a refuse collection service.

Sincerely

Gaylynn & Geoff Travis

145

Original Message----Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017 5:05 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Proposed Changes to Water and Recycling Services To Whom it may concern, Re: Proposed changes to Water and Recycling Services In response to your letters dated 24th April 2017, File Ref: 55-27-01014 x2 Valuation Nos. 06542*611*00* & 06542*612*00 These are unoccupied sections i.e. no houses or amenities on them, therefore, we do not require any waste & recycling services and so should not be charged for this service. Yours faithfully, Ngawai Ngawhika Trustee Rotorua

593

146

594

-----Original Message----Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017 4:20 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: FW: Valuation No 06533*123*00 La Grouw Investments Ltd - Proposed Changed to Waste and Recycling Services Good afternoon

I don’t see the need to change the Waste and Recycling Services.

You gave the property owners the choice of using the new waste bins or not (and have their rates reduced) knowing they use other services to dispose of their waste and in less than a year, you now want to take that choice away.

You appear to want to provide every property with the three waste bins –if everyone is charged then they should receive the collection bins, what is the point to that when they will not be used, ie. Empty sections, vacant properties etc, this seems a waste of money and time. If property owners want the service, then they should receive the bins for the service which is currently costed into their rates.

You propose to charge businesses in the CBD double the rate for larger bins – a user pays system, so why charge full rate for non users.

The current system of reduced rates for property owners who elect not to have waste collection seems to be fair, so I do not see the need for change at this time.

Kind regards

Joe La Grouw

147

595

-----Original Message----Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017 4:20 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: FW: Valuation No 06533*153*05 Victory Business Park Limited - Proposed Changed to Waste and Recycling Services Good afternoon I don’t see the need to change the Waste and Recycling Services. You gave the property owners the choice of using the new waste bins or not (and have their rates reduced) knowing they use other services to dispose of their waste and in less than a year, you now want to take that choice away.

You appear to want to provide every property with the three waste bins –if everyone is charged then they should receive the collection bins, what is the point to that when they will not be used, ie. Empty sections, vacant properties etc, this seems a waste of money and time. If property owners want the service, then they should receive the bins for the service which is currently costed into their rates.

You propose to charge businesses in the CBD double the rate for larger bins – a user pays system, so why charge full rate for non users.

The current system of reduced rates for property owners who elect not to have waste collection seems to be fair, so I do not see the need for change at this time.

Kind regards

Joe La Grouw

148

596

-----Original Message----From: "Vonne Turton" Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017 4:18 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Valuation No 06533*124*01 Russell Road Estate Limited - Proposed Changed to Waste and Recycling Services Good afternoon I don’t see the need to change the Waste and Recycling Services. You gave the property owners the choice of using the new waste bins or not (and have their rates reduced) knowing they use other services to dispose of their waste and in less than a year, you now want to take that choice away. You appear to want to provide every property with the three waste bins –if everyone is charged then they should receive the collection bins, what is the point to that when they will not be used, ie. Empty sections, vacant properties etc, this seems a waste of money and time. If property owners want the service, then they should receive the bins for the service which is currently costed into their rates. You propose to charge businesses in the CBD double the rate for larger bins – a user pays system, so why charge full rate for non users. The current system of reduced rates for property owners who elect not to have waste collection seems to be fair, so I do not see the need for change at this time.

Kind regards

Joe La Grouw

149

597

-----Original Message----From: "Deb" Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017 10:17 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Feedback Waste and Recycling Services File Ref 55-27-010\14 Doc No RDC715984 Valuation No 07050*255*06* We do not wish to have waste and recycling services. We currently recycle at Mamaku Smart Environment centre which is perfect. We do not have very much other rubbish that is not recyclable and dispose of this ourselves. This applies to our other property at ....... Rd which is tenanted. They also do the same as us as far as rubbish disposal. Thankyou Debbie

150

598

-----Original Message----From: "Watene Horsfall" Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2017 1:46 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: ANNUAL PLAN - PROPOSED CHANGES TO WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES In response to your letter of 24 April 2017 I comment as follows. My two sections have underground services and comprise bare land only. No buildings or occupation of any kind. Accordingly I submit the following : That bare land with no buildings and occupation remain free from waste and recycling service charges. Kia Ora Watene Horsfall

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

601

-----Original Message----From: "John La Roche" Sent: Tuesday, 9 May 2017 4:59 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Submission on Annual Plan Dear Rotorua Lakes Council,

As Ratepayers at Gisborne Point, Rotoiti we wish to support the plan to use the STEP system of pre-treatment for the Rotoma Sewage proposal. We do congratulate Ian McLean, the Chair of the East Rotoiti Rotoma Sewage Steering Committee for organising many community meetings to try to find an acceptable system for local residents. It appears there was near unanimous support for the STEP system at meetings held on Monday 17th April and we wish to add our support to those who have already agreed that the STEP system is their preferred choice.

Sue and John La Roche

176

602

-----Original Message----From: "Marilyn Wilkie Sent: Tuesday, 9 May 2017 6:08 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Submission on Annual Plan

Dear Council, My submission relates to sewerage for the eastern part of Lake Rotoiti and for Lake Rotoma. 1. I think the use of a STEP system at Rotoma is probably a mistake, involving massive new septic tanks on every property just in order to make the approval of a resource consent much more likely. If we are going to have a sewerage scheme at all, it should just be a standard pipe connection with waste taken to a treatment plant, not some new and untried and more expensive scheme. 2. I don’t support a rate for the scheme starting in the 2017/2018 year. It is quite clear that we don’t really have a workable plan or solution yet, and ratepayers shouldn’t be asked to pay anything until there is an actual working system in play. The wider council needs to invest upfront and charge ratepayers when the job is done. The few ratepayers in this area don’t want to pay for risky, expensive trials and failures. The council has been pushing various sewerage schemes for more than ten years, and I am so pleased I did not invest in OCET way back when it was first demanded.

3. I don’t support having a sewerage scheme. I am tangata whenua, and my family has lived and holidayed in this area for nearly 100 years. We have always got by on a simple septic tank, using water and waste wisely. The quantity of waste water we create with only occasional visits is way less than that which warrants any expensive treatment system. While some iwi members might prioritise some ‘strong cultural concerns about the quality of the sewage being transmitted through their property’, we run the risk of developing a one-of-kind, unproven, and potentially unworkable solution which will benefit no one. Sometimes doing the right thing has to take precedence over doing what we would all ideally like to do.

177

602

4. I note with horror that you are now planning to build a scheme to service twice the current number of dwellings. That is exactly how Mangawhai got its hugely expensive sewerage scheme and crippling rates increases, just about bankrupting its council. Current ratepayers must never be asked to pay the full costs of a much larger scheme, only those which pertain to their own needs.

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Miro Wilkie.

178

Ngati Pikiao Iwi Trust

SUBMISSION TO THE ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL ANNUAL PLAN 2017/2018

179

Mihi Kei te Ohautanga o Potakatawhiti ko Te Ohu. Kei Motutawa ko Haukeka. Kei Atuareretahi ko Taranui. Kei Rawahirua ko Mokai. Kei Te Mataarae-i-o-rehu ko Puwhakaoho. Kei Tapaniao ko Urutohatoha. Kei Wharetaingamoko ko Pikiaowera. Kei Te Papatu ko Whakahau. Kei Matawhaura ko Te Kokako-peke-wero-a-Te Wahatuoro. Ko nga pou enei o Te Tokotoru-a-Manawakotokoto e tu karapoti nei i te rohe o Ngati Pikiao. Haumi e! Hui e! Taiki e!

180

Ngati Pikiao Iwi Trust The Ngati Pikiao Iwi Trust (NPIT) is the largest affiliate to the Post Settlement Governance Entity, Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. Through its settlement, the NPIT is often notified and consulted on a wide range of community matters. The governance of NPIT is reviewed every three years by its beneficiaries and its membership is representative of the many hapu that constitute Ngati Pikiao iwi. The NPIT has a strong and functional relationship with its people to bring about positive influence for our iwi. It is in this context that the NPIT makes this submission to the Rotorua Lakes Council 2017/2018 annual plan.

181

Conversation No.1: The East Rotoiti/Rotomā Sewerage Scheme 1. We SUPPORT the proposed East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme and AGREE that Council continue with the scheme. 2. We SUPPORT the requirement of suitable on-site pretreatment systems for all properties connecting to the scheme. 3. We DO NOT SUPPORT Council's proposal to assist with the cost of the scheme by charging a targeted rate in the 2017/2018 financial year. Our preference is that households are only charged once the scheme is operational and their property is connected. i. Many of our whanau reside in Rotoiti and will need to connect to the scheme. Bringing the cost forward into the 2017/2018 financial year is not acceptable to them and we support their position. ii. We do not wish our whanau to be paying for the scheme prematurely although we acknowledge this could bring financial benefits to the scheme in the short-term. 4. A reticulated scheme brings far more potential benefits to the community than OSET. What is important and more critical to us is that RLC progress with a reticulated scheme as it is the only option that: i. Presents the best opportunity to truly achieve the environmental objectives around minimising the impact of wastewater on our lakes ii. Allows all properties to have a solution (as some properties would not be able to meet the Regional Council's requirements under OSET) iii. Presents the necessary infrastructure for the foundations of housing and economic growth in our community particularly for hapu and iwi stakeholders within the boundary of the scheme. 5. We ask that Council accepts that growth in our community is an important part of the strategy and long term plan for overall growth in the Arawa Lakes region and that this is reflected in relevant technical aspects of the Sewerage Scheme - even if this happens to cost a little more. Community growth is an important part of future land-use plans for many of our iwi and hapu land trusts and incorporations. 6. In order to meet our aspirations for growth in our community it is critical that additional capacity is put into the piping and pumping network and that the Treatment and Disposal Facility is designed in a smart way to allow for cost-effective growth. 7. Ngati Pikiao have land interests all around Rotoiti, Rotoehu and Rotoma. Given the primary objective of this scheme is focused on improving lakes water quality it is imperative that ALL RESIDENTS of Lake Rotoehu - including Otautu and Kennedy Bays - are able to join our

182

scheme if that is the preferred option recommended to Council by their Steering Committee. Their inclusion in our scheme will only be beneficial with upfront and operational costs. It is also noted that many of the properties within the proposed Rotoiti/Rotoma scheme actually lie in the Lake Rotoehu catchment. It is our understanding that Council's Long Term Plan needs to be amended to include Rotoehu in order for this to happen and encourage RLC to do whatever is necessary to implement this as soon as possible. 8. Additionally, we openly commend RLC on having a Cultural Impacts Manager attached to the scheme - this has provided a lot of our owners in the community with confidence that their interests are being considered. We are also appreciative of the free connection to the scheme offered to community associations and marae.

Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that as a key representative of Ngati Pikiao and also a representative of many of our whanau and hapu affected by the scheme our view should be given serious consideration. We also require assurance that, where practicable, all aspects of the scheme align with cultural values. The Ngati Pikiao Iwi Trust wish to thank RLC on providing an opportunity to submit to the Annual Plan. Naku noa,

Piki Thomas Chairman Ngati Pikiao Iwi Trust C/- Glen Hawkins Associates Rotorua Phone: Email:

027 244 8784 [email protected]

183

604 11th May 2017 The Chief Executive Officer Rotorua Lakes Council By email: [email protected]

Submission to the Annual Plan 2017/18 of the Rotorua Lakes Council on: Reticulated waste-water system for the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays at Lake Rotoehu (in connection with conversation #1: reticulated waste-water for Lake Rotoma/Lake Rotoiti which scheme is to include Rotoehu properties other than those at Kennedy and Otautu Bays and which it is agreed the treatment plant design will include capacity for Kennedy and Otautu Bays.) From: Alison and David Sellars,

The communities of Kennedy and Otautu Bays are engaged in a consultation process towards identifying a possible reticulated waste-water solution for those communities. The relationship with the Rotoma/Rotoiti sewerage scheme is briefly outlined above. The question of subsidy funding assurance for these Rotoehu communities (Kennedy and Otautu Bays) remains unsolved. We therefore make the following submission:

1. We believe that RLC has a responsibility to fully support the provision of a reticulated system for Kennedy and Otautu Bays as an important piece of infrastructure. Therefore we request that Council resolves to declare support to a full waste water reticulation and treatment scheme serving all communities of Lake Rotoehu including Kennedy and Otautu Bays. The current Lake Rotoehu Action Plan does not identify a reticulated sewage scheme as a means of improving the lake water quality. However there is likely to be a case for it when the Action Plan is reviewed which is due this year. Regardless of the current situation RLC has allowed half of the Rotoehu community to be included in plans for a reticulated scheme. a) The Action Plan was drafted in 2007 and based on figures obtained in 2003. Since then the rate of permanent occupancy has more than doubled. Also use of holiday homes has increased. Now (10 years on) impacts from domestic sources will be greater. In another ten years community impacts are likely to have further increased.

1

184

604 b) With the current housing crisis and needs of Edgecumbe residents who need to find alternative accommodation further increase in permanent occupancy is likely. c) Increased use of properties will result in increased pressure on on-site effluent fields. As BoPRC experts have advised this may compromise soil resilience. A reticulated system will prevent this. d) There are properties in our communities which will be unable to accommodate an on-site system which complies with the Regional Council OSET plan. The only way for these to be serviced is by a reticulated system. e) Public health issues: People are holding off from putting in OSET compliant systems because a reticulated system is likely. The longer this is deferred the greater the risk of contamination and negative environmental impacts. The sooner the community can move towards a decision on sewage the better. Seeking funding assurance is critical to this. Issues of public health are another reason for RLC to recognise and support a reticulated system for Otautu and Kennedy Bays as an important piece of infrastructure. There has been a suggestion of Community Board funding being used to provide BarBQs and playground equipment for the foreshore at Otautu Bay. But without the facility of public toilets being available people can’t be encouraged to gather there. There are public health issues of no such provision, for which a reticulated system would be necessary.

2. We request that council continue to provide funding support for the consultation process of the Rotoehu Sewerage Steering Committee beyond the current financial year. Without funding for the financial year 2017/18 this process will not be able to continue beyond the limits of its current funding.

3. We believe that as one of the four critical lakes under the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme, Rotoehu is entitled to a fair share of available funds within the $72.1M MfE funding managed by Te Arawa Lakes Programme for restoration of the four critical lakes. We therefore request that council resolves to jointly apply to access the overall Mfe Water Quality Funding as a support to the Rotoehu community’s waste water reticulation objectives. Lake Rotoehu was identified as one of the four critical lakes under the Te Arawa Rotorua Lakes Programme. $72.1M was granted by MfE for restoration of these four lakes. According to Te Arawa Lakes Programme website to the end of June 2015, $4.982M has been spent from this fund (project operative expenditure) on actions to restore Lake Rotoehu (wetlands, aeration, phosphorus locking, land-use changes, weed harvesting, 2

185

604 sediment capping). Different figures obtained from Helen Creagh (Rotorua Catchments Manager for BoPRC) in a communication 4/3/16 say the figure was $3.145M (50% of $6.291M) to the end of Dec 2015. By comparison, Lake Okareka, another of the four critical lakes has had $8.338M spent according to the Te Arawa Lakes Programme website. Lake Okareka’s area (340ha) is 42% of that of Rotoehu (800ha) and its catchment (1980ha) is 42% that of Rotoehu (4710ha).

This table makes clear the relative spending on these two lakes and considers both figures for expenditure for Rotoehu. Okareka $8.338M $24,523/ha lake area $4,211/ha catchment

Rotoehu (1) $4.982M $6,227/ha lake area $1,057/ha catchment

Rotoehu (2) $3.145M $3,931/ha lake area $667/ha catchment

Okareka’s TLI is currently at 3.3 against a target of 3.0 (in 2004 TLI was 3.2) Rotoehu’s TLI is 4.6 against a target of 3.9. (In 2005 TLI was 4.6)

In a letter to the Lakes Water Quality Society (31/1/17) Prof David Hamilton said: “Despite considerable remedial work on Lake Rotoehu (artificial mixing, floating wetland, land use change, alum dosing, weed removal) this lake has not responded as positively as hoped for. It is now time to re-evaluate the scientific basis for management actions on the lake and to better understand why it is so resilient to some of these actions (particularly the alum dosing when this method has been so effective in Rotorua.) This review should help to prioritise future actions for the lake”

4. We also request council to agree to work with the community to approach other funding agencies so that subsidy support for reticulated sewerage for Lake Rotoehu communities can be achieved at the same level as is the case for the Rotoma/Rotoiti scheme (currently 75%). Indicative costings for a reticulated scheme have been estimated at $3.58M (RLC: gravity system feeding to proposed Rotoma/Rotoiti treatment plant) or $3.49M (RLC grinder pump, ditto). These figures include a contingency. Indicative costs provided by Innoflow for a STEP

3

186

604 system also feeding to the proposed Rotoma/Rotoiti treatment plant are around $2.8M with contingency only included in the treatment plant costs. Until final costings are available the exact cost of a scheme won’t be known. MfE funding from Te Arawa Lakes Programme is granted on dollar for dollar basis. Therefore we would expect subsidy from this source for 50% of the costs of a scheme, whatever that cost might be, with the expectation that the other 50% must be found from other sources. This would be in line with all the other schemes that RLC has undertaken. NB For all other schemes RLC has ensured that funding from the appropriate sources has been available and approved prior to consultation. No-one else has had to find their own funding. Also back in 2011 when RLC was strongly advocating for and pushing our communities towards a reticulated sewage scheme there was never any question that there would not be subsidy available.

5. We request RLC to make provision in its 2017/18 Annual Plan for the $1500 per household funding for sewerage reticulation (decommissioning of septic tanks) for the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays.

Further comments: The objectives of Te Arawa Lakes Programme are about protecting and restoring water quality in the Rotorua Lakes. “To preserve and protect the lakes for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations”. The three partners are “Working as one to protect our lakes with funding assistance from MfE”. Relevant responsibilities of the partners in relation to the situation of reticulated sewage for the communities in question are: 

TeArawa Lakes Trust: Protect the Mauri of the lakes.



RLC : Provide and maintain sewerage and storm water infrastructure



BoPRC: Contribute to funding to help improve the health of the Rotorua Lakes in association with the Crown and RLC

4

187

604 In the case of Rotoehu these objectives cannot be achieved by only providing reticulation to part of the lake community.

Because part of Rotoheu is planned for inclusion to the Rotoma/Rotoiti scheme the objectives of that scheme are relevant. 

To help protect the Mauri of the lakes-to keep the lakes clean



To protect the health of the people



To avoid the issues of OSET compliant units at every house



To make good use of available subsidies.

These objectives would apply to a scheme which would include Kennedy and Otautu Bays. If subsidy funding for reticulation is not available for Kennedy and Otautu Bays then these objectives cannot be achieved for Lake Rotoehu. In addition we wish to draw attention to a portion of funding provided from Bay of Plenty Regional Council to the Rotoma/Rotoiti Sewage scheme which was approved at the full council meetings during their Annual Plan Process 2016/17. By this time it had been agreed that the scheme’s design (treatment plant etc) and Resource Consent Application was to include capacity for Rotoehu. There has been a lack of clarity in the use of “Rotoehu” in the Notice of Requirement for the scheme which it is important to be aware of. The scheme, even before the agreement to include capacity for the potential connection of the communities of Otautu and Kennedy Bays, was going to include 5

188

604 connection for a number of properties within the Rotoehu catchment other than within those bays; namely properties along SH30, at the end of Manawahe Road near the junction with SH30, Rotoma school, Lake Rotoma campground, houses along Morehu Loop Road and the Waitangi Soda springs (see diagram above). According to the principle of tatou tatou (all inclusive, treating everyone the same), funding for Rotoehu should apply to ALL of the Rotoehu community and include Otautu and Kennedy Bays. If funding is based on the Action Plan then none of Rotoehu would be funded.

The additional funding comprised $4.56M which was tagged to Lakes Rotoiti and Rotoma ($2.66M Rotoiti and $1.90M Rotoma) and $4M which was untagged. Regardless of the inclusion or not of Kennedy and Otautu Bays, part of this $4M must include Rotoehu since properties within that catchment have always been included in the scheme. Given that the scheme is designed for, and it is agreed that Kennedy and Otautu Bays can be included, an appropriate portion of that $4M must be held for the benefit of those communities. We understand that the intention of BoPRC for that $4M is that the funds cover Rotoehu but that it is up to RLC to decide how it is to be spent. It is unacceptable that the Rotoehu communities be treated differently in respect of sewage provision. All communities within the catchment should have the same access to support. 6. We believe the communities of Kennedy and Otautu Bays are entitled to an appropriate share of the $4M and we urge Rotorua Lakes Council to ensure this money is kept available as subsidy for these communities.

We do wish to speak to our submission if a hearing takes place.

Signed:

Alison and David Sellars

6

189

190

191

192

Lakes Water Quality Society Inc Website: lakeswaterquality.co.nz PO Box 7023, Te Ngae, 3042 Rotorua Treasurer: Marcel van Leeuwen Secretary: Nic Roxburgh

Submission to Rotorua Lakes Council Annual Plan 2017/18 The Lakes Water Quality Society request that this submission be considered even through it is submitted late. Subject :

East Rotoiti Rotoma Sewerage Scheme

1. Our Society has supported the scheme since it was first proposed for the following reasons:  The only way the phosphorus target, contained within the Action Plan for Lake Rotoma, can be met is by the removal of all phosphorus associated with septic tanks. The installation of a public sewerage scheme is the best way to achieve this.  At Hinehopu the land is very low and septic tanks currently will be flooded and many will be ineffective.  Where tanks are in close proximity to the lakes, during periods of high loading associated with holiday periods, many of the drainage fields will be discharging indirectly into the lake and contaminating it. 2. There is strong support for the scheme, this has been shown through public meetings and submissions. 3. A recent modification has been a change to the Stepped System, this is widely supported by IWI and the community and we urge Council to support it. 4. Failure to proceed is likely to put at risk Government and Regional subsidy, this scheme has been delayed before and no guarantees are in place to allow further postulation, action on the ground is required. 5. Council has already committed to funding this project. 6. The alternative of forcing individuals to put in an OSET system, would be untenable.

Submission: We request that Council provide adequate funding in the plan to allow the scheme to proceed to completion.

Don Atkinson Chair LWQS

Lakes Water Quality Society Inc, Registered Charity CC21282,

193

194

195

196

608

-----Original Message----From: "Bill Barker" Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 5:02 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Submission on Annual Plan

My submission relates to sewerage for the eastern part of Lake Rotoiti and for Lake Rotoma. 1. I support the use of a STEP system at Rotoma in order to make the approval of a resource consent much more likely. 2. I don’t support a rate for the scheme starting in the 2017/2018 year. 3. I support having a sewerage scheme.

Bill Barker.

197

SUBMISSION ON THE ANNUAL PLAN 2017/2018

SUBMITTER DETAILS Name:

Frances Teinakore-Curtis

Entity: Address:

NA 420 Te Ngae Rd Owhata Rotorua 3010

Contact Details:

Email: [email protected] Mobile: (021) 2756925

198

Conversation #1 – East Rotoiti/Rotoma sewerage scheme 1. I SUPPORT the proposed East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme and AGREE that Council continue with the scheme. 2. I SUPPORT the requirement of suitable on-site pretreatment systems for all properties connecting to the scheme. 3. I DO NOT SUPPORT Council's proposal to assist with the cost of the scheme by charging a targeted rate in the 2017/2018 financial year. Our preference is that households are only charged once the scheme is operational and their property is connected. i. I reside in Rotoiti and will need to connect to the scheme. Bringing the cost forward into the 2017/2018 financial year is not acceptable. ii. I do not wish to be paying for the scheme prematurely although I acknowledge this could bring financial benefits to the scheme in the short-term. 4. A reticulated scheme brings far more potential benefits to the community than OSET. What is important and more critical to us is that RLC progress with a reticulated scheme as it is the only option that: i. Presents the best opportunity to truly achieve the environmental objectives around minimising the impact of wastewater on our lakes ii. Allows all properties to have a solution (as some properties would not be able to meet the Regional Council's requirements under OSET) iii. Presents the necessary infrastructure for the foundations of housing and economic growth in our community. Specifically, it has the potential to maximise land use with existing residential properties and to create higher-value land use for our Maori land trusts and incorporations within the boundary of the scheme. 5. I ask that Council accepts that growth in our community is an important part of the strategy and long term plan for overall growth in the Arawa Lakes region and that this is reflected in relevant technical aspects of the Sewerage Scheme - even if this happens to cost a little more. 6. In order to meet the aspirations for growth in our community it is critical that additional capacity is put into the piping and pumping network and that the Treatment and Disposal Facility is designed in a smart way to allow for cost-effective growth. 7. I am a property owner in Rotoiti and have whanau who have land interests located around Rotoiti, Rotoehu and Rotoma. Given the primary objective of this scheme is focused on improving lakes water quality it is imperative that ALL RESIDENTS of Lake Rotoehu - including Otautu and Kennedy Bays - are able to join our scheme if that is the preferred option recommended to Council by their Steering Committee. Their inclusion in our scheme will

199

only be beneficial with upfront and operational costs. It is also noted that many of the properties within the proposed Rotoiti/Rotoma scheme actually lie in the Lake Rotoehu catchment. It is our understanding that Council's Long Term Plan needs to be amended to include Rotoehu in order for this to happen and encourage RLC to do whatever is necessary to implement this as soon as possible. 8. I wish to thank RLC on providing an opportunity to submit to the Annual Plan. I also commend RLC on having a Cultural Impacts Manager attached to the scheme - this has provided me with confidence that my interests are being considered.

Naku noa,

Frances Teinakore-Curtis

200

Tapuaekura Rakeiao Marae Ngati Rongomai

SUBMISSION ON THE ANNUAL PLAN 2017/2018

201

Pepeha Ko Ngati Rongomai te Iwi Ko Te Pikikotuku te tangata Ko te rape puatata o Rakeiao Ko au koia, koia ko au

Mihi Hei timatanga kōrero, kia rātou kua huri ki tua o paerau, hoki wairua mai kia tātōu. Ngā mate e whakataumaha nei i a koutou, nā koutou i tangi heoi ano nā tātou katoa. Kia rātou mā no Tuhourangi, Ngāti Wahiao a Mauriora Kingi te pou whakarae, te tātāriki o te kawa me ōna tikanga o Te Arawa, kia Ngāti Rongomai kia Cine Epapara, nei te ngākau tauwharewharenga e mihi ana. Wahaina mai ki runga i te whariki o mate. Kia kotahi ai te poroporoaki ki a rātou. Haere ki ngā taumata whakamoe i te tangata. Haere ki o pēperekōu, ki o tūpuna, tuituia to kapua pēra kia moe i tō moengaroa ahakoa kua kore nei to ataahuatanga e kitea ana inaianei, mā o whakaahua e whakanuia i a koe, he kanohi e kitea he hokinga mahara. Nō reira kai te tangi tonu te ngākau, haere atu rā, moe mai rā! Ka huri ki a tātau e te hunga ora, kia tātou kua ponitakatia mai na runga i tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira, tēna koutou tēna koutu tēna koutu katoa.

Tapuaekura Rakeiao Marae Rakeiao was the eldest son of Rangitihi and Manawakotokoto. Ngāti Rongomai are the descendents of Rakeiao and Keapare. The second wife of Rakeiao was Maruahangaroa, who was daughter of Rongomaipapa and Tuhourangi, and the granddaughter of Kahungungu and Rongomaiwahine.

The purpose of the Tapuaekura Marae Trust is to provide sustainability to our generations of Ngāti Rongomai people through our values and customs (tikanga and kawa). We envisage that this will be achieved through the mana whenua of our kaumatua passing on their knowledge to the young. Our aim is to create an environment that is inviting, safe and comfortable for all people of Ngāti Rongomai and other communities to contribute and become a part of Tapuaekura Marae through various recreational, learning, celebratory and inspirational occasions.

202

Conversation #1 – East Rotoiti/Rotoma sewerage scheme 1. We SUPPORT the proposed East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme and AGREE that Council continue with the scheme. 2. We SUPPORT the requirement of suitable on-site pretreatment systems for all properties connecting to the scheme. 3. We DO NOT SUPPORT Council's proposal to assist with the cost of the scheme by charging a targeted rate in the 2017/2018 financial year. Our preference is that households are only charged once the scheme is operational and their property is connected. i. Many of our landowners reside in Rotoiti, Rotoehu and Rotoma and will need to connect to the scheme. Bringing the cost forward into the 2017/2018 financial year is not acceptable to them and we support their position. ii. We do not wish to be paying for the scheme prematurely although we acknowledge this could bring financial benefits to the scheme in the short-term. 4. A reticulated scheme brings far more potential benefits to the community than OSET. What is important and more critical to us is that RLC progress with a reticulated scheme as it is the only option that: i. Presents the best opportunity to truly achieve the environmental objectives around minimising the impact of wastewater on our lakes ii. Allows all properties to have a solution (as some properties would not be able to meet the Regional Council's requirements under OSET) iii. Presents the necessary infrastructure for the foundations of housing and economic growth in our community. Specifically, it has the potential to maximise land use with existing residential properties and to create higher-value land use for our Maori land trusts and incorporations within the boundary of the scheme. 5. We ask that Council accepts that growth in our community is an important part of the strategy and long term plan for overall growth in the Arawa Lakes region and that this is reflected in relevant technical aspects of the Sewerage Scheme - even if this happens to cost a little more. 6. In order to meet our aspirations for growth in our community it is critical that additional capacity is put into the piping and pumping network and that the Treatment and Disposal Facility is designed in a smart way to allow for cost-effective growth. 7. Our whanau have land interests all around Rotoiti, Rotoehu and Rotoma. Given the primary objective of this scheme is focused on improving lakes water quality it is imperative that ALL RESIDENTS of Lake Rotoehu - including Otautu and Kennedy Bays - are able to join our scheme if that is the preferred option recommended to Council by their Steering Committee. Their

203

inclusion in our scheme will only be beneficial with upfront and operational costs. It is also noted that many of the properties within the proposed Rotoiti/Rotoma scheme actually lie in the Lake Rotoehu catchment. It is our understanding that Council's Long Term Plan needs to be amended to include Rotoehu in order for this to happen and encourage RLC to do whatever is necessary to implement this as soon as possible. 8. Tapuaeharuru Marae Committee wish to thank RLC on providing an opportunity to submit to the Annual Plan. We openly commend RLC on having a Cultural Impacts Manager attached to the scheme - this has provided a lot of our owners in the community with confidence that their interests are being considered. We are also appreciative of the free connection to the scheme offered to community associations and marae.

Conclusion In conclusion, as mana whenua of particular lands around lakes Rotoiti, Rotoehu and Rotoma and representative of many of our whanau affected by the scheme we are hopeful that our view will be given serious consideration. We also require assurance that, where practicable, all aspects of the scheme align with cultural values. Our Marae Committee wish to thank RLC on providing an opportunity to submit to the Annual Plan. Naku noa,

Steven Curtis Chairman Tapuaekura Rakeiao Marae Phone: (027) 2683711 Email: [email protected]

204

Tapuaekura Rakeiao Marae Ngati Rongomai

SUBMISSION ON THE ANNUAL PLAN 2017/2018

205

Pepeha Ko Ngati Rongomai te Iwi Ko Te Pikikotuku te tangata Ko te rape puatata o Rakeiao Ko au koia, koia ko au

Mihi Hei timatanga kōrero, kia rātou kua huri ki tua o paerau, hoki wairua mai kia tātōu. Ngā mate e whakataumaha nei i a koutou, nā koutou i tangi heoi ano nā tātou katoa. Kia rātou mā no Tuhourangi, Ngāti Wahiao a Mauriora Kingi te pou whakarae, te tātāriki o te kawa me ōna tikanga o Te Arawa, kia Ngāti Rongomai kia Cine Epapara, nei te ngākau tauwharewharenga e mihi ana. Wahaina mai ki runga i te whariki o mate. Kia kotahi ai te poroporoaki ki a rātou. Haere ki ngā taumata whakamoe i te tangata. Haere ki o pēperekōu, ki o tūpuna, tuituia to kapua pēra kia moe i tō moengaroa ahakoa kua kore nei to ataahuatanga e kitea ana inaianei, mā o whakaahua e whakanuia i a koe, he kanohi e kitea he hokinga mahara. Nō reira kai te tangi tonu te ngākau, haere atu rā, moe mai rā! Ka huri ki a tātau e te hunga ora, kia tātou kua ponitakatia mai na runga i tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira, tēna koutou tēna koutu tēna koutu katoa.

Tapuaekura Rakeiao Marae Rakeiao was the eldest son of Rangitihi and Manawakotokoto. Ngāti Rongomai are the descendents of Rakeiao and Keapare. The second wife of Rakeiao was Maruahangaroa, who was daughter of Rongomaipapa and Tuhourangi, and the granddaughter of Kahungungu and Rongomaiwahine.

The purpose of the Tapuaekura Marae Trust is to provide sustainability to our generations of Ngāti Rongomai people through our values and customs (tikanga and kawa). We envisage that this will be achieved through the mana whenua of our kaumatua passing on their knowledge to the young. Our aim is to create an environment that is inviting, safe and comfortable for all people of Ngāti Rongomai and other communities to contribute and become a part of Tapuaekura Marae through various recreational, learning, celebratory and inspirational occasions.

206

Conversation #1 – East Rotoiti/Rotoma sewerage scheme 1. We SUPPORT the proposed East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme and AGREE that Council continue with the scheme. 2. We SUPPORT the requirement of suitable on-site pretreatment systems for all properties connecting to the scheme. 3. We DO NOT SUPPORT Council's proposal to assist with the cost of the scheme by charging a targeted rate in the 2017/2018 financial year. Our preference is that households are only charged once the scheme is operational and their property is connected. i. Many of our landowners reside in Rotoiti, Rotoehu and Rotoma and will need to connect to the scheme. Bringing the cost forward into the 2017/2018 financial year is not acceptable to them and we support their position. ii. We do not wish to be paying for the scheme prematurely although we acknowledge this could bring financial benefits to the scheme in the short-term. 4. A reticulated scheme brings far more potential benefits to the community than OSET. What is important and more critical to us is that RLC progress with a reticulated scheme as it is the only option that: i. Presents the best opportunity to truly achieve the environmental objectives around minimising the impact of wastewater on our lakes ii. Allows all properties to have a solution (as some properties would not be able to meet the Regional Council's requirements under OSET) iii. Presents the necessary infrastructure for the foundations of housing and economic growth in our community. Specifically, it has the potential to maximise land use with existing residential properties and to create higher-value land use for our Maori land trusts and incorporations within the boundary of the scheme. 5. We ask that Council accepts that growth in our community is an important part of the strategy and long term plan for overall growth in the Arawa Lakes region and that this is reflected in relevant technical aspects of the Sewerage Scheme - even if this happens to cost a little more. 6. In order to meet our aspirations for growth in our community it is critical that additional capacity is put into the piping and pumping network and that the Treatment and Disposal Facility is designed in a smart way to allow for cost-effective growth. 7. Our whanau have land interests all around Rotoiti, Rotoehu and Rotoma. Given the primary objective of this scheme is focused on improving lakes water quality it is imperative that ALL RESIDENTS of Lake Rotoehu - including Otautu and Kennedy Bays - are able to join our scheme if that is the preferred option recommended to Council by their Steering Committee. Their

207

inclusion in our scheme will only be beneficial with upfront and operational costs. It is also noted that many of the properties within the proposed Rotoiti/Rotoma scheme actually lie in the Lake Rotoehu catchment. It is our understanding that Council's Long Term Plan needs to be amended to include Rotoehu in order for this to happen and encourage RLC to do whatever is necessary to implement this as soon as possible. 8. Tapuaeharuru Marae Committee wish to thank RLC on providing an opportunity to submit to the Annual Plan. We openly commend RLC on having a Cultural Impacts Manager attached to the scheme - this has provided a lot of our owners in the community with confidence that their interests are being considered. We are also appreciative of the free connection to the scheme offered to community associations and marae.

Conclusion In conclusion, as mana whenua of particular lands around lakes Rotoiti, Rotoehu and Rotoma and representative of many of our whanau affected by the scheme we are hopeful that our view will be given serious consideration. We also require assurance that, where practicable, all aspects of the scheme align with cultural values. Our Marae Committee wish to thank RLC on providing an opportunity to submit to the Annual Plan. Naku noa,

Steven Curtis Chairman Tapuaekura Rakeiao Marae Phone: (027) 2683711 Email: [email protected]

208

Ngati Rongomai Iwi Trust

SUBMISSION TO THE ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL ANNUAL PLAN 2017/2018

209

Mihi E te Kaunihera Matua o te Rotorua nui a Kahumatamomoe Anei te reo o te kopara e karanga ana kia koutou ra I runga I te rangimarie me te aroha, nei te mihi. Ngäti Rongomai Iwi are descendants of the illustrious ancestors Rangitihi and Manawakotokoto. These tüpuna (ancestors) begat Rakeiao who eventually resided on the southern shores of Lake Rotoiti and whom with his first wife Maruahangaroa bore children and great grandchildren who are known today as Ngäti Rongomai — a hapü (subtribe) of Rakeiao. For generations these progenies were the environmental protectors of this stretch of Lake Rotoiti. Along with hapü of Ngäti Pikiao (the descendants of Pikiao l) and Ngäti Hinekura (the descendants of Hinekura), these offspring have safeguarded the realm of Tangaroa (an eponymous anceétor of tangata whenua and guardian of the sea) for centuries. Their understanding of Kaitiakitanga is vast and their practice of it has been long standing.

210

Ngati Rongomai Iwi Trust The legal status of Ngäti Rongomai Iwi Trust is as a Common Law Trust. It is an affiliate iwi organization of Te Pümautanga o Te Arawa Trust whereby it is: a Post-Treaty settlement governance entity under the Te Arawa Iwi and Hapü Claims Settlement Act 2008 and represents Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapü interests in the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement 2008. The purposes of Ngäti Rongomai Iwi Trust are: To receive all benefits, monies or property due, payable or transferable to Ngäti Rongomai as an affiliate of Te Pumautanga O Te Arawa Manage prudently the affairs, activities, assets and liabilities of Ngäti Rongomai To hold and administer the Trust Fund on behalf of the Beneficiaries

211

Conversation No.1: The East Rotoiti/Rotomā Sewerage Scheme 1. We SUPPORT the proposed East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme and AGREE that Council continue with the scheme. 2. We SUPPORT the requirement of suitable on-site pretreatment systems for all properties connecting to the scheme. 3. We DO NOT SUPPORT Council's proposal to assist with the cost of the scheme by charging a targeted rate in the 2017/2018 financial year. Our preference is that households are only charged once the scheme is operational and their property is connected. i. Many of our whanau reside in Rotoiti and will need to connect to the scheme. Bringing the cost forward into the 2017/2018 financial year is not acceptable to them and we support their position. ii. We do not wish our whanau to be paying for the scheme prematurely although we acknowledge this could bring financial benefits to the scheme in the short-term. 4. A reticulated scheme brings far more potential benefits to the community than OSET. What is important and more critical to us is that RLC progress with a reticulated scheme as it is the only option that: i. Presents the best opportunity to truly achieve the environmental objectives around minimising the impact of wastewater on our lakes ii. Allows all properties to have a solution (as some properties would not be able to meet the Regional Council's requirements under OSET) iii. Presents the necessary infrastructure for the foundations of housing and economic growth in our community particularly for hapu and iwi stakeholders within the boundary of the scheme. 5. We ask that Council accepts that growth in our community is an important part of the strategy and long term plan for overall growth in the Arawa Lakes region and that this is reflected in relevant technical aspects of the Sewerage Scheme - even if this happens to cost a little more. Community growth is an important part of future land-use plans for many of our iwi and hapu land trusts and incorporations. 6. In order to meet our aspirations for growth in our community it is critical that additional capacity is put into the piping and pumping network and that the Treatment and Disposal Facility is designed in a smart way to allow for cost-effective growth. 7. Ngati Rongomai have land interests all around Rotoiti, and we have whanau who also have land interests in Rotoehu and Rotoma. Given the primary objective of this scheme is focused on improving lakes water quality it is imperative that ALL RESIDENTS of Lake

212

Rotoehu - including Otautu and Kennedy Bays - are able to join our scheme if that is the preferred option recommended to Council by their Steering Committee. Their inclusion in our scheme will only be beneficial with upfront and operational costs. It is also noted that many of the properties within the proposed Rotoiti/Rotoma scheme actually lie in the Lake Rotoehu catchment. It is our understanding that Council's Long Term Plan needs to be amended to include Rotoehu in order for this to happen and encourage RLC to do whatever is necessary to implement this as soon as possible. 8. Additionally, we openly commend RLC on having a Cultural Impacts Manager attached to the scheme - this has provided a lot of our whanau in the community with confidence that their interests are being considered. We are also appreciative of the free connection to the scheme offered to community associations and marae.

Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that as a key representative of Ngāti Rongomai and also a representative of many of our whanau and hapu affected by the scheme our view should be given serious consideration. We also require assurance that, where practicable, all aspects of the scheme align with cultural values. The Ngāti Rongomai Iwi Trust wish to thank RLC on providing an opportunity to submit to the Annual Plan.

Howard Morrison Chairman Ngati Rongomai Iwi Trust C/- Deloitte Rotorua Email: [email protected] Contact: 0275232182

213

Submission on the Rotorua Lakes Council Annual Plan 2017/2018 Rotoma Rotoiti Sewerage Steering Committee Summary After a defeat four years ago in the Environment Court, RLC asked for help. You asked community leaders to work with your people and bring you back a viable sewerage scheme. The Rotoma Rotoiti Sewerage Steering Committee (RRSSC) now says to you: here’s your scheme. This scheme has a good chance of getting a resource consent. This scheme removes the grave risk to health from dangerous dysfunctional septic tank systems. The scheme will help protect two significant lakes. This scheme is heavily subsidised. The scheme is costly but is affordable. The scheme is strongly supported by the community. With subsidy deadlines, it is pointless to continue to explore other options – that has already been done. We have brought you back a good sewerage scheme. We respectfully submit that the decision now is: just do it.

214

1. Introduction The East Rotoiti Rotoma Sewerage Scheme has already been approved in the RLC Long term plan (LTP). In consulting on the annual plan regarding rating issues, wider questions have again been raised. Because of that, this submission deals with why a scheme is essential, the costs and subsidies, the community consultation, and the cultural input. 2. Why a sewerage scheme is needed Water quality A sewerage scheme is necessary to protect Lake Rotoma. Lake Rotoma is the purest Lake in the region. Its water quality is threatened in the medium term by nutrients flowing in from the catchment. It is a phosphorus limited lake. Nutrients from septic tank systems are a major source of phosphorus. This is the only source of phosphorus for which there are financial, institutional and technical possibilities of removal. A sewerage scheme is also necessary to protect Lake Rotoiti in the longer term. The “wall” has resulted in a great improvement in water quality in Lake Rotoiti. Continuation and replacement of the wall is subject to resource consents. In the medium to long term, it is necessary for nutrient reduction from the Rotoiti catchment itself. Danger to health Right now, a significant number of people in the area face a major health risk. Many septic tanks are old, small or in a poor state of repair. Even more of the disposal fields are dysfunctional. Some septic tanks and disposal fields are below groundwater. The size and topography, or structures on many sections make a satisfactory disposal field impossible. I personally have seen raw sewage under houses and in long grass where children play. I have seen grey-water discharging directly to the lake margins. I have seen disposal fields so poor that it is not possible for people to have a shower and use the washing machine at the same time. Along one road the water table is so high that only reticulated systems can work. For more than a few properties, the only alternative to a reticulated system is to move out (or use a prohibitively expensive pump out system). 3. What the proposed scheme is The proposed scheme covers the area along SH 30 from Curtis Road to the Rotoma Hills, and including side roads, but not Otautu Bay and Kennedy Bay. There will be an MBR treatment plant and a disposal field on the Haumingi 9B3B block, on a plateau behind Emery’s store and well back from the lake. At Rotoma, it is proposed that houses be connected to the reticulation by the STEP system. This has a pump and filter inside a septic tank. A trial of Biolytix units is being done at Rotoiti, and if it is successful, Biolytix units will be used there. The agreed fallback position is grinder pumps. However, the use of STEP at Rotoma introduces a new element for consideration when a decision is made on Rotoiti next year. The discharge into groundwater will be highly treated and will have very low level of nitrogen and phosphorus. 4. What the proposed scheme will achieve The proposed scheme will effectively eliminate the health risk from sewage in the area. It will safeguard water quality in Lake Rotoma. It will contribute to good water quality in Lake Rotoiti.

215

5. Community support The community has indicated very strong support for the scheme over a period of three years. Most recently, on Easter Monday, about 150 people attended community meetings at Rotoma and Rotoiti. While the major issues of discussion related to the STEP system and the date rating will commence, very few people indicated opposition to the scheme. This is consistent with the extensive consultation carried out over the three years. On the use of STEP rather than grinder pumps at Rotoma, the meetings voted 107 to 5 in favour of STEP. There was no support voiced for starting the rate in the 2017/18. In submissions on the scheme for the Long-Term Plan in 2015, some 97% of submitters affected by the scheme were in favour. Right from the first community workshop held in May 2014, the community has consistently supported a reticulated scheme. 6. Cultural input Respect for cultural values has been most important for the RRSSC. It took into account the proceedings and judgement of the Environment Court in its approach to recognising cultural values. Initially the cultural input was led by kaumatua on the RRSSC. After hui amongst iwi, papers were prepared and considered by the RRSSC. After the scheme was agreed to in the Long Term Plan (LTP), work commenced on cultural impact assessments as required for the resource consent application. These were completed. Significant action has been taken by RLC to provide ongoing cultural input into the design and construction of the scheme. 7. Cost and subsidies This is almost certainly the most heavily subsidised sewerage scheme being considered in New Zealand now. Total external subsidy amounts to over 70% of the cost. The deadline for the Ministry of Health subsidy of $4.46m has been extended several times. The subsidy scheme under which this is provided has now been closed for quite a few years. We have the clear message from Government that if the scheme does not move ahead, they will give the money to someone else who will use it. Cost estimates have changed little since the scheme was first designed. In December 2014, your Council approved a preferred option costing $31.7m. The current estimate, including the cost of STEP at Rotoma, is $35.2m. (All estimates contain a large provision for contingencies.) The rated cost per household (including the cost of STEP at Rotoma) is expected to be about $14,000 if paid as a lump sum. If spread over 25 years the cost would be about $1200 a year. In addition, local people would share in the Sewerage Disposal Charge for all schemes in the District at about $437 year. The costs are substantial, especially for those on lower incomes. But the government Rates Rebate Scheme can provide up to $610 a year for those on incomes at about the level of National Superannuation or below. (Apparently only about 15 ratepayers in the scheme area currently make use of that subsidy.) Application has also been made to the Minister of Maori Affairs to assist elderly people on low incomes.

216

While the costs are substantial, the compulsory alternative of OSET compliant units are no cheaper. What makes that alternative worse is that there is no subsidy for OSET units; the cost needs to be paid up front with no provision for spreading over 25 years be: and all the costs of maintenance fall on the household. They are also less effective in reducing nutrients. 8. Rating Apart from the desirability of keeping the rates for the scheme as low as possible, the only contentious issue regarding rating has been the start date. The reasons for proposing a start date in 2017 2018 are appreciated. Some members of RRSSC advocated an early start date, possibly phasing in the level of rate. As time has gone by it has become quite clear that there is now negligible support for starting rating in the coming financial year. The reasons are threefold: • •

•

Resource consent hearings will not be heard till July, and, and some people will be reluctant to pay rates until this element of uncertainty is eliminated. Later this year when design is complete and tenders are received, the cost of the scheme will be much more certain. This again removes an element of uncertainty in setting the rate. Failure to pay rates before service starts may well be misunderstood by RLC to be opposition to the scheme.

9. Alternatives Over the past four years almost all the systems that one could imagine have been examined – together with a few highly unconventional systems. The system now proposed is based on a compromise reached just over two years ago. The compromise had its roots in the Environment Court case. The use of Biolytix at Rotoiti (subject to a trial), and the use of grinder pumps at Rotoma, were nobody’s first choice. But the this was accepted by the community as a compromise which would achieve a sewerage scheme. Since then the significant objection to the resource consent application has led to the further compromise of the STEP system at Rotoma. While alternatives such as the use of grinder pumps throughout, or the use of Biolytix units throughout, are theoretically feasible, they clearly would not have the widespread community support needed to proceed. Throughout the consultation the phrase “Biolytix or similar” has been used. If as the result of the trial this type of system is confirmed, there will be tendering. Under that tendering alternative systems offering partial on-site treatment will be able to be considered. Preliminary investigation of one such system has already commenced. So, the situation now facing the Council is to approve the proposed scheme with rating for it, or else leave the community and the environment stuck with the much worse option of OSET. 10. Whose job is it A viewpoint has been expressed within RLC that the Regional Council should be the body was which deals with solving the sewage issue in this area. In other words, RLC should leave it to BOPRC to enforce the OSET scheme with or without modifications. This rests on a belief that the only reason for the scheme is to protect lake water quality, and water quality is the responsibility of the Regional Council.

217

This reasoning is flawed on three grounds: • • •

RLC has the responsibility by law and by the Deed with the Crown and Te Arawa to provide such sewerage as is needed; RLC has responsibility to prevent public health hazards arising from sewage; even if BOPRC did have a more significant responsibility, it is far too late in the day to switch horses and seek a different way of dealing with sewage. Some subsidies would certainly be lost and the scheme would collapse.

11. Conclusion Few if any other Council projects have had the degree of community support that this sewerage scheme has. Community engagement has been a partnership between RLC, BOPRC and the community. Councillors and managers from the councils have played an integral part in the design and planning for the scheme. At the same time the work has been led by community representatives. Iwi have played a full role in the work. Perhaps even more important for the long-term, this work has brought together Maori and pakeha in the area in several new ways. The work has proceeded over more than three years with hardly a political ripple to disturb the Council. The scheme is at crunch point. At stake is the health of one of our most beautiful lakes, and the health of high deprivation communities. On behalf of those represented by the RRSSC I urge the Council to proceed with the scheme with expedition. 12. Appreciation The RRSSC appreciates the personal support of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. The Water Solutions managers and team have done a tremendous job to bring the project to this stage. Support staff from RLC have been of great assistance. 13. Recommendations In the light of the response from the community, the RRSSC respectfully recommends: 1) that the East Rotoiti Rotoma Sewerage scheme be implemented, and funded through special rates, as generally set out in the consultation document; 2) that rating for the scheme does not start in the 2017/18 year; 3) that the STEP system be used at Rotoma. I wish to be heard on this submission.

Ian McLean Chair RRSSC

218

Submission on Rotorua Lakes Council Annual Plan 2017/2000 from Ian McLean Summary The consultation documents issued by the Rotorua Lakes Council contain unfortunate errors and omissions which could bias the responses. The submission respectfully requests that the Council take this into account when evaluating responses. Also: • The scheme and the proposal for a special rating area are supported. • Spreading operating costs and depreciation across all sewerage areas, as part of the Sewerage Disposal Charge, is supported. • The commencement of the special rate in the 2017/2019 year is not supported. • The use of the STEP system at Rotoma is supported. Submission This is a personal submission on my own behalf. It relates to the Annual Plan consultation material regarding the East Rotoiti Rotoma Sewerage scheme, and provided by the Council. I draw attention to significant errors and omissions in the consultation material. These errors and omissions could negatively influence the community response to the proposals. My submission respectfully requests that the Council takes the bias in the consultation material into account the evaluation of submissions. The documents referred to are the Annual Plan 2017/2018 Consultation Document, the online response form, and the written response form. The errors and omissions are: 1. The objective of the scheme is described as safeguarding better water supply from the lakes. While the scheme would provide this benefit, it is not one of the prime reasons for undertaking the scheme. The major benefits of better lakewater quality generally (and protecting the mauri of the lakes), and removing the severe risk to health from existing compromised septic tank systems, are not even mentioned (Consultation document p4). 2. The reference to OSET omits to mention that the costs of OSET compliant systems are at least comparable with the indicative cost to households of the scheme. This is a significant factor in favour of the proposed scheme (Consultation document page 4). 3. The extra cost of STEP at Rotoma is quoted as $1.5 million, which is about double the estimated cost (consultation document page 7.)

219

4. The “on going” cost charge is not spread across the whole district as stated in the response forms, but only the sewered area. People in areas without sewerage do not pay the Sewage Disposal Charge (Both response forms). 5. The increase in rate is does not say that it refers to the Sewerage Disposal Charge. Reading response forms quickly, as many ratepayers will do, could give the false impression that it is the general rate that is increased by 8% not this one specific charge (Both response forms.) 6. Neither response form seeks a view on the alternative proposition in the consultation document: which is delaying the introduction of the capital targeted rate. It simply seeks a response to the “Council preferred option”. The question thus merges the issue of the imposition of a rate with the issue of the date at which a rate should start. Respondents may well indicate opposition to the Council preferred option, when it is the date of imposition rather than the special rate itself that they oppose. The Local Government Act (2002) requires in s83AA that .”..the information contained in a proposed statement of proposal must be a fair representation of the major matters in the statement of proposal.” ” I submit that, because of the unfortunate errors and omissions, the submission documents contain a bias, and are thus not a fair representation of the issues. I respectfully suggest that the Council, when deliberating on the submissions it receives, take into account that some submitters may have been misled by aspects of the consultation material. I personally regret that the consultation documents are not more accurate since I spent considerable effort in seeking to assist Council management to produce fair and accurate documents. Also for the record, as a ratepayer outside the scheme area: 1. I support the scheme and the proposal for a special rating area. 2. I support the spreading of operating costs and depreciation across all sewerage areas, as part of the Sewerage Disposal Charge. 3. I do not support the commencement of the special rate in the 2017/2019 year. 4. I support the use of the STEP system at Rotoma.is supported. I do not seek to be heard on this submission.

Ian McLean

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

618

-----Original Message----From: "debbie ireton" Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 10:39 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Fw: Lake Rotoma Sewerage Payment Objection please forward to the correct department. To whom it may concern I have to objections regarding the Lake Rotoma Sewerage Payment pending: Firstly, once again we were not notified of this payment ( due in ?June) of $12500 and about objections being in by today. If it wasn’t for our neighbour informing us that there was a notice on the board of the Rotoma Garage, we wouldn’t have had a clue. We have been ratepayers there since 2013 and very rarely get any notifications at all. Tthis happened was only a couple of months ago, when we were informed by our neighbour about a meeting at the fire station (more sewerage woes). I rang the council to complain and it has made no difference. It is unacceptable. We should either receive emails or notifications via post. If we were overdue on our rates I’m sure you would definitely have no problem with correspondence in that instance. Secondly, you can’t just give people out here 6 weeks to find $12,500…..this isn’t Lake Tarawera with holiday homes for Aucklanders and out-of-town’ers. There are an awful lot of residents here who are lease-holders, and renters, and even for those who actually have jobs to speak of, $12,500 is far too much to just ask with stuff-all notice. You can’t just inform us all of a price hike one month and expect payment the next month. I would like to have someone ring me and let me know what they have done with regards to future correspondence coming straight to our address…we live at 20 Edmund Rd…ROTORUA 3015: You can't guarantee that the process has been done properly if we haven't heard about it....you wouldn't know how many people have missed out on the chance to object. Yours sincerely Debbie Ireton

229

230

231

232

620

Towards Resetting Vision 2030 and the Annual Plan for 2017/18 Submission to the Rotorua District Council by the Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers, 26 March 2017

When shall it be said in any country of the world, my poor are happy, neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes not oppressive; the rational world is my friend because I am friend of its happiness. When these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and government.1

Introduction As part of its review of Vision 2030 and preparation of an Annual Plan 2017/18, the Rotorua District Council (RDC) invited feedback on its perceptions of its own Strengths and Opportunities. The invitation appears to be a PR boondoggle.2 It has been pointed out3 that “the Council’s self-justifying fixation on “positivity” led only to half of SWOT analysis being used. It is more normal for an organization to critically evaluate their internal Strengths and Weaknesses, and their external Opportunities and Threats. Council is apparently blind and deaf to its internal weaknesses and external threats. This ‘quick and dirty’ policy endorsement process is disconnected from the reality of people’s lives and Council’s performance.” To help remedy this situation, this submission to the RDC provides feedback from 35.6 per cent of RDRR’s members and associates, now approaching 500. This is in excess of the 30 per cent normally considered the minimum acceptable sample size in social science research. The feedback was collected, considered and refined via email and discussion at Committee and Members’ meetings held on the 17th and 24th of March. The RDRR are to be considered key stakeholders because their endorsed candidates attracted 41,397 votes on the October 2016 local election and caused 22-30 per cent swings against most incumbents on Council. This submission is in two parts; a full SWOT analysis and then recommendations for the improving Vision 2030 and drafting an Annual Plan 2017/18. The details of the draft Annual Plan 2017/18 and draft Spatial Plan were not available at the time of submission. 1

Paine, Thomas, (2000). Rights of Man. Edition published by Adamant Media Corporation: New York, first published 1791. 2 A boondoggle is an unnecessary, wasteful, or fraudulent project. 3 Macpherson, R. (2017). A New Approach, Letter to the Editor, Rotorua Daily Post, 18 February, p. 9.

1

233

620

SWOT Analysis Council’s Internal Strengths About a quarter of all 163 respondents considered the Council to have no internal strengths, one noting only an “ability to collect and waste money.” Nevertheless, responses by other individuals did recognise that the Council had strengths in its “staffers and office managers”, its database of local knowledge, its experience on local issues and access to technical knowledge, and as the legally legitimate form of government closest to voters. Other respondents noted its ability to enact and enforce bylaws, achieve economies of scale in the provision of core services, and to manage debt and spending. Its assets, such as public amenities, and its systems, such as emergency and other core services, were acknowledged by some individuals as strengths. One respondent noted that Council has “reasonable resources and moderate infrastructure with a large staff pool”. Council’s Internal Weaknesses The quality of governance is widely perceived by respondents to have been weakened by the committee and portfolio structures used, and by the nature of leadership appointments. They are regarded as patronage systems rewarding the Mayor’s cronies. They are not seen as a lean and effective decision system focussed on improving the delivery of core services. They are seen as lacking professional business plans for implementation, with rigorous evaluation of measurable outcomes, essential for enabling and demonstrating economic and social development. Elected representation is seen as partially paralysed by    

meeting management rituals that favour official input and systematically limit debate, the pervasive presence of unelected tribal appointees, bias due to vested interests, risk aversion, protectionism and weak accountabilities, and many elected representatives’ egotistical and self-serving pursuit of power, instead of considering what will maximise the wellbeing of our community at the least cost.

Upper management is regarded as having been degraded by overt politicisation. Close personal alignments with the current power bloc on Council, endorsed by the CEO and the Mayor, have undermined the New Zealand constitutional convention of expert neutrality in the public service, and created a toxic work environment for technically expert and

2

234

620

productive employees. Respondents referred regularly to “bully boy tactics”, “portfolio bias”, “too many spin doctors” and “employment contracts not being advertised”. Council is perceived as having a weak customer focus. Ratepayers’ concerns tend to be treated with regressive and prideful indifference. Token consultations fail to reconcile core service delivery with customer needs. Bloated Public Relations services deliver spin, primarily to persuade residents to accept that change based on overspending and underplanning is the answer to their concerns. Authentic stakeholder consultations that engage elected representatives are urgently needed and critical to gaining understanding, co-operation and support from all legitimate communities of interest in our district. City, village and iwi development plans are needed to help integrate planning with researched economic and demographic realities. Poor debt management is a major risk. The current low interest rates are unlikely to last and will take debt servicing charges to well over $10 million per annum. There is no cost reduction strategy evident in Council operations. The high and unwise debt-to-revenue ratio is planned to rise to over 200 per cent in 2018, which will further intensify intergenerational injustice and potentially become unsustainable. Profligate spending on non-core services and white elephants is widely seen to be reflecting the vanity and legacy priorities of the Mayor’s power bloc, along with the extravagant subsidies going to selected interest groups. The economic-growth-only model of development for Rotorua is simply obsolete given the demographics of an ageing population, a point developed further below. Many respondents are concerned that undemocratic, biased and hidden decision making has become the norm. Decisions are increasingly pre-empted by senior officials, rather than being openly advocated by elected representatives with commensurate public accountability. Te Arawa Board appointees have disproportionate influence. Excessive secrecy, reluctant financial reporting and negligible public accountability hide the detail of income and expenditure and erode public confidence. Evaluation is perceived to be weak in portfolio projects. The “City Revitalisation” project is to be applied district wide without a rigorous review of its effectiveness against indicators, with contrary evidence, like footfalls in the CBD being down by as much as 30 per cent, being dismissed as invalid. The new rubbish collection and recycling scheme recycles fewer types of material and dumps the rest in areas less visible to the local community. Populist councillors rail against fly tipping, without admitting that the charges they approved is a major cause of the problem. Poor contracting is another area of major risk. The $500,000 blow out on the not-yet-sixmonths-old ten-year Refuse Collection contract is an example. The Council will pay for the extra costs by cutting other programmes or by mobilising reserves hidden in the budget 3

235

620

approved. The real problem not addressed here is that the CEO is not being held responsible for failing to understand the full implications of the liabilities of the contract. There could be other unpleasant surprises in the coming years in this and other contracts. In sum, Council management did not do its job properly and the CEO appears to be incompetent. Human Resource Management and Development functions are seen to be in need of substantial reform. The lay-offs, replacements and fresh staff appointments since 2013 appear to have been driven more by ideological and political criteria than efficiency and effectiveness standards that would guarantee systemic functionality. There is structural incoherence between governance, senior management, staff expertize and core service delivery, compounded in places by comparative over staffing. Professional development and unit capacity building is significantly under-funded. The accountability of Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) is seen to be undermined by some politicised appointments in governance and shallow desk-top reporting to Council’s Operations and Monitoring (O&M) Committee. 1. Years after establishment, the Airport CCO has still only promised a “master plan” to commercialize its 102 ha site, and to use a projected surplus of about $450K to start paying down its debt of about $40m. It has just announced a $4m project to redecorate the terminal. 2. The Destination Rotorua CCO has made extensive claims regarding its facilitation of social and economic development but is overly focussed on the tourism sector, which provides over 18 per cent of all employment but creates under 10 per cent of the district’s GDP. 3. Rotorua Contracting, once Castlecorp and just rebranded as Infra Core CCO, has become a paper-based commercial tendering operation reaching outside the district, promising to rebound from a $500K loss last year to a $300K profit this year, with governance led by a close political affiliate of the Mayor. Council’s External Opportunities A key external opportunity available is to learn from other councils. The Mayor’s obsession with creating “New Zealand firsts” is preventing Council from becoming a “learning organisation” that values feedback on its performance, innovative trials in other territorial authorities, and systematic international research. It is developing a closed policy-making culture that under respects external knowledge production and over respects the intuitive, instantaneous and self-interested judgements of members of the current power bloc and their affiliates, especially by highly politicised senior officials. A related external opportunity available is to learn from trustworthy research. Council should normally consult specialist researchers before developing fresh strategies. For example, consulting the leaders of major research programmes prior to developing a serious 4

236

620

debt reduction strategy (before higher interest charges and coming demographic changes seriously impact) would be essential to customising a “selective growth and smart decline” strategy. Another external opportunity is for Council to revitalise its relationships with national government agencies which have joint responsibility to develop effective interventions that could address Rotorua’s more acute challenges as noted below. Effective interventions to mitigate inter-generational poverty and homelessness will require professional and cultural leadership to achieve change in the most adversely affected families, not the bureaucratic elaboration proposed by the Mayor with trivial and undemocratic accountabilities. Updating arterial road infrastructure will require the Council to re-establish an effective collaboration with the NZTA, and negotiate with land owners, if need be with assistance from the Environment Court, to get a strategic solution in the public interest. A fourth external opportunity is for Council to collaborate with the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) to develop a reformed debt management plan consistent with the principles of inter-generational equity and sustainability, and with the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), to help finance strictly necessary capital expenditure on the most favourable terms possible. A fifth external opportunity is for Council to replace its so-called ‘partnership’ relationships with service providers, including those out-sourced through CCOs, with rigorous business contracts and systematic monitoring and auditing procedures, instead of “desk top” reports to the O&M Committee. A sixth external opportunity is to develop a long-term strategic plan to bring full-time and middle class jobs to Rotorua. The current “boosterism” around tourism ignores the relative instability of the industry and its reliance on temporary and lowly paid jobs. RDRR members have suggested five interdependent initiatives: attract government jobs, attract specialist university and polytechnic departments to an Innovation Park for start-ups, insist that the Airport CCO “fast track” its promise to commercialize one third of its 102 hectares, revitalize the CBD with “back office” service centres of government departments, insurance and international corporations, and capitalise on Rotorua’s competitive advantages as an affordable housing and retirement destination. Council’s External Threats One threat identified by some respondents is Rotorua District Council being placed under statutory management by the national government for its poor quality governance and management, for the reasons detailed above, or being merged into a new Bay of Plenty territorial authority.

5

237

620

Independent Massey University4 and Maxim Institute5 research projects have provided economic and demographic projections that show that, like 44 out of 67 territorial authorities in New Zealand, Rotorua will most probably stop growing or start declining over the next 30 years. The principal driver is an ageing population, along with technological innovation, especially information and communication technology, changing international market forces, and other factors. Both projects recommend early acceptance of the trends and adoption of a “selected growth and smart decline” development strategy. Instead, the RDC prefers to extrapolate from current GDP numbers, the housing bubble, record immigration and PR-fuelled boosterism to promise perpetual growth and jobs and deny the demographic facts of a shrinking ratepayer base paying for local services and ageing infrastructure, and a growing affordability crisis in local government. Professor Spoonley recommended “smart specialisation”, understanding and managing population dynamics, human capital development and developing a fresh collective vision in each territorial authority. The Maxim Report recommended rethinking “a sole focus on economic growth to empowering communities to meet both the economic and social needs of their populations in the midst of “no growth or even decline” with customised regional development pathways.” Such subsidiarity is exactly what iwi and villages have been calling for in the Rotorua district. The obsolescence of Rotorua District Council’s planning assumptions were most graphically exposed at the recent Hearings around the Bay of Plenty’s Proposed Planned Change 10. The Commissioners heard a systematic rebuttal by Rebecca Burton of the economic development forecasts advanced by RDC officials.6 She concluded (para 83) that the report recently released by the Maxim Institute aligns with the findings of Stats NZ and NIDEA. I believe that this adds more weight to the conclusions of Stats NZ and NIDEA, and strongly believe that potential future decline should be factored into any infrastructure planning to avoid over investment and capital expenditure. Given this I cannot agree that the economic /population growth data put forward is ‘robust’. Changes in the external political context that are perceived to have favoured tribal interests might also be expected, depending on the outcomes of the September 2017 national election.

4

Spoonley, P. (2016). Rebooting the regions: Why low or zero growth needn’t mean the end of prosperity, Auckland: Massey University Press. 5 Wood J. (2016). Growing beyond growth: Rethinking the goals of regional development in New Zealand, Maxim Institute Discussion Paper, available at http://maxim.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/PaperGrowing-Beyond-Growth.pdf 6 Burton, R. (2017) Rebuttal Evidence on behalf of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Response to Planning Evidence Submitted on Plan Change 10: Lake Rotorua Nutrient Management,

6

238

620

For example, on 10 August 2016 the Auckland Council Governing Body accepted the Independent Hearings Panel advice to remove the Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua overlay and the Cultural Impact Assessments requirement from the Auckland Unitary Plan, despite opposition from council officers and the Independent Māori Statutory Board. An appeal to the High Court was rejected. This could be indicating a wider swing back to democratic and progressive values from tribal and bureaucratic values. It has long been argued that The age of warrior kings and of warrior presidents has passed. The nuclear age calls for a different kind of leadership....a leadership of intellect, judgment, tolerance and rationality, a leadership committed to human values, to world peace, and to the improvement of the human condition. The attributes upon which we must draw are the human attributes of compassion and common sense, of intellect and creative imagination, and of empathy and understanding between cultures.7

RDRR’s Recommendations for Vision 2030 and Annual Plan 2017/18 A Fresh Vision of Sustainable Success Vision 2030 and the Annual Plan 2016/17 are considered by RDRR Members and Associates as overly   

focussed on economic growth, as opposed to community capacity building8 and the need to focus more on the quality of life and less on quantity of acquisitions, city-centric, as opposed to district centric, and committed to serving tribal interests, as opposed to serving the interests of all communities of interest fairly and reasonably in the district.

RDRR recommends that Council recognise the broader economic and demographic context and adopt a long-term vision of Rotorua achieving sustainable success through a “selected growth and smart decline” strategy. By ‘sustainable success’ we mean enduring economic prosperity, and the happiness and well-being of the residents of the district, despite the high likelihood of ‘no growth or decline’ in the population for the next 30 years. By a ‘selected growth and smart decline’ strategy we mean a strategy of integrating the economic and social dimensions of Rotorua’s community development by 7

Fulbright, J. William (1989). The Price of Empire, Pantheon Books: New York, p. 232. Community capacity building focuses on understanding the obstacles that inhibit people, governments and organizations from realizing their development goals while enhancing the abilities that will allow them to achieve measurable and sustainable results. 8

7

239

620

(a) transforming Council’s internal weaknesses into strengths, initially by reforming the productivity of core service delivery, and (b) enabling private enterprises to transform the threats to Rotorua’s prosperity into practical opportunities for innovation and growth in all aspects of our happiness and quality of life. The first phase of Council’s organisational reform would be to scrap the current committee and portfolio structures to end legacy and vanity projects and wasteful spending. The second phase would involve replacing them with four Committees of Council with balanced input from three policy advisory boards (Te Tatau o Te Arawa, the Lakes Community Board, and the Rural Community Board). This restructure would provide legitimate and operational oversight of Council’s principal activities in Finance, Core Services, Infrastructure Works, and Regulations. Preliminary strategies and key priorities in each area are now recommended. Financial Strategy and Priorities A serious debt reduction strategy is urgently required to reduce the principal and annual interest charges to ensure inter-generational justice and sustainability, in close collaboration with the LGNZ and the LGFA. A comprehensive sewage treatment and wastewater strategy is urgently required to project capital expenditure and debt management, in close collaboration with potentially affected landowners, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), and if mediation or arbitration are required, the Environment Court. A comprehensive productivity and affordability review is urgently required, specifically to        

hold rates rises to not more than rises in the cost of living, achieve cost reductions across the board, increase rates on bars and activities to offset high social costs (such the promotion of alcohol or gambling), sell down Council assets in favour of leasing, downscale cost centres to improve productivity, review all CCOs to revise their purposes, governance, management and contributions to revenue, review rates distribution to improve fairness and equity, and promote the introduction of a tourist levy to help meet Council’s infrastructure and insurance costs.

Core Service Strategy and Priorities First, improve the productivity of delivering legislated core services (specifically network infrastructure, public transport, solid waste collection and disposal, the avoidance or

8

240

620

mitigation of natural hazards, libraries, museums, reserves, and other recreational facilities and community amenities).9 Second, downscale expenditure on non-core service delivery, for example, by repatriating the costs of non-core, regional and national government responsibilities (such as lakes water quality, health and homelessness), while reducing subsidies to selected sports and cultural groups, interest groups and economic sectors. Respondents, for example, urged Council to stop spending rates “promoting how affordable Rotorua homes are” to Aucklanders “who then push up house prices” with “the Mayor saying we must help the homeless and the poor”. Third, a Museum recovery strategy is urgently required to project capital expenditure and develop a new business case. Fourth, evaluations are needed in all core-service programmes to refine performance indicators, gather outcomes data and plan improvements, especially to assist with right sizing, professional development and improving the work environment. Works Strategy and Priorities A district-wide infrastructure review is urgently required to develop a new capital works programme and plan capital expenditure, with particular reference to community halls, a long distance bus terminal, events and venues, social housing, rural seal extensions and completion of the urban cycleway. A comprehensive arterial roads strategy is urgently required to project capital expenditure and debt management, in close collaboration with landowners, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), and if mediation or arbitration are needed, the Environment Court. Regulations Strategy and Priorities A comprehensive overhaul of the District Plan is urgently required to better facilitate wealth creation by private enterprise and improved productivity in Council’s delivery of core services. A fresh audit and risk strategy is needed to monitor expenditure, outcomes and objectives of all programmes and to ensure legal compliance. Resource consenting processes need to more actively help reconcile environmental, cultural and capitalist development values, and to encourage rezoning for development projects.

9

Local Government Act (2002). Core services to be considered in performing role, Section 11A, available at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM3412613.html?search=sw_096be8ed815036 48_core+services_25_se&p=1

9

241

620

Every effort should be made to reduce compliance costs to encourage people to convert spaces or to build their own affordable homes. A fresh human resource management and development strategy is needed to offer productivity incentives to all Council staff, limit the use of consultants and right-size expert staff to deliver the organisational reforms indicated above.

Submission To Rob Griffiths, Partnership Advisor, Governance and Partnerships P: 07 351 8186 | M: 027 473 2022 E: [email protected] | W: rotorualakescouncil.nz A: 1061 Haupapa St, Private Bag 3029, Rotorua Mail Centre, Rotorua 3046, New Zealand

10

242

621

From: Colin and Brenda Sent: Saturday, 22 April 2017 2:29 p.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: Annual Plan

To whom it may concern We got your notification of the Annual Plan 2017/18 and there are a few points we would like to make. Firstly you don’t need to spend our money on the leaflet when it is in the newspapers. The airport does not need upgrading as it is only a domestic terminal and perfectly ok at present. You do not need to increase the rates, you need to free up land for ‘affordable’ housing. You also do not need to charge us for the repairs to the Museum when our MP has gone to bat for us with the Government. Wait to see if you need it because you sure won’t give it back if the Government does contribute. Failing that the money that you have designated for the Skateboard Park use that for the museum which generates income and interest in Rotorua. Concentrate more on keeping tourists in the town and district for more than 1 night or two night stays and be grateful to Book a Batch and AIRBNB for supplying additional, different and affordable accommodation next to the hotels and motels. Tourists also pay GST on all they spend in our area, NZ is not a cheap place to visit. Concentrate on making them welcome – not fleeced. Finally let’s hope that this Council learns to Listen. Colin and Brenda Smart Ratepayers

243

622

From: Jean Douglas Sent: Monday, 24 April 2017 10:38 a.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: ANNUAL PLAN

These are my submissions on some of the subjects in the annual plan. I wish these submissions to be read by the Mayor and Councillors but I do not wish to speak at a meeting. CONVERSATION #2 – THREE CHANGES PROPOSED FOR WASTE SERVICES. Option 1 The options being considered (and costs) appear to be not up for discussion. The council’s preferred option says – ‘In some areas the collection options will be designed as appropriate for the local conditions. This would introduce a targeted rate of $187.50 to these properties which they have not previously had. Option 2 – DO NOTHING. Do not extend the service to these properties. This puts the responsibility to manage waste generated in these areas directly onto the property owner. I live in Waikite Valley at ..... Road and have done so for 22 years. My household rubbish is collected from my house by Dial-a-Drum every 3-4 weeks. This costs me $20 for each collection. I am able to put my rubbish into bin liners which are then tied and transferred to the large drum that is supplied. (On average I would replace the household rubbish collected in my home bin liner at least every day.) This ensures that rats, mice and feral cats are not able to get to the rubbish within. We also compost quite a bit of the rubbish as well. Once a week we travel into town and that is when we drop of our recycling at the Land Fill recycling area. A large number of Farm Owners in the area have large skips which take household rubbish and farm rubbish at the same time. The fact that the large Dial-a-Drum truck is able to come to my property and deal with my rubbish is the main attraction for me at this point in time. We feel that it is very difficult to agree to Option 1 when we have no idea where the collection points are going to be. At the meetings that have been held there has been much discussion on WHERE the collection point could/should be but we have been told that only when a decision has been made would the collection points be discussed and then established. This is where things get difficult as far as making a decision is concerned. Does all the rubbish have to be in the red bags? Are the red bags supplied for free? Would the red bags hold one week’s worth of household rubbish? In other words, are they as large as the brown paper bags used to be and are they as strong? How often would the rubbish be removed from each Collection Point? As stated earlier, we travel into town once a week. I have no wish to continuously get my car out of the garage to drive my rubbish to a collection point that may – or may not be – some distance from my house. There has been talk of it being put at the intersection of Tumunui Road with State Highway 5. That would be a drive of about 14 kilometres for me just to have my rubbish collected! It also would not look good for the many tourists that use Tumunui Road to get to the Waikite Hot Pools. This may suit all the people that work in town every day but certainly not those of us that live and work here in the valley. It seems to me that Council has already decided that we are going to have these collection points regardless of what we say and that we will be made to pay the $187.50 whether we use the service or not. The decision has already been made for us!

244

622

CONVERSATION #3 – PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE I have no problem with Council undertaking earthquake strengthening of the Sir Howard Morrison Performing Arts Centre (still referred to as the Civic Theatre on all tickets purchased for any performances – obviously because the new name is too long to fit on the tickets!) However, this building has undergone several refurbishments in the past and has managed to produce national and international performances. The money that you propose to put towards the refurbishment would be better spent at the Aquatic Centre OR used to upgrade the footpaths and roads of the subdivisions in town. I have had several overseas visitors in the past 2 years and we had travelled through the suburbs to visit my sons and grandchildren as well as visited areas that could only be reached by travelling through the suburbs. We have all been astounded by the state of these areas and the run-down look of some of the suburban shopping areas. When places look ‘rough’ those that are living in the area stop taking pride in the area. This then leads to an unkempt look of a whole area. This is where we need to spend ratepayer money – not on feel good projects in the hope of attracting ‘national and international performances.’ CONVERSATION #4 – INTRODUCING A MUSEUM RECOVERY TARFETED RATE I object to paying $14.20 per year towards the recovery of the museum. My reasons are this – it is not that long ago that we had the East and West wings added to the Museum. I fail to understand why a thorough check was not made of the main building to ensure that it was earthquake proof and that it could bear the added weight and stress of the additional wings. Has the Council discussed this matter with the Engineers – Architects – Builders of this project? If a thorough inspection wasn’t made of the main building then those that failed to do a good job should be the ones to cover the shortfall and not the ratepayers of Rotorua.

GENERAL COMMENTS. Something needs to be done about the homeless situation in the city. It isn’t long ago that the Mayor was going all out to attract people from Auckland and investors to come to Rotorua! This is the sort of thing that is causing the huge price rises that are occurring. Instead of saying that this is a wonderful thing for Rotorua it should be seen for what it is! It has driven the price of houses off the market for the average young couple and rents have sky-rocketed due to the investors needing the money to pay for the houses that they have purchased! The losers are those that can’t afford the rent or put down a deposit for house. We have now made the National news regarding the number of homeless people in the city. We also need to stop doing everything for tourists. Tourists may bring money to the town when they visit our ‘tourist spots’ etc – but they are not visiting the everyday shops in town! Those that work in the tourist industry are also among the lowest paid. Hotels and tourist spots may employ a lot of people but they pay very little. That means that a very large part of our population are paid very little. That is why places like the Warehouse and the cheap Asian outlets in town do so well here. The majority of tourists do not visit the CBD so installing fancy sculptures does not attract them at all. The largest amount of ‘tourists’ that DO something for Rotorua are unseen. They are the relatives of residents that have moved to NZ. I have many friends and relatives that have visited me over the years that I have lived in NZ. We take them to the various spots that are around Rotorua – or they make their own way there. However, they also visit the supermarkets with me and invariably pay the shopping bill as a way of thanking us for putting them up. When they leave they often buy something that they feel is useful to us – they spend money on grand-

245

622 children. Nothing is touristy either! They are here long enough to have haircuts. Basically, they come for an average of one to two months and they involve themselves in the normal everyday life of a resident of the town. This would be happening all over NZ and I also should say that they all say how expensive it is in NZ. They can’t believe how much we pay for food and all the basic commodities of life. Anyway, that is hardly a Council problem but I just thought I would mention it! Thank you for taking my submissions into consideration. Regards, Jean Douglas

246

623

From: Conor McEvoy Sent: Monday, 24 April 2017 10:59 a.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: Annual Plan

To whom it may concern, My thoughts 5 cents on Rotorua and the hurdles: I think that AIR BNB and book a batch landlords should have to pay an " advertising contribution levey" perhaps a charge per week that they have their property on these sites etc, these properties are taking periodic tenancies out of the rental pool and increasing residential rental rates, if we want to grow a community and not create a transient society this needs to be looked at. There should be charges to non NZ passport holders to have entry to Government Gardens, also perhaps a toll bridge for entry into the city. We have an abundance of "free" activities that the rate payers are covering, these should be monetized and the money should be spent on activities for lower socio groups ie. community boxing gyms etc. Have a good week,

247

ROTORUA DISTRICT MAORI GOVERNMENT 2030+ PLAN

248

ROTORUA DISTRICT MAORI GOVERNMENT 2030 PLAN & BEYOND TABLE OF CONTENTS: Page 1 Page 2-6

Page 6-41

Front page & Table of Contents and Maori meanings Glossary INTRODUCTION: Understanding History Indigenous Maori Culture - Te Arawa History based upon principals of Te Arawa Whakapapa/Karakia Waiata/Whakatauki: The first Nation People are LANDLORDS here in Rotorua nui o Kahumatamoemoe o Ihenga. BODY: Te Arawa led - Maori Government (Kawanatanga) LORES ROTORUA DISTRICT MAORI GOVERNMENT MILITARY POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS/INDEX: 1. Water Rates Understanding, Who Owns Te Wai (The Water), and Why someone must CLAIM ownership of the Water (Wai) 2. MAORI OWN THE WATER, Maori Own the Rates Charges, a Rotorua Local Maori Council is Inevitable - the Assertion of an Authority FULL RETURN DUTY OF CARE GOVERNANCE 3. Assert Local Governance common sense 'Matters Arising' - Case by Case FULL ADDRESS. 4. Council Staff Replacement overhaul overdue - under new leadership of a THE FIRST MAORI MAYOR - New Mayor. In place of current Mayor Chadwick's and past Mayors Kevin Winters etc HUNCHMEN Supporters 5. None Hungry none Homeless Duty of Care Governing obligation - Compensation Court address 6. Review All Council Past Operations Since its 100+ years inception FROM BOROUGH COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL, ROTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL to ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL 2016 7. Assert a New Justice System using new common sense methods of balance, order, understanding. 8. Media Review - Appoint Our Own Media for Reporting based upon an understanding of facts, using balance, order, understanding between public & council. 9. Address Abuse of Indigenous Maori People in General, Culture, Language Signs, Restore Maori place names 10. Abolish Frances D Fenton Agreement and Clarke's agreement LEGACY Instructing Rotorua as Sanatorium & Tourism City ONLY. 11. Review All Fenton’s Trust boards as founder Father of NZ Courthouses including Local council courts 12. Address Council past Debt - permanently 13. Address the Order of Authority for Rotorua District Council - Pull the Plug on DUNEDIN based NZLG gentlemen co-operate club & global member consultants TAKING OVER ROTORUA COUNCIL Affairs since K Winters and Graeme Hall. 14. YOUTH AFFAIRS ADDRESS: Abolish (MTFJ) Mayor Taskforce for jobs pressure upon Youth National Party Steve Joyce instigated and dictated in 2002. 15. Ban Mass Chemical Use Abused 16. Ban Council 'Property Sales Disposal' to foreign buyers, as excuse to payoff Council debt 17. Council Bylaws interpreted and reviewed for abolishing if un-necessary & impractical. 18. Investment in LOCAL Rotorua - Understanding Disciplines

249

19. Rotorua Sewage Treatment Plant Project Disaster Review for Address 20. Tar Sealed Road Plans, the Outcome and Maintenance - Practical and Safe 21. Sustainability Interpreted for Understanding, and Address 22. Creating our own employment Local Food Productions using surrounding land 23. Creating our own Income to Independence: 24. LAKE Rotorua Restoration Project, local Swamps Restoration Projects, Restore Water 25. Partnerships for LOCAL Community Development - Local based understanding 26. End Mayoral Citizenship Ceremonies for 3 years 27. All Immigrants to be educated on NZ History facts 28. Three Generational Voting System Possible or End Voting altogether 29. Local Food Service Provider Health & Safety Inspections, Food Taste Testing’s Inspection 6months to once per year. 30. Inspection of all Real Estate Property Manager properties neglected to be prosecuted/ fined 31. Cleanup Dirty Business, Dirty Politics with Dirty Media operations in Rotorua District using understanding matters, finding our balance, and order. 32. 1st Maori Queen for New Zealand Independence inevitable 33. Review of Queen elizabeths crown coat of arms symbol, for removal with her acts, legislation, policies dictating Local Council Authority Affairs – the Disempowerment & dismantling of affairs of queens WHO NEVER RESIDED in New Zealand.

Page 40-41

34: NEW JUSTICE OF THE PEACE Positions/Maori Wardens/Security Guards/Street Ambassadors. CONCLUSION: A CHEMICAL & MINING CULTURE BRITISH-INGARANGI Vs AN INDIGENOUS MAORI CULTURE – WE CANNOT TATAU TATAU (we together). FULL RETURNS TO MAORI WHAKAHEKEHEKE(cloak of authority) KAWANTANGA is inevitable, with support from surrounding tribes in an alignment & international support from non-English speaking countries. Te Tohunga korowai o RangiMarie – a sign & Symbol of the END of Colonizing the Maori people.

250

INTRODUCTION: STATE OF ROTORUA DISTRICT REPORT 2017: Our Communities are NOT hospitals for mass medicating the Pensioners, the aged persons until they die! Our communities are not hospitals for medicating babies, infants, children-tamariki, youth-rangatahi on behalf of Kingi George>Victoria legacies passed to queen elizabeth who owns Pharmac! But when our Communities become overdosed by Intellectual/Academic trained dictators health experts - doctors, nurses, for a Fenton sanatorium legacy & these so called royal british monarchs who NEVER RESIDED here….its TIME TO CHANGE LOCAL COUNCIL AUTHORITY! Our Communities are NOT a Chemistry Lab for mass chemicals roundup sprays, 1080 pellets, roundup gel, chemical medications, poisoning the environment, poisoning humans, and poisoning Birdlife, and Aquatice life etc! But when our Communities become overdosed by Intellectual/Academic trained dictators Chemists, SCION, Universities, Regional Council, DOC, NZLG, for a Fenton sanatorium legacy & these so called royal british monarchs….its TIME TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT LOCAL COUNCIL AUTHORITY! Our Communities are NOT a Police station for following and stalking Locals including and rangatahi! However, when the idle Adult behavior stalks and follows people around, to drive them out of the city labelling them as Rebels for confiscation history repeating….its TIME TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT LOCAL AUTHORITY! Our Communities should never become a Dirty Business Gambling dens, where locals are shut out of opportunity housing because the Banks and the Courts, & their lawyers own the Real Estate Industry! For sales to the HIGHEST BIDDER! Favouring to house foreigner instead of Local people. But when our Communities become hijacked by Intellectual/Academic trained dictators involved in money laundering schemes of mass dollars changing hands in transactions LORELESSLY without accountability….its TIME TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT LOCAL COUNCIL AUTHORITY! Our Communities should never become trapped under a homosexual lawmaker such as Fenton’s Agreement from England that was historically founded by 1st NZ Census population, to DEPOPULATE THE INDIGNEOUS culture through generational holocaust schemes of Health & Education submission – and this Legacy remains in 2017! A Legacy which Founded NZ Courts system including the Maori Trust boards crown owned using plastic Tiki Maori families as its faceplate. But when our Communities become like this, hijacked by Intellectual/Academic trained dictators involved in money laundering schemes of mass dollars changing hands in transactions LORELESSLY without accountability….its TIME TO CHANGE THE DISTRICT LOCAL COUNCIL AUTHORITY! When Our New Zealand communities are a reflection of Britains history where the people were made to drink their own sewage circulated through articulation processes and under city sewage pipes. Through the cities slum toxic business filth collecting and storing human and chemical waste mixed, recycled as drinking water treated from the colonial era, war era of poverty - without a conscience. When our cities have become so decayed and declined in this type of misleading management. Its time for a Maori Government to investigate our future water sources & provisions, for use and protection.

TE ARAWA LED – ROTORUA DISTRICT INDIGENOUS MAORI LOCAL GOVERNMENT ITS OUR FUTURE - 2030 PLAN This presentation Report is about explaining the principals of the foundations of a Te Arawa led, Maori OPERATED Government Authority. This Local District Authority of Leadership must include A NEW JUSTICE SYSTEM, A NEW LOCAL LORE SYSTEM, NEW MEDIA REPORTINGS, NEW ACCOUNTING BANKING SYSTEMS for it to be highly successful even a role model for other nationwide areas In New Zealand. This assertion of Authority change includes, THE TRANSITIONAL CHANGE OUT FROM the existing British colonial systems outdated in this millennium era. Te Arawa Whakapapa (genealogy family trees) te Totara o Te Arawa, Karakia (prayers) Waiata (songs), Whakatauki (Maori proverbs) all led by the Tohunga Legacies of Nehera – ancient times for re-establishment in this Waiariki

251

district o Te Arawa Rotorua and this Rotorua Lakes Council 2030 planning to be included. The following Whakapapa/Waiata/Karakia/Whakatauki of information explains a PLAN uncovered for the future of this area.

‘UIA MAI’ TE ARAWA WAIATA & WHAKATAUKI/KARAKIA:

‘UIA MAI’ English Translation Interpreted for this Song, Prayer, Maori proverb of speech Uia: to ask or enquire – in this case with a journey to Hawaiiki o Nehera – a place the Spirit world & Physical world meet. And ONLY certain rare Indigenous Races are granted entry & return. Mai: to indicate a direction or motion forwards

252

Aha hei runga hei raro hi ha hi ha! Uia Mai, koia whakahua tiake Ko ‘wai’ te waka nei e (Aha Te Arawa!), Ko ‘wai’ te Tohunga, Tohunga, Ko Ngatoroirangi, Ko Ngatoroirangi, Whaka kau Tainui, Whaka tau Mataatua, Whaka tautoko marie, Tiaru tiara! WAI E MAKETU Aue Pakeha! Pou Tamatekapua, TE TANGATA ROTORUA! Me awhi o ringa kite rua a Hine, ana o Rotorua Na ana e noho te kei o Te Waka aue aue ka raru koe, Koro e Katahi karua katoru he ha he ha Repeat

Aha Hei Runga hei raro – Aha (Of what sort?) As in the action of paddling a canoe runga(up) raro(down), strokes up & down. They were on a journey to enquire. To enquire about an awangawanga foreseeing a people they would encounter in the future, a Pakeha! The reply was to bring the Tohunga (judge & priest combined) Ngatoroirangi & his wife Kearoa(Kaingaroa). Ko wait e Tohunga, Tohunga, Ko Ngatoroirangi Ko Ngatoroirangi! They returned to arrive at Maketu. Wai I Maketu! Wia speaks of Water. The land place of the Arawa waka at Maketu beach. Bringing a Plan for the Water/Land/Airways resource ownership, management, guardianship for future generations. Whaka kau Tainui, Whakatau Maatua, Whakaatautoko marie speaks of a Kotahitanga of alliance together to assert the authority Maori kawanatanga 2017 – with Te Arawa. THIS SPEAKS OF A MAORI GOVERNMENT TO REPLACE THIS COUNCIL O PAKEHA! Me wahi oringa kite rua a hine. Speaks of the hands that work, also weave to make the Korowai, being a hine as in woman, even the lines of Hinemoa. Ana o Rotorua – being here in Rotorua the Korowai makers Na ana e noho te kei o Te Waka – drag the canoe inland and sit here in Rotorua to address the raru koe o our Ancestors by defeating Pakeha colonization government.

INTERPRETATION OF UIA MAI: TE ARAWA WAKA WHAKAPAPA & WAIATA & WHAKATAUKI/KARAKIA: With opening of a Military Chant, Command instruction of ‘Ki Raro’ Hands down! ‘Kia Mau’ Hands on Hips! The song (waiata) is completed as a combination ACTION song, singing and demonstrating/expressing its meaning for display learning about a nehera (Ancient) authority government established here of guardianship. Each word text, sentence contains a message of information, and military instruction, military commands even military chants. Each sentence sang passes on this coded information for 800 years to read now – in a CLAIM FOR TE WAI ( The Water) 2017. And further Claims of Lands and all forms of resources FOR FULL RETURNS to Maori. The song is read from the beginning to end, and the end to the beginning to interpret the messages coded within. It speaks of Bringing the male Tohunga (Judge & priest combined) Ngatoroirangi & his wife Kearoa (Kaingaroa) the female Tohunga (Judge & Priest combined), a Husband & wife ARIKI GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. Tamatekapua the Captain was to lead the waka in paddling, however the Navigator to a safe desired destiny was Ngatoroirangi & Kearoa/Kaingaroa. The map holders, pattern readers, cloak makers. Whakatauki relates to injustice mamae that is happening amongst the Tribe eg POVERTY 2017 Whakatauki by RangiMarie: When the people starve the true Chiefs starve with them, while false chiefs are fattened. Regarding a decayed Declined Nation in disrepair NZ status 2017: You cannot suppress Maori Kuini – They just happen! Kaore te hei raro nguengue Maori Kuinitanga Whakahekeheke kawanatanga o Aotearoa, Kaore! Kaore! Kaore!, Whakarongo o Nehera karanga I te Korowai o Hawaiiki etu etu etu.

FIRST ORDER OWNERSHIP CLAIM: TE IKA A MAUI TIKI TIKI A TARANGA CLAIM As the true story of Maori evolution has been long preserved and told as part of Ancestral strategy claims the inheritance of New Zealand Te Ika A Maui. Refer to the TRUE STORY of Maori existence evolution – we evolved from birds not monkeys! Our first Human form ancestor Maui Tiki Tiki a Taranga not only a legend but FACT BASED evidence in the forms of lands of the Indigenous Maori people in preparation for the Te Arawa waka journey from Hawaiiki to the landing at Maketu! Ko Maketu te moana ko Tongariro te maunga! He prepared the way for the next strategy claim his off spring. Creating the North Island as he stood upon the South Island as a form of Waka -canoe. The fish hook is Gisbourne, the head of the fish is Wellington, the tail is Northland!

SECOND ORDER OWNERSHIP CLAIM: NGATOROIRANGI KI KEAROA/KAINGAROA KI TAMATEKAPUA 800 YEAR OLD AUTHORITY-WHAKAHEKEHEKE Ko Ngatoroiangi the Judge and Priest combined who came on Te Arawa waka, with the surrounding waka o Tainui,

253

Mataatua, fleets in a claim, a PROMISE for Provisions of food supply, housing from Kaingaroa forest logs, Prosperity – that our Indigenous people will prosper be wealthy in governing their lands, and Protection – that the people be protected from threats by foreign cultures, but live freely and peacefully as the 1st nation people Tangata whenua people of the land 1. Provisions 2. Prosperity 3. Protection. I interpret the pou of Tamatekapua was brought in land here to Rotorua in a claim for the te Wai the water now in 2017! Tamatekapua paramount Chiefs Wharenui Meeting house standing at Ohinemutu signifies Kawanatanga Ownership, Guardianship, Maramatanga is the PRIMARY location on the edge o Lake Rotorua Kahumatamoemoe, from that generation legacy. Not only the claim of Houmaitawhiti and Tamatekapua but also explorer and young Chief - Ihenga in the 3 generational claim.

THIRD ORDER OWNERSHIP CLAIM: a) HINEMOA & TUTANEKAI PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT ROTORUA NUI O KAHUMATAMAOEMAOE O IHENGA: Me awhi o ringa kite rua a Hine – Speaks of Hinemoa and Tutanekai and their LOVE Legacy CONTINUED to protect this Waiariki District area Whenua-Land, Wai-Water Lakes and water springs water tables, and Ika Whenua, Airways protected from toxic sprays in al chemical forms, under an authority mantle of Leadership of Hinemoa descendants as Kaitiaki guardians o te Wai and the Water tables given. And ALL BIRDLIFE, INSECT, AQUATIC, MAORI and Immigrant settlers. Te au o te moana; Open sea - Aumoana o Rotorua. Whakatauki: Ka Manu ia I te au o te moana. The Claim of our Native Manu in BIRD SANTUARY – BREEDING AREAS. Rotorua and the Lakes are Indigenous breeding grounds and waterways for BIRD POPUPLATIONS that must be guarded and protected by Maori Guardianship! Not taha pakeha!

HINEMOA & TUTANEKAI ‘CITY FOCUS’ DEVELOPS THE MAORI JUSTICE SYSTEM See photo attached the location of photo was the City Focus under the Sails, Here is RangiMarie displaying her ‘Full length /Full Mana’ Korowai Kakahu Korukoru – a sign & symbol of the end of colonizing the Maori people. She decided to start displaying her work and settled to display it where Hinemoa & Tuanekai streets meet in the City Focus, in the central city of Rotorua. From humble beginnings and cloak making practices of RangiMarie, the Taiaha representing SPEAKING RIGHTS equal rights to speak, and a set of scales of Justice with the ALL SEEING Eye – which is a BIRDS EYE, interpreted as Courtcases heard using Understanding, Order & Balance as the Methods of practice in MAORI LORE. And finally after hearings case information gathered, decisions made – A PEACE Agreement is reached between parties. RangiMarie developed this mahi as she is related to both Hinemoa & Tutanekai whakapapa lineages of Te Arawa waka ancestry. The Location City Focus, with a perfect BACKDROP ARCHWAY in the background, and situated UNDER THE SAILS like that of a Waka canoe! This was a competed art form, for PUBLIC Display.

TE ARAWA, ROTORUA - This is the BIRTH PLACE OF THE MAORI JUSTICE SYSTEM, A NEW COURT SYSTEM SYMBOL. A New Authority is born. Through humble mahi of the Korowai o RangiMarie.

Photo taken at CBD City Focus of Full Length Kahu Korukoru Maori Cloak that developed Maori Justice System

254

Its this presentation plan, that whaea Maureen Kingi, and matua Mauriora Kingi employees for the Rotorua Council are acknowledged, including all their hardwork of many tireless hours given to their Whenua, city. To prepare for us a plan left behind, an acknowledge memorial for both should be recognised.

THIRD ORDER OWNERSHIP CLAIM: b) WAIARIKI TE ARAWA TRIBE – ‘LAND CONFISCATED SURVIVORS’ WHAKAHEKHEKE-CLOAK OF AUTHORITY CLAIM: The final part of the pattern of history LEGACY is the survival of the Land Confiscations attacks by British military troops in 1850s. Claiming all past legacy claims for hundreds of years until now, we have also survived the land Confiscations of the 1850s British Military forces. WE ARE THE LAND CONFISCATION SURVIVORS! Based upon the facts of history the Past, the Present, and the Future WAIARIKI Authority For without foresight or Vision – the People perish. With the support of surrounding Tribes in a partnership a Maori Government of Ownership is inevitable to replace this current crown pakeha council dictatorship. This will result in the dis-empowering of the current British immigrant colonization history by their crown OFFICE Administrations setup to employ themselves to land squat on Maori territory here in Waiariki, Central north island, Rotorua. Using the false symbol and claims of british monarch so called royal lines – WHO NEVER RESIDED IN NEW ZEALAND. Therefore, a disempowerment of the Courts, the Banks and their Media business relations is also on the table. In a partnership to abolish/terminate the Fenton’s agreement depopulation plan for Maori & NZ Citizens, and current Council office which was an Old Boys club membership originally. This includes a FULL RETURN of all Social Well-being ‘Duty of Care’ governing of Taha Maori Tangata whenua. Looking after the Locals is a friendlier welcome for Tourists!

1880s FENTON AGREEMENT PARTNERED WITH HIS FENTON TOURISM MAORI, LATER LAND COURT OF FALSE ALTERED RECORDS IS NOT TRUE & CORRECT – AS IT EXCLUDED & DELETED THE LAND CONFISCATED SOLE MAORI LANDOWNERS HERE IN ROTORUA DISTRICT 1835 1840 1850s

1870s

!880s

New Zealand Declaration of Independence understanding was discussed, navigated, and signed in Te Arawa Territories through to Waikato Tainui ranks of the Kingitanga Arikinui. Te TiRiti o Waitangi signed by a few Chiefs in Northland, the Treaty was scribed by Frances D Fenton as legal hand after he compiled the 1st NZ Census. Lands Confiscated Act – Central North island Maori settlement raids by British Military forces for the riches resources of Kaingaroa forest and her daughter Te Puia (The Spring) Geothermal guardianship. Both were labelled as rebels for non-compliance and murdered. To be replaced by crown claimed ownership, with Maori trust board frauds supporting the crown murders. The First New Zealand Census compiled by Frances D Fenton while he resided at the Auckland Government House, He sent his scouts religious and non-religious to Maori Settlements in the North Island to Head count the people populations – see library 1st NZ Census. Fenton was the most important Colonisation representative for England monarch & Aust kkk families of Slavery rule. His Role was multi-task as Census Compiler b)Treaty Scriber c)Instructed Land Confiscations act – the FIRST LEGISLATION. He was the Father of the NZ Courts & Maori land court. He also was the First Governor General why he resided in the historical Government house! And Fenton’s Agreement dictator, He was also a homosexual lawmaker – why women had NO SPEAKING RIGHTS.. Fenton’s Agreement Rotorua Township a Tourism Sanatorium town – appointing the Maori supporters to sign and agree with Frances D Fenton for the future control of Rotorua. After they confiscated the Sole Ownership o Waiariki.

This dirty business history of this British/Australian crown representative Frances d Fenton the homosexual lawmaker as per investigated, recorded & reported in this document. His work of fruitless racial prejudice including his frauded, altered Maori land court dictatorship – will extinguished for termination. Understanding he LEAD IN LAND CONFISCATIONS SLAUGHTERING ROTORUA WAIARIKI DISTRICT MAORI SOLE OWNERS OF ARIKI & RANGATIRA STATUS CHIEFS in the 1850s after his census & treaty records were completed. Today, as a result the modern Maori

255

Trust boards co-operates such as Ngati Whakaue & Tuhourangi Wahiao are in question, as are the clicky group family owners brought by the crown to hide behind, While its academic lawyers & accountants CONTROL TRUSTS, board members, and all its affairs financial and now OPERATING MAORI PUBLIC TRUSTS ON MASS DEFICIT is a disaster, while they welcome & appoint foreign predators such as Deloitte to further drive Whenua into a decline of ownership FOR BANKERS and outside ownership. THIS IS SERIOUS INJUSTICE of corruption and misconduct by Intellectual Criminals – overdue for removal!

LAND CONFICATED MAORI SURVIVORS vs FENTON TOURISM MAORI LANDCOURT LEGACY TRUST 1900s APPOINTMENTS The Fenton agreement 1880s included a photo shoot recorded hui at Tamatekapua with Fenton, some Maori he chose to place as the owners speakers for his township plans Tourism and Sanatorium. He had to USE some Maori to support himself! This arrogance hasn’t changed using Maori for pakeha greed! This led to ancestor original Tuhourangi - the man, being hijacked later by intellectual/academic Maori trustboards instructed by lawyers and accountants policing. Tuhourangi & NgatiWhakaue dominated and dictated the lands affairs – replacing Sole Ariki family Owners guardians of the Geothermal waters eg Te Puia – Te Paea Puia Kingi! With regards, to a 2030 plan, the original leadership and ownership from history are the LAND CONFISCATED SURVIVORS remaining here in Rotorua district. THEY WILL replace the Maori trust board show casers of crown Tourism & Farming & Agriculture & local Council authority claims. These Maori families who are Fentons legacy English crown decoy positions, on local council to get paid to be quiet - for crown use. Then the crown immigrants claim they are including Maori. This denial of deceit is uncovered through this report plan.

CROWN BEEHIVE POLTICAL PARTY INFLUENCES HIJACKING THE COUNCIL IS UNWELCOMED The 2016 TPP TPPA FinlaysonFlavell Te Ture Whenua Partnership deal to welcome a foreign Co-operate takeover of New Zealand by USA AustAsian UK Co-operate dirty businesses established here to DRAIN New Zealand of profits and to further drives us into further depression, and as we learn British history that DEPRESSIONS lead into WARS! This is NOT our future! TERMINATE AND ABOLISH THE TPP/TPPA etc is our future for 2017 and beyond! As we come to the end of British rule under symbolism coat of arms claimed by queens WHO NEVER RESIDED IN NEW ZEALAND. We will disempower & dismantle their entire empire of Office Administrations of courts, banks and their Media families. With the previous local Council election 2016 proving Labour party dictators are moving out their political party status to hijack the Council local government. This again is an interference distraction strategy, attracting Transexual, Lesbian, and Mayors to the table, this is a concern also. With its consequence upon Role modelling leadership types for new generations to follow. We should be promoting husbands & wives & families – not same sex couples as leadership. Society has lowered its standards of common sense balanced morality, to be extinct in 2030.

MAORI PLACE NAMES ARE A MAORI PLACE CLAIM 2017 for example: TE NGAE – THE SWAMP LANDS O TE ARAWA Te Ngae Rd – Te = The, Ngae = Swamp. THE SWAMP ROAD also named Te Ngae road this describes a history of Landmass area of Maori WATER amassed in a swamp. Te Ngae the SWAMP fed and nurtured and protected a once pristine Lake Rotorua – nui o Kahumatamoemoe o Ihenga. A swamp of Maori Food Supplies including Aquatic Life(whitebait,koura,shrimps,shellfish,ika in all its variety of a ‘FOOD BANK’), Plant & Birdlife & Insect life, The area all way along Te Ngae road was originally a swamp that fed and nurtured Lake Rotorua! Prior to colonization immigrant land squatting settlers. The question for the future is to restore the Lake Rotorua means to restore TENGAE to a form of its original location and original swampland of natural resources of WATER & FOOD SUPPLIES. This as I have foreseen before may see a shift in the City of Rotorua including the Airport for removal to another location. As MAORI NAMES PROTECTED THE ENVIRONMENT FOR FUTURE CLAIMS. Note: You see, our BANKS were in FOOD SUPPLIES – not in mining for gold, silver, copper coins in an Intellectual bank volted of greed for gains!

256

FULL AUTHORITY RETURN CLAIMS - HOW ITS ALL POSSIBLE, FUTHER EXPLAINED: 1) TREATY SETTLEMENTS – HONOURING HISTORY OF TE ARAWA WHO NEVER SIGNED TE TI RITI O WAITANGI - This is the season of the Treaty of Waitangi settlements – when Te Arawa NEVER signed the crown ingarangi and Australian agreement. WE MUST HONOUR THEIR DECISION NOT TO SIGN. By taking a Stand! The current process of submissions is proving in time to be corrupted, because of the false appointments as the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal and the submissions being made under the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi act legislation, instead of the 1840 Te Ti Riti o Waitangi document, originally signed by the Chiefs at its located are in Nga Puhi, Paihia, Waitangi treaty grounds. The Te Arawa chiefs signed Te Wakaputenga – proclaiming their Independence in 1835, by signing a declaration of Independence 5 years before the Treaty of Waitangi in the order of history importance. Therefore, we can choose our Independence to RULE TRIBALLY here as the 1st Authority TE ARAWA ROTORUA DISTRICT & LAKES COUNCIL defines us! 2) FRANCES D FENTON AGREEMENT TO BE TERMINATED HERE IN ROTORUA – This agreement is holding back the true development plan for Rotorua. A plan of Healing, of Restoration, and of Peace-RangiMarie. It is now investigated and understood the France D Fenton Agreement was a legislated DEPOPULATION Plan for the Maori people. That it was Fenton who compiled the data for the First New Zealand Census population head count. Then Fenton, scribed the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 while he resided in the Government House in Auckland – now an historical building(also where the TPPA was signed 2016). Once the Treaty was signed in Northland - Fenton then ordered the CENTRAL NORTH ISLAND LAND CONFISCATION ACTS 1845s onwards – because the Central north Island held the richest resources including TE ARAWA WAIARIKI – ROTORUA DISTRICT. TAINUI, TAURANGA MOANA, MATAAUA. For example the Kaingaroa forest stolen to be crowned owned. Therefore to undo what has been done we WILL TERMINATE AND ABOLISH FENTONS ENTIRE WORK completed for dis-empowerment and dismantling of his administration offices which this CUREENT COUNCIL remains.

3) THE END OF QUEEN ELIZABETH RULE & FALSE SYMBOLISM NZ OFFICE ADMINISTRATIONS - We are at the END of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, this is the END of an era. New Zealand administration office acting as authorities over the Indigenous Maori people by using a false COAT OF ARMS symbol (1953-present). A coat of arms that claims JUSTICE, yet instructs theft, greed, and stolen Maori speaking rights! This symbol will be disempowered and replaced. And this will disempower the entire British land squatting self-rule, and call for the arrests of Administration offices of Courts, Banks, and Media empires for dismantling and removal. In a FULL RETURN TO THE INDIGNEOUS MAORI PEOPLE. This information made public will be also INTERNATIONALLY shared for a call of support in addressing the history for a COMPLETE CLOSURE OF AN ERA!

Three STRIKES AND YOUR OUT WHAKAHEKEKE KAWANATANGA(GOVERNMENT) JUDGEMENT 1st Whakatauki Maori: He aha te mea nui o te Ao? He Tangata Maori, he Tangata Whenua, he Tangata Kawanatanga Maori Whakahekeheke-authority. Maori Proverb: What is the most important thing? Tis Maori People, tis People of the Land, tis People of Local Government. This identifies a culture of people, they are the Land, they are the authority government here - present tense. 2nd Whakatauki Maori: He aha te mea nui o te Ao? He Tangata Wairua, He Tangata, Hinengaro Tinana, he Tangata Whanau Hapu Marae. What is the most important thing? Health & Wellbeing Tis People Wairua, Tia people TinanaHinengaro, Tis peoples Families, Pregnant extended families, Wharenui - Meeting houses

257

3rnd Whakatauki Maori: He aha te mea nui o te Ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata. What is the most important thing? Tis people, tis people, tis people. To welcome Manuhiri – Visitors coming from Outside. ‘TU TIRO MAI NGA IWI’ TE ARAWA WAKA WAIATA & WHAKATAUKI/KARAKIA:

Tutiro mai nga iwi tatau tatau e! Whaia te maramatanga Me te Aroha I nga iwi Ko atu tahi tahi, ko atu tahi ra Tatau tatau e, Tatau tatau e! Kiss I aue hi! (Ano ano)

STAND UP COME HERE IN A DIRECTION, PEOPLE This song can also be read forwards & backwards. People come here in this direction - stand up! Note: One Maori word does not match one English word, but an English sentence can describe one Maori word in interpretation explanations. Stand up and Look here People! If Aunty(Whaia/Whaea) brings the Understanding WE Together! Come together! In a direction move forward in LOVE all People Dig and plant until the sun goes down We together We together! (repeat song relaying the information to mind for recall. Sing again to plant it in our memory for future purposed plan) It contains information we will need to recall for now! Kiss he aue hi! – these are Military Chants of a command instruction agreed upon

BODY OF 2030 PLAN: Understanding the Introduction we can now move into the next stage of the 2030 and onwards plans for Rotorua Lakes Council and Waiariki District Claims for Te Arawa Maori Government Authority. This is interpreted by a direct mokopuna of Kaingaroa and her daughter Te Puia(Te Paea Puia Kingi) RangiMarie Kingi - Tohunga (Judge & Priest combined) Korowai Maker (Cloak maker) into Researcher of Investigative Studies/Singer/MaoriCloakMaker/Healer. As previously relayed through waiata– “Whaea te maramatanga me te aroha”. The Aunties(Whaia/Whaea) – brings the understanding of these matters to the Table for thought, digestion, and implementation in a strategy already pre-arranged. With Whakatauki to direct us to move forward the following old military guidelines of ordered address must be completed.

IMPLEMENTING KAWANATANGA MILITARY POLICIES RETRIEVED BY THE ABOVE MAHI O TE ARAWA NGATOROIRANGI KI KEAROA/KAINGAROA, TAMATEKAPUA: Whaea te maramatanga me te aroha – RangiMarie Kingi - Duty of Care Governor Mokopuna o Te Puia (Te Paea Puia Kingi o Pakira marae), Korowai Maker into Pattern Reader, Te Arawa Navigational Researcher of Investigative Studies, Youngest Maori Mayor for Rotorua 2016. Her work is about being a vessel to interpret old history for inclusion now, to lead this district into a NEW ERA OF CHANGE. As an arahi – to guide and to lead, this needs the support of all those mentioned in the introduction. These government are based upon serving JUSTICE to correct the society community council affairs currently lost in mass debt. These military policies can be subjected to change by RangiMarie and support groups, with additions made as this is an AREA DISTRICT GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Updated: Monday, May 1, 2017. ROTORUA NEEDS A STARTING POINT FOR CHANGE. Part of Mayor Candidacy to assert an Authority over this Te Arawa Whenua Rotorua District, now name changed to Rotorua Lakes Council. The following has developed itself in Military Policy policing by RangiMarie Kingi aka Judge Lady Justice, using 1. Balance, 2. Order, 3. Understanding - as follows:

258

2016 AND BEYOND MAORI GOVERNEMENT FOR ROTORUA FUTURE: Military Policy 1: MAORI OWN THE WATER! Water Rates Understanding, Who Owns The Water? Who Owns (Te Wai)? Understanding History of Waiariki o Te Arawa: Someone must claim the ownership of the local water! This is more important than ever to sustain us now, and for future generations to enjoy clean fresh drinking water supplied. MAORI ARE THE FIRST OWNERS the water in this district Waiariki. Under the 1st authority, I personally Claim Ownership of Rotorua Lake Kahumatamoemoe o Ihenga, and Natural Springs of old and new springs opening themselves up as Papatuanuku is ALL expressive: These claims of Tohunga Ariki - Ngatoroirangi and rangatira Tamatekapua remain more important in 2016 than ever. Acknowledging Maori Whakapapa(genealogy) of RanginuiSky Father ki Papatuanuku-Mother Earth, alongside Ancestral place names, identifies and confirms Maori Indigenous Ownership of Water in its original provisioned natural Order. As the Kaitiaki by the Order of nature. Just as land needs fierce guarding, so does our water! To conclude we have A) the Whakapapa Ariki claim of the Water for Rotorua. B) And we have the Rangatira Claim for the water here in Rotorua. Indigenous MAORI OWN the WATER! This confirms also why a 'MAORI LED COUNCIL' IS A RESPECTED RIGHT because Maori own the Water (te wai). We ARE THE WATER because we come from papatuanuku & we return to papatuanuku.

Common Sense Facts: MAORI OWN THE WATER > MAORI OWN RATES CHARGES > THEREFORE A LOCAL TRIBAL MAORI COUNCIL IS INEVITABLE! Whakapapa navigates leadership direction. Ranginui>Papatuanuku>Tangaroa >Tawhirimatea>Tane Mahuta>Te Arawa waka>TePuia>Te Wai>Whanau>Hapu Council Rights to Te Arawa Marae, Hapu, Whanau areas - where ground water tables are located and open spaced waterways are seen. Council Rights to Extract Water Sources from Tribe Hapu lands, waterways. This racial discrimination by the current council to pass RMA consents for mining of the water by these Foreign predators mass extracting Water for selloff profits whether bottled or not. This will be justified in a CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. Stolen water by british immigrants squatting claiming to be an authority is over! An updated report is that USA Coca Cola has stolen Indians farmers groundwater, now they are here stealing our Water! Through the national party Todd MacClay deception of signing TPP>TPPA>FinlaysonFlavellTeTureWhenua partnership to welcome these Global USAUKAustAsian Co-operate predators here to hijack the Courts, Banks, Media of New Zealand to

A MINING & CHEMICAL CULTURE vs AN INDIEGNOUS MAORI CULTURE – CANNOT TATAU TATAU! I report and confirm for your information - There is no we together it’s a lie by a mayor wanting a partnership breached by the crown, Maori must CLAIM FULL RETURNS OF OWNERSHIP of their water stolen by these Terrorist council members clubs of kkk free mason male dominated dictators, along with the Elizabeth hospital (Ministry of Health) partner of the Fenton agreement Sanatorium depopulation plans by generational holocaust schemes of chemical medicating health & education subjection submission, of courts, banks, media societal scam businesses dealings established here.

EXPLANATIONS WHY AN INDIGENOUS MAORI CULTURE FROM NEW ZEALAND vs a CHEMICAL & MINING CULTURE FROM ENGLAND – cannot move into the future together….

259

INDIEGNOUS MAORI CULTURE O AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND

MINING & CHEMICAL CULTURE FROM ENGLAND

MAORI UPSIDE DOWN PYAMID SOCIETY MODEL: The cultural foundations of Maori society are an ‘upside down pyramid’ model society - according to Tribes & Chiefly ranks leadership as Governors. Wealth was weighed according to gifting’s from Papatuanuku(mother earth ) ki Ranginui(sky father), ki Atua Wairua o Hawaiki – spirit world realm given to mankind. Wealth such as Chiefly ranks, lands owned, natural resources on that land and natural taongatreasures of that land or given as gifts by other Tribes to acknowledge Chiefly status.

ENGLISH PYRAMID SOCIETY MODEL: The cultural foundations of the british are a ‘pyramid society’ model of rich, middle and poor classes of division, where the rich & middle class oppress the poor & depopulate them for selfish gains. First contact with Indigenous is to setup pyramid society through land squatting, deforestation, swamps lands landfilled, for setup of religious & intellectual office administrations of Church buildings, Court buildings & Bank buildings and Media buildings offices – forming their empire foundations to empower themselves as an established authority. A WHITE PRIVELEGE Society kkk rule is the CONSEQUENCE remaining in New Zealand.

MAORI RANKED ACCORDING TO GENEOLOGY & TOHUNGA KOROWAI/WHAKAIRO/RARANGA: Tangata Whenua = people of the land are the true Land Lords for this district this nation. The future developments are decided, governed and guarded managed wisely. By Chiefly Tribally ranked Individuals & a Collective group, according to Whakapapa – genealogy birth right DIRECTION BY WAIRUA Where the Mantle of Leadership falls upon the shoulders of the Chiefs-male & Chieftain - female. Non Intellectual Protectors of its NATURAL ORIGINAL UNIQUE forms of natural landscapes left untouched, natural Native Forests left untouched, Natural Mountain ranges, Natural water springs, Natural Nature given gifts left in their natural state to enjoy. For we are born, we live, and we die! (whakatauki – maori proverb). 1. Preserve Traditional 2. Authority Maori Retain their Lands 3. Maori Preserve Customary Lore.

PAKEHA-ENGLISH RANKED ACCORDING TO INTELLECTUAL DEGREE, RELIGIOUS STATUS, & GOLD OWNED: The Role model adults of this pakeha-english society to oversee its affairs continue are ranked: 1. Religious 2. Intellectual 3. Military – who follow instructions from the first 2 ranks. This role modelling uses ‘surveyance strategy’ eg data collection gathering with their racial arrogance to land squat on Indigenous territory for claim of ownership – because they arrived landless & homeless of no fixed abode. Uses Religion, Intellectualism discrimination to claim to be more superior racially, & when this strategy fails they use racist Military force to make false claims to remove Indigenous.

LANDUSE FOR FOOD SUPPLIES HORTICULTURE & PRACTICAL HOUSING: As a non mining Indigenous Maori culture the land was surveyed for a common sense duty of care focus for survival by food productions turnover and seasonal provisions, practical warm housing, practical garment clothing according to winter, summer seasons. This is where Tribal settlements in areas were established, even villages for village life communities. Maori are a simple people of common sense Lores.

LANDUSE FOR MINING EXPLORATIONS – ESTABLISHING TOWNS BASED UPON A GOLD RUSHES: Pakeha culture and purpose is all about Mining the land for gold, silver, copper they claim are their precious metals – taonga –treasures. Mining in all forms including mass destruction deforestation of the Indigenous Native natural forests full of unique birds, insects, and plant life. All destroyed for farming And Chemical application poisoning to

260

Today, 2017 this is being destroyed and ruined by university schooled - Intellectual invaders, and their religious excuses to steal all Maori land – WE CANNOT TATAU. Training our Maori people in their hinengaro whakaaro! Using our men Kaumatua to advance crown endeavours, using our people trained in their schools, courts, banks, media businesses to assert an authority over the COMMON SENSE CULTURE for suppression. This is the millennium enemy! Maori Indigenous taonga treasures come from unique native woods in all their richness, greenstone – pounamu, bone of the moana – Whale bone, once the Moa bone, Korowai cloaks from the swamps plant life and birds given for such. MAORI CUSTMARY LORE TO GOVERN THE LAND & AFFAIRS o TE ARAWA WAIARIKI ROTORUA: A Duty of Care Government for common sense Land use for LOCAL BASED production and provisions of food supplies, Housing Village, today City management. Using Traditional Authority status, Customary Lore, and thus retaining Lands. The instruction o Ariki Kingi Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero was that: 1. Maori Retain their Lands* 2. Maori Preserve Customary Lore 3. Preserve Traditional Authority Note: This is read from top to bottom(1-3) and from bottom to top (3-1) in an Order of importance. Maori Preserve their Traditional Authority of Ranks of the Chiefs according to Whakapapa. This Mana Authority will lead to establishing Maori Lore Tikanga and Kawa for their Territorial area for understanding, keeping, guarding. This Authority and Lore will lead to MAORI RETAINING THEIR LANDS. It is paramount that Maori retain and protect this unique Indigenous certain diet – for their Health & wellbeing, and their Whanau survival. *Now in modern millennium times this understanding is changed according to what pakeha have stolen. This instruction is extended and includes all forms of te Wai, Moana, lands and rivers, lakes, seas, etc.

support and maintain their farming & agriculture industries 2016 Hobson’s kkk Pledge followers alliance all office administrations supporters including MEDIA, Courts –beehive, local/regional councils, Banks, all ACADEMIC/ INTELLECTUAL RULERS, ALL Christianity religious church groups, their other businesses self-absorbed to rob & strip Maori eg Health & Education of queen Elizabeth. It is becoming more understood that this culture now uses immigrants & immigration to hide its devious persona & motives behind in attacking & oppressing the Maori people. The parties over people! Kamutu Pakeha! PAKEHA –BRITISH CULTURE LAW ORDERED BY DICATATORS OF NON SENSE COURTS This is where the line of the balance of power is shifted again as this mining & chemical culture only interested is this, and looking after a few while they depopulate and write-off their aged persons, those with disabilities who cannot participate in a Slavery work forced pyramid society rule. Today, kkk white collared Laws of non-sense – no common sense prevail, layered by Courts as a legislation, policy disguise with amendments altered to favour greed, Banks, Religion, Military influence, business status, shifted and hijacked by political ego parties, and local government individuals, groups in nothing other then chaos and divide and conquer rule for destruction decline, decay and destruction demolition deterioration into wars with other cultures as they fight for more gold, silver, oil & gas mining endeavors to their extinction! Hence a MINING & CHEMICAL Culture & an Indigenous People cannot tatau tatau (we together). A society remaining according to QUEEN monarch who NEVER RESIDED IN NEWZEALAND. Instead they’re use a coat of symbol for their entire empire to hide their dirty business under has been noted. All we have to do is disempower their office administrations of Courts, Banks, Media and force close their affairs to return to the Endeavour of Cook around go back to England 2017!! Kamutu Pakeha! A possible LAND CONFISCATION Act may be used upon this british empire mining & chemical culture rule for end of era closure! Now investigated by facts of history!

261

This calls for Understanding Order, and Balance, to 'accept or decline extractions' in Tatau Tatau - We Together Peace agreements for now, and future generations. As we see now MASS WATER THEFT for business profits is on the rise. RATES CHARGES REVIEW BASED UPON COMMON SENSE Council Control of Water Quality, Chemical Dosing or radiating local Drinking water Understanding History: Under the 1880s Frances D Fenton Agreement and 1st NZ Census based upon Depopulating Maori and the poor through Generational holocaust schemes. Rotorua was instructed by Fenton, to be a Sanatorium, this interpreted as an area for medical chemical use and abuse without limits upon people, land water, nature by a mining culture. As to why we must Abolish Fenton/Clarke agreements. This serious history has been a consequence upon Maori and poor european families ever since. The water supply itself and the medicating even poisoning of water supplied for drinking should not be controlled by Queen Elizabeths Ministry of Health at any time. Nor should water be left solely to crown scientists, chemists or crown universities to manage without investigative policing. This is why local Tangata whenua Maori must guard the Water! Other poisons toxic substance affecting our drinking water are Cow manure runoff, Human sewage, Women’s menstrual cycle wastes, aborted babies and human tissue of blood & fluids, Chemical waste dumped by some business, SCION chemical additives to fix problems making it worse! All forms of 1080 - leftover agent orange. WE MUST OPPOSE AND TERMINATE ALL FORMS OF CHEMICAL BASED POISONS. The swamps must be re-established to Filter the Human waste. We MUST NOT HAVE A SEWAGE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT on the edge of lake Rotorua. This is a disaster management of waste! Council Responsibility Maintenance of Water Pipes based upon a 'project completion' basis Its common sense duty of care practices, a hands on project by project completion based the council maintains and upgrades pipes. However in these changing times, the Tangata whenua used different methods for dealing with sewage. Such as NATIVE SWAMPLANDS THEMSELVES were naturally water purification, water filteration methods as PART OF THE LANDSCAPE, not separated into Asbestos Cement mixed Farming water trough idea. Council Water Rates Charges Right Injustice Does a current slavery driven most euro pakeha council have a right to charge water rates when they don't own the water? No they don't. Who is living off the benefit of who, here culturally? For too long now this Self Rule Selfsatisfied British English UK - White Rule Slavery Council has been left to do as they pleased in Rotorua. It’s time to correct and discipline this selfish arrogant inconsiderate behaviour to evolve into a true shared spirit under Maori leadership old governing lineages. Maori own the Water culturally as first owners, everyone has an individual right to fresh clean drinking water. We must tatau tatau (we together), to reach RangiMarie(Peace) agreements. However a history record of racial arrogance by a mining culture who can never sustain any natural resources, as they history is about EXTRACTION FOR PROFIT! Medicating and Radiating the water is a poison practice for banning! Calculation Of Rates Charges by - Practical Policing Reporting Understanding History: Council charges made according to individual property 'meter readings' measured Further investigation. Common sense household water use of Tap drinking water controlled by Councils is concerning they love chemical use, this is not trustworthy now days because the old metal taps erosion concludes, too much Metal in the Drinking water along with metal based chemicals used to dose drinking water. I believe 'DRINKING WATER' SHOULD BE Independent kept separate from all else for the Best Health wise of locals men, women, children, babies.

262

And nature’s rainwater, spring water, etc is the best drinking water for humans. This is free if rainwater is collected! WE WANT THE BEST QUALITY DRINKING WATER! Locals need to do their own personal homework in a community effort to resolve this, it is not just up to individuals. Its common sense, Home property owners should take full responsibility to oversee their own property has safe taps and water pipes, because its their property responsibility of ownership. The 'maintenance' can be shared between Property owners and Council maintenance of Old toxic metal based Taps to supply inside house use water/drinking water/outside use, and pipes affect the water supplied to Residential area properties, theres definite Council neglect to maintain and update pipes. The primary concern is Safe fresh drinking water supplies to locals as the order of importance. Note: All these water policies are open to change according to understanding for further developments.

Military Policy 2: ASSERTION OF AN AUTHORITY UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT MAORI OWN THE WATER, Maori Own the Rates Charges, a Rotorua Local Maori Council is Inevitable - FULL RETURN TO DUTY OF CARE GOVERNANCE Declaration The Council is under a New Authority yet a FULL RETURN OF OLD GOVERNING LEADERSHIP FOR ROTORUA DISTRUCT. Address matters arising according to ordered importance of fact based Research Investigated, now policies developed below listed. To address our District Area Affairs, we must address its history of dirty Council business, with dirty Politics and Policies, hand in hand with dirty Court Judges and Lawyers dirty Legislation. Ending a corrupted broken Chain of Command Orders.

Military Policy 3: ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS ARISING' ADDRESS ON, A CASE BY CASE PROJECT BY PROJECT completion for 'FULL address' - According to the Order of Importance Understanding History: Under queen elizabeths slavery white rule society reflected from England, under their british crown land squatter - judge France d Fenton agreement we have been dictated to and remain oppressed. This 150 year agreement must be ABOLISHED COMPLETELY in 2016 in order for Rotorua to truly Evolve. We must close off a 150 year old British colonial era of dictatorship oppressing us in 2016.

Military Policy 4: COUNCIL STAFF OVERHAUL OF current Mayor Chadwick and past mayors HUNCHMEN Supporters This is opportunity to acknowledge those passed away, such whaea Maureen Kingi, and matua Mauriora Kingi employees for the Rotorua Council are acknowledged, including all their hard work of many tireless hours given to their Whenua, city. To prepare for us a plan left behind, an acknowledge memorial for both should be recognized. There is no doubt the Chain of Command order of Authority has been broken, after reading CEO Geoff Williams bloated boasting report of nonsense. He confirms adults in paid employed positions - are like sitting Office Decoys not doing any true Groundwork to Understand the Te Arawa land space they claim to have Authority over. This team of Chadwick employee supporters who desperately protect her position, is due for a review overhaul of NO LONGER REQUIRED PERSONNEL. In the next takeover of this Council as part of OUTGOING TRANSITIONAL Change into new Leadership and to End the Americanization of local Council. Remove CEO, Office staff no longer required, Policy Strategy makers, Legal advisors, Financial reporting accountants analysis's, review Bank used also. End the Credit Rating and its USA Global endorsers. END DUNEDIN LGNZ organization entity with its 10 company partnerships controlling Rotorua council. This overhaul will include past mayor employee supporters since its inception. COUNCIL STAFF ELAVING A LEGACY OF DEBT for new generations is unacceptable.

263

This has developed after attending Meetings of complaints DEBATING HAS DEMINISHED AT COUNCIL controlled by current Mayor. Diminishing important balanced opinions to debates is paramount for finding NAVIGATIONAL LEADERSHIP for this district. This must be corrected as poor teamwork brings poor results, in this Chain of Command Leadership role. MANIPULATION OF MINUTES OF MEETINGS, to falsely alter the minutes as not true recordings reported. Fire the minute taker! Many complaints about the CEO attitude and dealings. REMOVE POLITCIANS AND THEIR MEDIA friends. CURRENT ROTORUA COUNCIL SENIOR POSITIONS HELD BY AUCKLANDERS! We wants local resident’s leaders at our local council! STAFF BULLYING WORKPLACE BULYING APPARENT! Human Resources neglect vs PR focus. Senior staff bullying administration staff.

DEBT RESPONSIBILTY COMES BACK TO EMPLOYED STAFF - WHO CREATED IT. THEY SHOULD PAY OFF THE DEBT they created to JUSTIFY the Loss! Therefore the Rotorua District Council past employees, with the current Rotorua Lake Council employees in finance management positions, working with Councilor’s, Mayors, Policy Strategists at the Helm. With these past mayors, should be stripped PUBLICLY of their PERSONAL WEALTH BUILT UP of properties, bank hoardings and assets to pay off the money they have spent during their time – to JUSTIFYING the current debt for FULL address. This is possible under a NEW MAORI Government. This debt also proves again that British book keeping accounting is the biggest scam along with its BANKS that support it and their Courts of policy non sense!

Military Policy 5: NONE HUNGRY - NONE HOMELESS DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Duty of Care Governing Obligation in Te Arawa territory also Rotorua District Council, now confined to Rotorua Lakes Council Looking after our Locals is a Friendlier welcome for Tourists. Understanding history & present: Under the Military order of Pukaki ki RangiMarie aka Judge Lady Justice, As a Government obligation of Duty of Care, this must be upheld as part of taking responsibility for its Communities to prosper in good health and wellbeing by Housing, Food Productions & Clothing for survival. It is unacceptable that any system any business of any strategy sort of Adult behaviour of Self Rule - interfere with Common Sense Human Rights to locals Housing suited to the weather conditions. And Food Supplies which were bountiful in this Te Arawa district, prior to the farming of british land squatters stealing CONFISCATED Maori lands. No one is to be sleeping outdoors, All must be housed, and local food supplies for local residents will be fully investigated to address this damage done by national party, its msd, winz, alongside lawyers turned Real estate agent transaction agents. With the Real Estate Industry while council past mayors and staff look on as well as all other authorities including political parties, Charity trustboards religious & non-religious groups. THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY WILL BE ENFORCED FOR THIS AREA under New yet Old Governing mantle of Leadership. In a karanga(call) for Justice, to address mass Homelessness and Local starvation here in Rotorua o Waiariki district.

A NEW MILLENNIUM AGE DECLARATION - NONE HUNGRY NONE HOMELESS, as we evolve to declare our sovereignty right as uniquely Independent and we take action upon enforcing this upon a society of adults who don't care. Whakatauki RangiMarie: When the people starve...the true Chiefs starve with them, while false Chiefs are fattened. This is not England, this is Aotearoa Land of the long white cloud. We have an obligation to uplift the poor as result of colonial rule slavery rich, middle, poor classes.

264

ROTORUA USED AS A LOCAL SOCIAL WELFARE GUINEA PIG EXPERIMENT – MAN MADE HUMAN WRITEOFF DISASTER 2015 BY POLITCIANS - NATIONAL PARTY LED: Last year in 2015, an overnight disaster occurred in Rotorua when national party government, aligned with MSD ministry of social development & WINZ work & income & MOH ministry of Health Tumu Whakarae & Real Estate Industry, court Lawyers turned Real estate transaction agents, all got together in a strategy plan of CROWN GOVT BUSINESS SYSTEMATIC BULLYING TO MASS CUT Winz benefits overnight! Cutting off locals only source of income at that time. Beneficiaries of Pensioners & Disabled to do courses and get jobs or else, Solo parents caring for young children to get work or else, job seekers, previous work injured persons. This arrogance of racial discrimination, also described as a modern day act of local crown Terrorism, caused mass homelessness and mass starvation of people. Men, women, children, even now Aug 2016...still sleeping outside in winter! THIS CHILD POVERTY IS AN INJUSTICE OF THE RIGHTS INNOCENCE! Address Child poverty urgently, now! Corrupt Governments cause Child Poverty when adults don't care! Then national party Ann Tolley, Paula Bennett, Bill English then, boasted on their websites about mass amounts of money they saved in balancing crown Treasury books! This induced human disaster - manmade, should see these people and John Key fired in a new chain of command order! We are still recovering from this serious Human Rights Equal rights devastation in 2016. A Compensation Court needs opening to compensate all those Targeted, as part of a Recovery Plan to Uplift the down trodden as Human Write-offs for queen elizabeth crown depopulation plans. We must hold those to account involved, to take full responsibility for using Rotorua area - as an experiment of this type, causing another layer of Poverty we don't need! And this has caused violent escalations, mass thefts, suicides, violence towards children. JOHN KEY MUST BE REMOVED FOR THIS CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. To address this Dirty Politics Dirty Business dealing of corruption. And then we wonder why begging has become rampant here in our home Rotorua. ACCOUNTABILTY FOR FAILURE OF DUTY OF CARE GOVERNING: NATIONAL PARTY, TREASURY MSD&MOH CUT BENEFIT ENTITLEMENTS CAUSING OVERNIGHT POVERTY & HOMELESSNES IN NEW ZEALAND REPORT 2017: We want to take National party MPs Paula Bennett, Ann Tolley, & Bill English, Crown Treasury, MSD Ceo, WINZ Management staff to the International Court of Justice for PROSECUTION - OVERNIGHT MASS CUTTING of Pensions, Disability allowances, Solo Benes, JobSeekers etc. INDUCING MASS HOMELESSNESS, & POVERTY our NZ Citizens have suffered having to sleep outside! We also demand a COMPENSATION COURT BE OPENED TO COMPENSATE ALL THOSE Individual cases by the thousands involved. The cuts being made to pour funds into new immigrant’s entry, settlement Study & Housing here in Aotearoa New Zealand. EXPECT TO SEE THE FIRST POLITICIANS & Treasury IMPRISONED!

UNOCCUPIED HOMES & PROPERTIES ON COUNCIL RECORDS - WHERE DOES THE COUNCIL AUTHORITY STAND WHEN IT COMES TO EMPTY HOUSE PROPERTIES? The mass number of daily post media driven house sales in Rotorua has become out of control, now that the Real Estate industry has hijacked the Media & Housing industry. This arrogant adult behavior inducing homelessness must be outlawed! Where does Council authority exist? They only hold the property blocks and information, their authority is null and void when it comes to ownership control, and local’s rights to home ownership. This is how useless they truly are – it’s a lawless society causing Homeless persons to be neglected.

Whakatauki (Maori proverb) RangiMarie: Looking after Locals is a Friendlier welcome for Tourist Manuhiri(visitors). RESOLUTION: A CALL FOR THE SEIZURE OF EMPTY HOUSE PROPERTIES - FOR HOUSING NZ CITIZENS MADE HOMELESS

265

THERE ARE HOUSES AVAILABLE ALRIGHT WE JUST NEED TO LOOK ON TRADEME & REAL ESTATE AGENT LISTS. Its become so lawless now that lawyers have shifted over to become Property Transaction agents for PROFIT & these Foreign Co-operate REA predators have hijacked NZ housing industry for foreign sales ONLY to the HIGHEST Bidder - WE NEED A NEW AUTHORITY TO SEIZE PROPERTIES for NZ citizen Ownership. DEMAND NZ First etc to PUBLIC challenge a SEIZURE OF EMPTY HOUSES TO HOUSE THE HOMELESS....OR WE TAKE THE Crown courts of elizabeth to INTERNATIONAL COURTS for prosecution charges FAILURE OF DUTY OF CARE GOVERNING! Stand up fight back!

Military Policy 6: Review All Council Past Operations Since its 100+ year’s inception as Borough, City, Rotorua District to now Lakes Council 2016 Understanding History: From the history facts of this Rotorua district under a past of council name business changes a Full Review of Council History under those names must be completed. BOROUGH COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL, ROTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL to ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL 2016. It is now come to be known Dunedin based NZLG (New Zealand Local Government) gentlemen club of global co-operate partnerships has taken over our local Council affairs since past Mayors appointed. And these mayors, ceos, councillors and staff are paid decoys - sitting ducks. WE NEVER HAD A TRUE LOCALS LED COUNCIL! This review will include, the British colonial thinkers dumping toxic chemical waste where some houses have now been built in people populated areas. MASS DUMPING OF COUNCIL TOXIC CHEMICALS Where people are now Living on those past dumping sites. This is a Crime against Humanity

ADDRESS THE ORDER OF AUTHORITY TO ROTORUA DISTRICT: Understanding History: once the Fenton’s & Clarke's Agreements are both officially abolished in a process order to close colonial legislation dictated rule here. Next we Assert a new Authority to this area. Frances D Fenton is the Father of the crown court systems and the crown government. What is current is Maori trust boards founded by the Fentons Native Maori land court family name favourites, then crown Courthouses Criminal, Tenancy, Family, with their Uniformed Police Slaves, then Regional Council Supercity egos. LDHB, Retail Businesses foreign and local, Local Council, Rate payers, Farmers, Tourism, Waiariki, Church Leaders, Real Estate Surveyors, SCION. Its concluded as all Businesses competing for their Authority roles of importance. DISMANTLE THE REGIONAL COUNCIL CHEMICAL COMPANY GENTLEMENS CLUB! My concern raised about Dunedin based Gentlemen's club dictators - LGNZ (Local Government New Zealand) with its global partners disguised as liaison advocacy group for 72 Councils nationwide. WE NEED AN ORDER OF AUTHORITY MORE THAN EVER! WE NEED AREA GOVERNING, WE NEED A NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST LOCAL BODIES Leadership. To have a balance of Governing Home property areas, then coming to Council to Meet for Matters Arising for address. More Investigations to understand this will resolve this. ROTORUA AIRPORT TO SELL OR NOT TO SELL review monies spent losses vs gains. CYCLE PATH to take a different root its interfering with foot traffic, businesses, vehicle traffic etc, a rise in head injuries from mountain biking. Council should own our local Buses, Bus Shelters and Maintenance care, Bus Routines Review with Bus Users help. Human Resources neglect vs PR focus. REGIONAL COUNCIL GENTLEMENS CLUB MUST BE dismantled and all Transport affairs return to the Main Authority of Local Council Governing. Since1989 Regional council has dictated to our local district council just compare current building offices - we do not want them we do not need them! 10 Year plan revisted which covers a 10 Year budget - is it practical or is a 3 Year plan better more realistic? Revisit Central City CBD plan of $10 million for a change relook.

266

Military Policy 7: Assert a New Justice System using new common sense methods of balance, order, understanding. See Hinemoa and Tutanekai claim prior. Now that we understanding the mass decay, decline and corruption of the Westminster Courts operating in New Zealand, and their Banks and Media of self-rule arrogance. Claiming whole Cities are fine operating under MULTI MILLION debt of 190 million dollars. OPERATING BUSINESS SOLEY UPON DEBT FOR RECOVERY IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS AT ALL! A council with over 180 million dollar debt and Climbing is NOT GOOD BUSINESS and is NOT leaving a good Healthy LEGACY behind. But is leaving a LEGACY of debt passed on to the Next generation in reliance to pay it off. This is pathetic! And their form of justice system and symbolism does NOTHING to address this fact. It is all opportunity to assert a NEW MAORI Government Authority and a NEW JUSTICE SYSTEM – Court system proclaimed by the 1835 Declaration of Independence. Under this NEW JUSTICE SYSTEM we can opened and claimed a COMPENSATION COURT for hearing mass cases of injustice where environmental, social, educate & health, business. This will address the CONSEQUENCES the local people remain oppressed under by the current outdated regime. ALL LEGISLATION IN NEW ZEALAND FOUNDED UPON THE FIRST LEGISLATION – LAND CONFISCATION ACT All New Zealand crown act legislation has come from the first act in NZ History inception by Fenton colonizers was THE LAND CONFISCATIONS ACT 1850s – All acts thereafter follow on from this. In addressing any MAORI CHALLENGES against the crown administrations of govt Courts, banks, media THE OFFICE ADMINISTRATIONS used the Land Confiscation acts – to deter Maori at all times. ALL we need to do today is TERMINATE CROWN LEGISLATIONS ACTS right by to the first command of 1850s. ABOLISH/ TERMINATE this act and removed white privilege here permanently DISEMPOWERING THEIR Acts, dismantling their administration authority of fraud & nonsense symbolism.

Military Policy 8: Media Overhaul for Rotorua Overdue - Appoint Our OWN Media for Reporting based upon an understanding of facts, using balance, order, understanding between public & council. Investigations are now proving because the British Courts, Banks & media is an empire unto itself for self-rule. WE MUST Disempower this arrogance of racial biased we daily face in communities. We need to REMOVE MEDIA daily post, Fairfax, mediaworks NZ herald & POLITCIANS who work the crowd. The MEDIA driving whole communities into unacceptable Debt, misleading the public into believing constant lies daily and weekly. It’s a MEDIA DRIVEN DISASTER when communities NEGLECT their adult responsibilities to prosper communities - not lead Debt! They are driving whole communities into the ground - with false reports, misleading the public time and time again to the point its Intellectual Criminal act behavior. Politicians of National and Labour parties - are purposely running whole communities into the ground and need forced removal along with the media who promotes them.

Military Policy 9: ADDRESS ABUSE OF MAORI PEOPLE IN GENERAL, MIS-USE OF MAORI LANGUAGE of SIGNS, MAORI CARVINGS ETC - BY CROWN ROTORUA COUNCIL & LOCAL BUSINESS All Maori symbols of logos, signs, carved art works, and Maori language being used by this Council and all business of non-Maori endeavours. This injustice of stealing Maori work for a funding boast is unacceptable. When Maori need these funds for their advancement. It’s not become CLEAR this desperate behavior of gains is another form of theft by crown settlers. WE MUST DISEMPOWER PAKEHA KAWANTANGA in order to restore and claim Maori Government to replace them. Te Arawa never signed Queen Victoria's Treaty of Waitangi, which led to Queen Elizabeth slavery rule and systems for crown profits. Including these local courts and this council. Its has long been unacceptable that the crown of Elizabeth and her land squatting relatives have been given far too much freedom here in Rotorua locally, nationally and internationally with regards the Maoritanga. We are not a Mining Culture, we are not a Chemical dosing culture. We are Indigenous Caretakers Kaitiaki of the Surrounding lands. Under british Slavery authority presence and systems Maori Culture has been used and abused for example by the local Media negatively

267

driving reports. This needs correction and discipline. Another injustice is using our Kaumatua & Kuia elderly, to using our Pakeha university trained Maori, for crown purposes to Rob our own culture. Even more examples, of using Maori Language to suit crown endeavours of Self Rule Slavery Self Service. Using Maori language signs, to suit the crown to Self Rule enforce its Authority. Using and abusing our Tohunga Whakairo(Carvers), Tohunga Raranga(Weavers), Tohunga Korowai(Cloak makers). for crown use of Selfish gains has been noticed by our Ancestors of Te Arawa under the 'all seeing eye of Pukaki our Military Ancestor returned. If a local business in Society is seen abusing these precious Taonga given by Maori, a law enforced may occur if there be enough complaints. A NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING MATTERS OF CONCERN, THEN A NOTICE OF NO CONFIDENCE WARNING, NOTICE OF REMOVAL after the Understanding is acknowledged in reply response - To have Maori language signage removed, Maori Carvings removed to be returned to its owners. As matters of concern arise in communities. A closure of matters and a Peace agreement is reached. Rotorua needs a Starting Point for Change, looking after Locals is a Friendlier welcome for Tourist Manuhiri. Rename old original Maori place names removed also.

Military Policy 10: ABOLISH FRANCES D FENTONS AGREEMENT & CLARKES AGREEMENTS Understanding the history as per policy explains. Crown of Victoria representative, Frances D Fenton compiler of 1st NZ Census, Maori population data collection for depopulation planning by Generational Holocaust schemes still in place in 2016! Fenton arrived from Australia from judicial Self Rule court families. While he resided in Auckland, he instructed Rotorua township as a Spa city for tourism to welcome wealthy English Gentlemen here, and Rotorua also as a Sanatorium area - a hospital for the treatment of chronic diseases, as tuberculosis or various nervous or mental disorders. How those schemes, are practized is through ministry of health QE hospital, mass chemical poisoning use and abuse by regional & local council. WHILE THEY PROTECT and maintain Fentons parks and personal affairs. These affairs must be brought to an end of era close. And Full Return to Tribal governing under Military Maori Women Governors - who originally guarded this district, not men. But balance is better. This depopulation Human Write off applies now days to all settlers - immigrants except particular direct UK/AUSSIE/USA families cared for. This pattern of history must be addressed. Rotorua is a Starting Point for Change. OPPOSE COUNCIL BEING INVADED BY MINISTRY OF HEALTH CHEMICAL COMPANY - QE HOSPITAL, OPPOSE THE CURRENT DECOY COUNCILLORS, CEO: The Ceos report hiding council spending under manipulated names altered to dress up the finance report. Its a joke not the true sound reports. I want to stop the Local Council now being taken over by Ministry of Health Queen elizabeth Horse piddle(hospital) strategically under a Nurse for mayor. Fulfilling the Fenton Agreement as a Sanatorium city for medicating locals for pharmac profits of chemical companies like TPP Monsanto. Crown Hospitals and Administrators originated from CHEMICAL COMPANIES. This needs to be fully abolished for replacement. We must protect the children and their families from being chemically poisoned by medications of all forms, poisoned water, chemical food chains, chemical exposures. Under a NEW JUSTICE SYSTEM proclaimed by our 1835 Declaration of Independence, to assert a NEW COURT here in Rotorua. To will address out Internal Intellectual Criminals behaviours for prosecution charges even imprisonment for murder.

FENTONS AGREEMENT SANATORIUM CHEMICAL OVERDOSE – A NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS & DISEASES INCREASE CONSEQUENCE REPORT 2017: As the Legacy of dictator Fenton remains controlling Rotorua district, so does the consequence of this instruction remain as a council endeavor by british colonial influence. The mass increase and mass use of toxic Chemicals used in spraying land soils, water ways, airways, chemical pesticides affecting food chain for poisoning, chemical hair products, chemical medications must be exposed for understanding history remaining in 2017. 150 years of Chemical

268

poisons use in Rotorua – THERE IS NO RETURN if we do not address this Chemical Culture now! THIS MASS CHEMICAL OVERDOSE of People Populated areas and the ENVIRONMENT is now compiling NEW evidence against this Rotorua district council partnered with queen Elizabeth hospitals, Ministry of health, Regional Council, Department of Conservation, Environment Protection Agency – ALL CHAMEICAL & MINING COMPANY entities of frau from UKUSAAust influenced court, bank, media families. This EMPIRE of chemical poisoning adult behavior is resulting in a MASS COMPLAINTS Increase of Neurological Disorders, and Diseases. These are as follows: Blood clots in the Brain – Brain bleeds(Aneurysms) increased SUDDENLY attacking humans, Parkinson’s Diseases, Sudden Breathing problems in Children & youth. Also in older person - into strokes/Heart attacks, Sudden Paralysis – becoming paralyzed without knowing why, sudden induced seizures – with NO FAMILY HISTORY of such, Sudden Disabilities in children, youth & adults. Sudden dismember of human parts by the hospital – and the increase numbers of surgeries needs investigating, sudden unknown deaths left by coroners with the system chemical related, mass medication poisonings neglected, vaccinations causing autism & disabilities in children, youth & adults, increased BREAST removals demanded by Rotorua hospital, The confinement of the Elderly for medicating by doctors & nurses. 90% of Rotorua’s Health problems are the result of hidden agender MASS CHEMICAL USE by the above mentioned entities. THE ENTIRE BAHVIOUR OF QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL & ITS ENTIRE STAFF is in question with its Board members. And WE WILL CALL FOR INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION to take them to Court in non-english speaking International Courts.

A BAN OF ALL FORMS OF UNIVERSITY LAB MIXED CHEMICALS IS URGENT! A MAORI INDIGENOUS COUNCIL IS THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE ALL CHEMICAL FORMS OF POISONINGS. COUNCIL APPOINMENTS ACCORDING TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ROTORUA HOSPITAL & MININSTRY OF HEALTH CHEMICAL PRACTISE CONTINUES There is NO DOUBT the chemical mass use, overdose and abuse needs to be headed by a Leadership of Intellectual criminals including the appointment of NURSES & DOCTORS as Mayors, this is a proven conflict of interest – that someone has to protect Fentons agreement LEGACY of Sanatorium medical poisoning. THIS MUST BE IDENTIFIED and Justified! BAN the nurse & Doctors and all hospital related qualified criminals from any and all Councils nationwide. In a closure of an era of Colonial dictators overdue for removal. PYRAMID SOCIETY DICATATORSHIP rulers and their schooling to favour poisoning communities is CRIMINAL under the act of Environmental Terrorism, Intellectual adult criminal behavior is the millennium culprit. ROTORUA CITY LAYOUT A CHESS BOARD CHECKERBOARD FENTONS COLONIAL CITY LAYOUT REMAINS IN 2016 Let’s review the whole layout of Rotorua township history under Male dominance FENTON colonial thinking its chest board checkerboard layout, it needs a women’s Creative touch of curves to align with the natural landscape. My stand is about Public education of all the above based upon Facts of History. ABOLISH FENTON & CLAKES 145 year Agreements holding Rotorua back.

FENTONS 1880s AGREEMENT SANATORIUM LEGACY - USES ROTORUA AS A SOCIAL WELFARE GUINEA PIG EXPERIMENT TOWNSHIP/CITY  See Maori Perspective of the Social Welfare Department 1988  See The Child Young Persons and their Families (CYPFs) act 1989 The Fenton agreement also led to Rotorua city being used as a Sanatorium SCEHEME Social Welfare Guinea Pig experiment ordered by the crown british courts, hospital. Political party driven, Media suppressed, with a Tribal partnership handshake to employ certain Maori families here who would support a HUMAN TURNOVER between WINZ, MSD,CYPFS, Family Court, Courts, Ministry of Health QE hospital – to target Maori for names listed forced into a cycle of generational POVERTY RELIANCE UPON govt policed BENEFITS

269

by their WINZ administration office staff, with the FRAUD Office stationed above. This PURPOSED SCHEME SETUP TO TARGET LOCALS without them knowing is an act of Intellectual criminal behavior and crown

racial prejudice – fraud. The system induces POVERTY into communities, generational holocaust schemes as part of the Fenton LEGACY DEPOPULATION Plan sit in wait for up to 10 years to watch until illiterate, vulnerable, rejected society people receive benefits to reach amounts for the FRAUD OFFICE TO MOVE IN WITH THEIR COURT THREATS. The courts wait to make their profit out of these listed as success fraud cases. And the British societal behavior of PREYING ON NZ Citizens especially Maori WAIARIKI DISTRICT BOUNDARY BENEFICIARIES of Pensioners, Disabled, Solo parents, All those NOT participating in PYRAMID societal slavery work forced, by these office admin system bullying predators. Between dirty deals with tribal Social, Education, Health policing, into probation & court threats non sense! THE PARTIES OVER PEOPLE – Like your dirty system! A COMPENSATION COURT will be opened to compensate those targeted and to prosecute all the staff involved in this RING OF INTELLECTUAL CRIMINAL GAMBLING & CON ARTISTS SYSTEM CYCLE human profit turnover of MONEY LAUNDERING in Rotorua. Compensation including stripping the qualifications from all those involved, de-registrations, license losses, even citizenship stripping, seizure of personal assets, fines issued, and possible imprisonment! To address this outstanding longstanding - PREDATOR RING. This will be brought to nationwide awareness even international awareness. END THE KING GEORGE HOSPITAL & FENTON AGREEMENT SCHEMES to mass medicate and poison locals who do not participate in employment work. Military Policy 11: Review all Frances D Fentons Trusts, and Trust boards FUNDS HOARDED - as founder of NZ Courts system Understanding History: Again we are under an oppressive veil of the Fentons agreement. Frances D Fenton is the father of the New Zealand crowns courts system. A system including its self-service self-rule laws to continue its business profits here living off the benefit of its targeted human 'minors' - as it’s singled out individually in our communities. Fentons legacy plans for those of us labelled as minors and illiterate, to become those in poverty, those

270

who don't fit in become those named for human write depopulating as part of Fentons 1st NZ Census count. See local library to demand view of 1st NZ Census - he compiled when he moved to Auckland from Australia. His hand then scribed the Treaty of Waitangi, then he instructed the Land Confiscations Act mass military raids upon innocent MAORI SETTLEMENTS slaughtering men, women, and children. We are still a People confiscation through his courts of Slaves to legislation. The 3 categories include 1. Crown Religious 2. Crown Intellectual 3. Crown Military. This is where Trust boards were established from Courthouses permission under court Registrars and judges. Its time to review ALL trusts, and all trustboards. Some are due for closure, some put a limit on funds held, some due for seizure. Are we at an eras end of trust in general. Trust funded hoardings of religious charity trusts also due for investigating including Church Buildings protected under a sudden introduced Protection of the Church properties act passed in parliament recently. ALL Trusts, and Trust boards charitable & non-charitable REVIEWED....These are not trustboards these are Banks, with hoards of money! Looking after a clicky few family names, when broken down...it’s Dirty Business! We NEED LEADERSHIP, WE NEED TO SHARE FUNDS limited or print more money! A further investigation into the mass amounts of money being made here in Rotorua that are being sent outside of Rotorua – draining Rotorua for outside and foreign profits. Let’s investigate ALL BUISINESSES OPERATING HERE, to put a limit on profits which must be SPENT & USED FOR THIS DISTRICT. This has been a consequence also of british courts here, lawlessness, and political party laziness, with past Leaders neglecting a compiled concern for some time. ROTORUA is being used for money laundering and all sorts of transactions. WE MUST KEEP MONEY FLOWING THROUGHOUT THIS DISTRICT if we are to remain under monetary systems. Or we investigate NEW SYSTEMS WITHOUT CASH. Cashless society and systems. FENTON THE FATHER OF NZ COURTS & MINISTRY OF SOCIAL WELFARE USED ROTORUA AS SOCIAL WELFARE TO STEAL CHILDREN INJUSTICE: FENTONS LEGACY ROTORUA HOMOSEXUAL FAMILY COURT PEDOPHILE RING - STEALS MAORI CHILDREN: WE WANT TO TAKE the Fentons family legacy continued by National Party MPs, Treasury, MSD MOH CYPFs, & crown FAMILY COURT to International Court of Justice for queen victorias & elizabeths crime - mass charges laid STEALING MAORI CHILDREN. MASS ABUSED CASES, MASS NEGLECT & MISPLACEMENT, CORRUPT PAPERWORK between Courts, Lawyers, Doctors & those given the children without investigations as to FAIR EQUAL RIGHTS sharing. THIS WILL BE THE BIGGEST NATIONWIDE CASE AGAINST QUEEN VICTORIA & ELIZABETH SYSTEMS in 150 Years. First NZ Census compiled, Land Confiscation rapes all first introduced by its founder Academic legislator judicial Frances D Fenton, CONSEQUENCE. A COMPENSATION COURT to be opened for compensating Families & Individual Fathers & Mothers affected, and their children. THE SUFFERING OF THE INDIGENOUS MAORI here in Rotorua must be fully addressed – as Rotorua was established primary as a Court, Social Welfare, and Hospital SANATORIUM to target Maori especially and poorer NZ citizens as it CLIENTS in the generational holocaust schemes participation – depopulation planning.

Military Policy 12: Address Council past Debt - permanently by Investigations by Locals. A LEGACY OF DEBT IS NOT OUR FUTURE! Understanding History: Council Debt Position@ $168 million as at 30 June 2015, if this is an estimated guess, THE TRUE DEBT WILL be $180 to 200 million+ and climbing....then they all boast Success. ROTORUA COUNCIL AT CRISIS POINT: THE USA/UK TPP CO-OPERATE TAKEOVER OF COUNCIL FINANCE AFFAIRS! Who is directly to blame for this disaster finance management? The Intellectual criminals are, of accountants, policy number crunchers, bankers ‘claiming million of dollars of Debt is fine’, is a PUBLIC Misled deception, and an accusation of internal fraud. This mass debt IS DRIVING ROTORUA INTO ITS OWN DEPRESSION. And further danger the now, foreign Banks and

271

Foreign Co-operate companies OWN ROTORUA COUNCIL! Rotorua remains under a Consequence OF CORRUPT & LYING Intellectual number crunchers, we must make these individuals – PAY FOR THE DEBT OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS!

DEBT RESPONSIBILTY COMES BACK TO THOSE WHO CREATED IT AND THEY SHOULD PAY OFF THE DEBT they created to JUSTIFY the Loss! Therefore the employees of the Rotorua District Council past employees, with the current Rotorua Lake Council employees in finance management positions, and in positions of Councilor’s, Mayors, Policy Strategists at the Helm. With past mayors, should be stripped of their PERSONAL WEALTH BUILT UP of properties, bank hoardings and assets to pay off the money they have spent during their time – to JUSTIFYING the current debt for FULL address. This is possible under a NEW MAORI Government. This debt also proves again that British book keeping accounting is the biggest scam along with its BANKS that support it and their Courts of policy non sense! Please Refer to booklet 2016 Pre-election Report RDC/RLC-Rotorua Lakes Council page 5: This is so serious, its at Crisis point for Urgent Rescue! It gets worse - someone strategized a so called 'Independent Review' be done by PWC(PriceWaterhouseCoopers) which is UK/USA owned co-operate, the same persons work for whom? For Fitch! AMERICAN Co-operate 'Fitch International' a fake global leader in financial services(owned by USA New York 'Hearst Business Media')....given right to TAKEOVER Rotorua Council Financial Affairs - to produce false credit ratings in a Pay Down disguise, now Daily Post reported. UK/USA Private Company - PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which is made up of lawyers & banker accountants, provides accounting & assurance services, tax & advisory services to clients in 158 countries. These lawyers & banker accountants sitting on Fitch came from working for PWC. If the US media co-operates have their TPP claws in our local council, don't you think they'll own the Daily Post now NZME? Yes! THIS IS WHY THE DAILY POST supports the Council, it’s all sold out to 'WhiteSlaveryRule' Co-operates, of false fraud pyramid societies. We need to REMOVE MEDIA & POLITCIANS. The Intellectual Criminals are on the rise! CONCLUSION OPTIONS: A) Write it off as unrecoverable under a WHOLE NEW JUSTICE SYSTEM, as we close off a era of Leadership and move forward into a Millennia era for relief sought UNDERSTANDING Matters, that those who led us into debt this deep must be held responsible. B) Review the Slavery 'decimal point accounting system' of Queen Elizabeth we are ALL UNDER, to investigate for locals a NEW SYSTEM that does not allow accountant bankers or crown courts lawyers, judges to Dictate to the PEOPLES PUBLIC SYSTEM. Business people, also should not be accountable to these Intellectual Criminals to the point they are no longer in charge of their affairs. C) The only true hope...Replace Queen elizabeth with the 1st Maori Queen for New Zealand Independence to address crown out of control corruption. $168 -180 million dollars is the True Rotorua Council debt. Rotorua needs a 'Starting Point for Change'. Understanding this, means to 'address debt', not by pay down. We are at the 'end of an era' of the Decimal Point Accounting system Finance reports altered and presented. Overdue, for a transitional change to a Higher Dollar Value system - for New Zealand. High quality countries deserve Higher dollar value systems. Rotorua can lead! WE NEED to replace queen elizabeth and her Lower standard Slavery dollar. This policy is opportunity to develop a new dollar value - financial reporting system - to CLEAR THAT DEBT, FOR A NEW START.

2009 Council Spending Accountability facts behind the AKL-304 affair - a brief history of AKL-304. The issue of the moment is that Council CEO Mr Geoff Williams has refused to disclose who funded the unsuccessful ENVAKL-304 litigation conducted by Chapman Tripp in 2009 at a cost of $386,795 in legal services fees alone. We know that a sum of $610,155 was credited to the Rotorua Regional Airport Ltd Legal Services Account on 29 June 2010 and

272

that this payment was made by some other party to reimburse RRAL's payments to Chapman Tripp for legal services in the AKL-304 case. Council has also provided us with a "copy" of an invoice #16242 from RRAL to "Rotorua Lakes Council" for the amount of $610,155 and dated 30 June 2010. Furthermore, if the 2010 Rotorua District Council Annual Report (Related Party Transactions) contains a true and correct statement of the RDC and RRAL accounts for the 20092010 year, RDC cannot have been the ultimate source of the payment, even though the payment appears to have passed to RRAL through the RDC system. This is another example of cover up spending over half a million dollars under past Mayors! This is why The Energy Events Charitable Trust should give all its funds to the Council to clear council debt of pakeha dirty spending! REMOVAL OF CURRENT COUNCIL ACCOUNTS MANAGEMENT STAFF - PARAMOUNT: WE NEED TO WORK ON BRINGING MONEY BACK TO ROTORUA TO MAKE ROTORUA GREAT AGAIN. We need a Leadership that has mass holdings of profits here, we need to ATTRACT MONEY TO OUR CITY. WE NEED to remove these outdated accountant bankers leading Rotorua into DEBT & remaining in Debt! A DEBT LEGACY LEFT FOR OUR NEXT GENERATIONS IS ARROGANT, IRRESPONSIBLE, LAZY, UNTELLIGENT, POOR FAILED LEADERSHIP for this district. Remove accountants, bankers and Lawyers for an overhaul to NEW THINKING strategists to CLEAR CITY DEBT!

Military Policy 13: ABOLISH AND REMOVE Dunedin based LGNZ (Local Government 'Advocacy COMPANY', Policy Makers CONTROL Over 72 Councils nationwide - including, Rotorua Council. LGNZ and local government in New Zealand. Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) is the 'peak body' representing New Zealand’s 78 local, regional and unitary authorities. It is a paid membership based crown entity. LGNZ advocates for local democracy, develops local government policy, and promotes best practice and excellence in leadership, governance and service delivery. Through its work strengthening sector capability, LGNZ contributes to the economic success and vibrancy of communities. Dunedin based LGNZ (Local Government New Zealand), 'Advocacy COMPANY', was once operating as Local Government Association Incorporated(LGAI).

Abolish LGNZ and its 10 Partners listed as follows: a) FairWay Resolution Limited is an independent, Crown-owned company providing specialist complaint management and dispute resolution services.

b) Giblin Group is a specialist consultancy assisting local government to develop and deliver on its plans and projects. c) Martin Jenkins is a leading New Zealand based consultancy, with a reputation for astute organizational, management, economic and strategic advice, founded on in-depth expertise across a wide range of disciplines. Are they employing NZ citizens? We need to go to their administration offices to investigate who’s who!

d) MWH - As specialists in water, natural resources and transportation, MWH employees use innovative ideas and technology to help solve complex infrastructure and environmental challenges. MWH is an International Design Firm in Sewer/Waste by Engineering News-Record.

e) Eastern Bridge is a consulting company specializing in international relations, particularly between New Zealand and Asia. Whats the whole purpose of a LOCAL COUNCIL if these dodgy NZLG businesses are the SHADOW GOVERNMENT foreigners?

f) EROAD was established in 2000, with a goal of developing a technology-based solution to modernize paper-based road tax systems. R&D began on a solution that would modernize New Zealand’s road user charging system. In 2007 former Navy man chief executive and co-founder, Steven Newman, joined the company and EROAD began commercializing its vision to become a global GNSS tolling provider. In 2009, EROAD implemented the world’s first network-wide GPS/cellular-based road user charging system, which modernized the existing paper-based RUC (road user charges) regime in New Zealand. Between April 2010 and

273

March 2012 EROAD grew more than 2,700% and in December 2012 was ranked tenth on the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 Asia Pacific. In April 2014 EROAD commercially launched in Oregon, becoming the first approved electronic Weight-Mile Tax (WMT) service provider in North America.

g) NZRA is the ‘go-to’ organization for recreation professionals. Its membership is made up of more than 1,700 people working in a wide variety of roles across the entire sport and recreation sector.

h) NZMCA, association was created in 1956 by a small number of enthusiasts with the first Easter Rally held at Clifton Beach, Hastings. In 1970 the NZMCA became an incorporated society. The revised constitution was passed in 1993 following a complete document review. Structure: The Association is a national body headed by a Board of Directors. In the early 1970's several Area Representatives were appointed and in 1978, Area Committees were formed. Initially, Area Committees had a social function; organizing rallies and working bees etc. Gradually, their responsibilities evolved to include producing their own newsletters and working with local councils and businesses to further motor caravanning in their district. In 1993 a new tier in the structure of the Association was introduced with the formation of a National Forum. That same year saw the establishment of a National Office which located to NZMCA-owned premises in Takanini, Auckland in 1995.

i) STELLAR LIBRARY created by Pharmacist. Life Pharmacy Rotorua co-owner Brett Fordyce has invented a unique online document library called Stellar Library. While studying a Master of Business Administration (MBA) at the University of Waikato, Mr Fordyce wrote a thesis on introducing iPads into the MBA program. But he discovered there were a number of problems with using iPads for study, and there was a need for an easier way to distribute and store documents. Stellar Library was developed following a MBA thesis looking at “The introduction of the iPad into the MBA program”. The key research findings demonstrated that in order for new technology to have high uptake, the technology needed to be simple to use, be enjoyable to use and have a perceived added value to the end user. Stellar Library was designed based on these principles. The overall vision for Stellar Library is to empower organizations and individuals to effectively retain control, ownership and distribution of their econtent. Stellar Library enables businesses and academics to maximize the potential of portable devices, such as the iPad, for sharing, distributing and accessing an organizations documentation. This will improve business processes and delivery of selected information to clients. Stellar Library is an intuitive, reliable and secure mobile content delivery system specifically designed for the iPad. It allows you to create your own private organization library on a secure delivery platform. As a Stellar Library user you can publish all or part of your library with board of director’s colleagues, students or clients.

j) IOD (INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS)The IOD in New Zealand began over 40 years ago as a division of the Institute of Directors in the UK. In 1989 the Institute of Directors in New Zealand (Inc) adopted its own constitution and became a separate legal entity. During the last decade, membership has grown significantly. Our vision is to be the pre-eminent professional body for people in governance in New Zealand. Our mission is to raise the standard of governance in all areas of New Zealand business and society. The Institute of Directors in New Zealand (Inc) promotes excellence in corporate governance, represents directors’ interests and facilitates their professional development through education and governance training. It is a membership organization with over 7,000 individuals representing the spectrum of New Zealand enterprise, from the public and private sectors.

CONCLUSION PULL THE PLUG ON SOME & MANY CO-OPERATE PREDATOR DICTATORS: Basically the interpretation is the current mayors, councillors, ceos, positions are ALL DECOY positions. The council has been taken by ransom, in a sabotage by these Intellectual Criminals of National and Global influence. We need a Starting Point for Change. Remove all these current people for being sitting ducks. This Dunedin based LGNZ entity of Slavery is the 'peak body' representing New Zealand’s 78 local, regional and unitary authorities. It is a paid membership based crown entity. WE NEED TO PULL THE PLUG ON THESE CO-OPERATE NATIONAL & International GLOBAL Predator Dictators, LOCAL FUND DRAINERS! The only interest these predators have is in themselves! Pull the plug on these Companies with their shareholder registered members. Sole ownership, Partnership, now Cooperate – Co-Partnerships must be policed as to whether they are part of our society communities or just dictators with self-rule intentions to create and protect their profits, which should be SHARED HERE IN ROTORUA. Its all about keeping the money internally for this district –not draining us of ALL we have! Under no circumstance should anyone

274

be allowed to hijack the local government affairs, should this happen NEW LEADERS MUST BE APPOINTED to remove the corrupted regime.

Military Policy 14: YOUTH AFFAIRS POLICY: Abolish (MTFJ) Mayor Taskforce for jobs pressure enforced upon local youth (Rangatahi) - by National Party Steven Joyce dictated back in 2002. See Link below: http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/nzs-local-government/mayors-taskforce-for-jobs/ In February 2000, a group of seven Mayors from around New Zealand gathered in Christchurch to establish the Mayors Taskforce For Jobs. MTFJ has grown to now be a nationwide network of New Zealand’s Mayors, working together towards the vision of all young people under 25 being engaged in appropriate education, training, work or other positive activity in their communities. The Core Group within MTFJ holds quarterly meetings in Wellington with the Ministers and officials from government departments and holds responsibility for the overall vision, direction, leadership and strategic focus of MTFJ. Hon Steven Joyce is the lead Minister for MTFJ. RangiMarie Investigation Interprets: This oppressive adult behaviour of control over Rotorua Children and Youth Rangatahi is unacceptable, racially biased, arrogance, that’s a threat upon young persons to fit or else be institutionalized in youth prisons, and chemical medicated by these politicians! Singling out young persons to comply or else is a threat against human rights and Equal rights Media driven! The media works with the council through public reports to target youth weekly rampantly! This is the cause of Youth Suicides here in Rotorua! The Community is NOT A POLICE STATION to police youth daily! This adult behavior is unacceptable & not the answer to empowering rangatahi-youth. Youth have Rights, a lack of FREE FUN activity PLACES TO SOCIALISE is urgent to bring youth together. Refer to other policies to support Rangatahi Youth Importance in our local Rotorua Area, refer to the future of understanding youth, an order of importance – what’s important such as FUN education and FREE community activities and Youth Clubs to support youth health and well-being. A Balance of all things regarding Youth concerns - awangawanga.

ROTORUA NEEDS A STARTING POINT FOR CHANGE....WE NEEDS METHODS TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO BRING CHANGES, PROCESSES OF CHANGE.... Military Policy 15: BAN ALL CHEMICAL POISONS USE PARKS & RESERVES – PEOPLE POPULATED AREAS POISONED etc Understanding history: Looking at history, we have been over poisoned by local council chemical company sprays of parks and reserves. This is an Environmental disaster upon People populated areas surrounding this dosing practice injustice. THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCE UPON HUMAN LIFE, BIRD LIFE, INSECT LIFE, AQUATIC LIFE. ALL FORMS OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT is under major threat – as the Health of the Environment reflects the Health of the People and the Health of the People reflects the Health of the Environment on the Scales of balance/Justice. Regional council aquatic roundup gel in water ways, DOC with Forest and Bird 1080 bait end. Farming & Agriculture spraying and Aerial spraying orders will all be challenged for a BAN - A FULL ENFORCED BAN ON CHEMICAL USED. As for the USA instigated EPA – environment protection authority/agency – they nothing other than a Chemical Company hiding behind a curtain to protect environments - misleading the public in fraud entity Intellectual criminal behavior! Further concerns about these USA chemical fraudsters is their own backyard history from kkk families still operating, that need disempowerment and dismantling in a millennia era.

275

Mass Chemical use on land is affecting Airways, Bird depopulation, and Human breathing airways eg sore throats. The excuse by Council that WOOD BURNING FIRE PLACES IS CAUSING most air pollution is incorrect Research. Chemicals in the airways are far more damaging. The reason why the Fire places were used, was to STOP Locals taking firewood from the Forest, because the crown Forestry Industry wants all those logs FOR EXPORT PROFITS. They had to make up a public excuse - using FIRE PLACE BANS. However, let’s include some old fire places in houses nearly falling down, need replacement. Ban aircraft American Chem Trails over Rotorua. Why we must call for a Ban is as follows below……

FENTONS AGREEMENT SANATORIUM CHEMICAL OVERDOSE – A NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS & DISEASES INCREASE CONSEQUENCE REPORT 2017: As the Legacy of dictator Fenton remains controlling Rotorua district, so does the consequence of this instruction remain as a council endeavor by british colonial influence. The mass increase and mass use of toxic Chemicals used in spraying land soils, water ways, airways, chemical pesticides affecting food chain for poisoning, chemical hair products, chemical medications must be exposed for understanding history remaining in 2017. 150 years of Chemical poisons use in Rotorua – THERE IS NO RETURN if we do not address this Chemical Culture now! THIS MASS CHEMICAL OVERDOSE of People Populated areas and the ENVIRONMENT is now compiling NEW evidence against this Rotorua district council partnered with queen Elizabeth hospitals, Ministry of health, Regional Council, Department of Conservation, Environment Protection Agency – ALL CHAMEICAL & MINING COMPANY entities of frau from UKUSAAust influenced court, bank, media families. This EMPIRE of chemical poisoning adult behavior is resulting in a MASS COMPLAINTS Increase of Neurological Disorders, and Diseases. These are as follows: Blood clots in the Brain – Brain bleeds(Aneurysms) increased SUDDENLY attacking humans, Parkinson’s Diseases, Sudden Breathing problems in Children & youth. Also in older person - into strokes/Heart attacks, Sudden Paralysis – becoming paralyzed without knowing why, sudden induced seizures – with NO FAMILY HISTORY of such, Sudden Disabilities in children, youth & adults. Sudden dismember of human parts by the hospital – and the increase numbers of surgeries needs investigating, sudden unknown deaths left by coroners with the system chemical related, mass medication poisonings neglected, vaccinations causing autism & disabilities in children, youth & adults, increased BREAST removals demanded by Rotorua hospital, The confinement of the Elderly for medicating by doctors & nurses. 90% of Rotorua’s Health problems are the result of hidden agender MASS CHEMICAL USE by the above mentioned entities. THE ENTIRE BAHVIOUR OF QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL & ITS ENTIRE STAFF is in question with its Board members. And WE WILL CALL FOR INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION to take them to Court in non-english speaking International Courts. A BAN OF ALL FORMS OF UNIVERSITY LAB MIXED CHEMICALS IS URGENT! A MAORI INDIGENOUS COUNCIL IS THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE ALL CHEMICALS FORMS OF POISONINGS. COUNCIL APPOINMENTS ACCORDING TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN ROTORUA HOSPITAL & MININSTRY OF HEALTH CHEMICAL PRACTISE CONTINUES There is NO DOUBT the chemical mass use, overdose and abuse needs to be headed by a Leadership of Intellectual criminals, including the appointment of NURSES & DOCTORS as Mayors, this is a proven conflict of interest – which someone has to protect Fentons agreement LEGACY of Sanatorium medical poisoning. THIS MUST BE IDENTIFIED and Justified! BAN the nurse & Doctors and all hospital related qualified criminals from any and all Councils nationwide. In a closure of an era of Colonial dictators overdue for removal. PYRAMID SOCIETY DICATATORSHIP rulers and their schooling to favour poisoning communities is CRIMINAL under the act of Environmental Terrorism, Intellectual adult criminal behavior is the millennium culprit. Under no circumstance will this area be governed according to white privilege British university trained appointments – especially now that Doctors, nurses, and chemists work for Chemical Companies, Judges, lawyers/solicitors work for dirty Court gambling dens for profit, Accountants work for

276

dirty bankers and dirty politicians work for whoevers got the MONEY to drive them into power, Scientists, Chemists and the Military work for MINING & Chemical Companies inducing Human disasters.

Military Policy 16: BAN Council Property Sales Disposal to offshore ownership Global influence - NOT THE ANSWER TO ADDRESS COUNCIL PAST DEBT PERMANENTLY! Please refer to booklet 2016 Pre-election Report RDC/RLC-Rotorua Lakes Council page 10: Understanding History: Rotorua is already over-owned by landlords outside of Rotorua area who do not reside here, all profits made are sent outside draining Rotorua. Whether NZ citizens or foreign owned. Now, they are emptying once, people occupied properties, left - unoccupied under Real estate agents & court lawyers turned property transaction agents aligned with banks. Eg CBD a business graveyard real estate signed. Land sales to be disposed to the Highest Real estate bidder is nothing other than a lost adult excuse by colonial british land surveyors still in place in a Millennium era. We need to Evolve, move into the future. Rotorua needs a Starting Point for Change. This needs Researched Investigating for the best possible option. If this is their final outcome Decision because the CEO, Mayor,Councillors,Policy Strategy team see no other answer, GET LOCALS outside the square TO INVESTIGATE understanding history that Rotorua city was built upon Geothermal Swampland areas. Establishing mass buildings may not have been such a good idea after all. Will the city pattern develop more in oval shape, circular flow, instead of square chest board grid aerial view? Ban Council Property Sales Disposal - to offshore ownership of Global influence - NOT THE ANSWER TO ADDRESS COUNCIL PAST DEBT PERMANENTLY!

Military Policy 17: Review ALL Council Bylaws - Interpreted as Self Services Rules to suit British land squatters Understanding History: Fourteen (14) Rotorua District/ Lakes Council Bylaws exist from a history of introduction under past Farmer for Mayor, Kevin Winters 2008 to suit himself. These Bylaws should have been visited by this Mayor Steve Chadwick and updated, corrected or abolished. This failure of address also neglect proves how lazy Council Staff, CEO, Mayor, Councillors, Leadership has been. As a result of failing to visit these bylaws, they are operating as Nullified, nil and void. Unless Chadwick has signed updates. Crown Bylaws interpreted as introduced to adult self favouritism from legislation Acts of parliament, also aligned with community complaints from individuals arisen to be acted upon. By-passing the Lore of the Land to suit themselves in Self Rule Slavery, Self Service to serve upon targeted Maori when they please. THIS ADULT ARROGANCE WILL SEE BYLAWS NULLIFIED AS A RESULT OF STAFF & COMMUNITY RACIAL PREJUDICE. Common sense says Council bylaws should be abolished if un-necessary and impractical. From past experience of this Council looking after its clicky mates complaints Bylaws put in place to support Religious denominations of Self Rule arrogance will be halted. Each individual Bylaw, is overdue for FULL REVIEW. As part of matters arising to address a whole era of fifty years of Rotorua Council Adult Behaviour left uncorrected. Under new policies policing no intellectual, religious, club affiliated individuals or groups will be allowed to use these past Bylaws to suit themselves. As self-serving adult law enforcers upon innocents, without first understanding complaints, why this is necessary and practical to serve notice, with intention to threaten a local individual while they are unaware without communication discussion to

277

settle disputes in a peaceful manner. A Balanced side of fact based evidence, proof must be first gathered and included, in hearing matters arising so a Peace Agreement is used and reached. TO END ALL DIVISIONS IN A PEACE AGREEMENT. Rotorua needs a starting point for change. Bylaws involving Alcohol and Nicotine cigarette HEALTH WELLBEING ABUSE is a major concern for Rotorua city and district. Mostly cycle of generational poverty, stress related, work stress related, and lack of self-discipline in some instances - instead of Adult social family enjoyment occasional celebrations. Using the police to serve trespass notices, or any notices will be reviewed!

Military Policy 18: INVESTMENT IN ROTORUA DISTRICT - A VISIONARY PLAN OF OLD LEADERSHIP Investment: dictionary meaning 1. use money to make a profit, e.g by lending it in return for 'interest to be paid', or by buying stocks and shares in property. 2. Give somebody a rank or medal etc in a formal ceremony. What is investment? The meaning of investment as a finance term as follows. What does investment mean in finance? RangiMarie Interpretation: What has become of the original english meaning of Investment is my concern. Its has evolved to become adult sly greed! Money focused Investing for an expected Outcome. This needs a balanced reality check as we see a City Graveyard of empty buildings tied up, as a result of leadership failure lawlessness to control predator adult behaviour. It also proves a point of who the true Governing Authority is in this case Business is king! We need a starting point for change, for Rotorua. To shift the focus to correct itself. Investment is far broader, then narrow minded number crunching finance reports - pouring money into an area we believe in, a project we believe in EXPECTING TO GET A FULL RETURN on investments needs 1. balance, 2. order, 3. understanding of 1. past 2. present, 3. future thinking. He aha te mea nui o TeAo? He Tangata He Tangata He Tangata. What is the most important thing it is People, It is People It is People. Its Local people in this case. Investment will naturally develop itself, through all the above 'Matters Arising' policies of Lady Justice under a New Governance Authority of Independence in tatau tatau we together starting point for change for Rotorua district. Resolutions for thought. BAN ALL LAND PROPERTY SALES BAN CITY BUILDING SALES TO OUTSIDERS! Military seizure of buildings unoccupied for too longer time, demolish it for swampland parks return, new higher dollar value system to purchase back buildings at a forced discount price, change Buildings over to apartment living. Balancing Investments Understanding - Under no circumstance should any outside influence, nationwide or off shore Investors be allowed to dominant Rotorua district area to the point, that over-rides its First Authority LOCAL Government! Under no circumstance should Rotorua district be used and abused for Profit draining our local economy, until it is left high & dry for an urgent rescue recovery plan as we need now. This is area must be guarded from Investment predators, yet open to positive common sense, practical investments in a WIN WIN situation! Once we address past hindrances to open up a Whole New Era of exciting Investments in our Home called Rotorua. Review current investments what’s fruitful and what’s fruitless needs closure from understanding. Be open to new opportunities, new ideas from locals with regards to investing money, time, which is energy. Eg Local Solar Powering. What investments need a chance to develop itself? Whakatauki RangiMarie: Looking after Locals is a Friendlier welcome for Tourist Manuhiri (visitors). Understanding history for address: We need to Abolish 150 year old Fenton’s and Clarke's Agreements remaining in place 2016 for a full closure. We need to challenge for higher dollar value system to Fully Address our own debt for a

278

complete CLEARING from within ourselves. At the same time we need to hold those to account for past spending. This is a Starting point for change address history so we can evolve move forward. Then, Investments in this area of local housing, local business, local education, local health and well-being projects of concern, investing in local food productions for locals to enjoy, investing in restoring swampland areas into parks with walkways is happening on a smaller scale for further investment development. Practical roading investments. Its about investing in people to also Care for Rotorua as its Guardians and Ambassadors. We need to invest in more people Ambassadors here also! LOCAL EDUCATION ONTO LOCAL EMPLOYMENT ORDER ENDING WHITE PRIVELGE EMPLOYMENT OF BRITISH WOMEN & MEN INTO NEW ZEALAND: WAIARIKI COURSES IN PRATICAL ALIGNMENT WITH COMMUNITY JOBS LOCAL EMPLOYED POSITIONS: Who is in charge at Waiariki? I want to push to replace british privilege of immigrant’s female task master employees Kathy Cooney. These women PROMISED a protected sheltered life in New Zealand under the dirty queen elizabeth Coat of Arms(1953-present). The future is here!, and the time will come to disempower these Office administration, with these immigrant British women sitting in paid employed positions of Banks, Courts, Media, Education & Health to dictate systematic bullying of Maori. THIS BEHAVIOUR HAS NBEEN INVESTIGATED for dismantling British office administrations here under MAORI KAWATANGA WHAKAHEKEHEKE – Authority. These employed appointments to DRIVE NZ INTO THE GROUND IN A DISASTER was not right, because primary reason of employment is not right! Pushing all these nursing courses here to be promised employment in Queen Elizabeth Hospital - only to find its not all as promised. It’s a false outcome. Students left in debt with little or no jobs as an outcome comes a result of a Selfish Adult leadership at the helm of Waiariki. Diverting people to working in Chemical Medicating Institutes hospitals of Retirement villages, Youth prisons also Health camps. This is mining chemical culture influence that needs REMOVING! What’s the purpose of Tangatarua marae, where is the leadership? We need more practical Tradesmen training of Builders, Mechanics, Electricians, and Plumbers, which includes modern technologies understanding offered to both men and women in Equal opportunities. Onto Engineers! Technicians! Leadership. Water testing and Science should be based here not at Waikato of Victoria Universities! Waiariki layout is a Politicians disaster! We should be TRAINING THE NEXT LEADERS HERE! Not overpopulating Waiariki will temporary trainees of whom are known many are not wanting to settle in Rotorua. Bring Foreign students in to train and adapt for national party convenience...is a Human disaster of Slavery! My grandmother KAINGAROAS LEGACY THE LOGS SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO ROTORUA FOR PROCESSING, TO BUILD HOUSES FOR Rotorua Family Whare's. WE ARE MISSING THE MARK under these people in charge seen as British residents in high paid positions, this is why some of these people need deporting. ROTORUA NEEDS A STARTING POINT FOR CHANGE.Military Policy 19: Rotorua Sewage Treatment Plant Project Disaster Review for Address and FULL REMOVAL AWAY FROM LAKE ROTORUAUnderstanding history for address: SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT LOCATION, AND SMELL ADDRESS This current disaster project structure, described as a Giant ‘Cow Trough’ swimming pool of sewage idea from the past Mayor Kevin Winters needs NEW - on the ground, practical RESEARCH INVESTIGATIONS. The disastrous smell stench is putrid to us locals and unwelcoming more so to outside visitors, yet the Council employee adults walk around blaming geothermal fumier rolls. This disgusting smell of HUMAN WASTE SEWAGE needs urgent attention the wind directions carrying the smell inland! Its decided location near Lake Rotorua speaks for itself that these people can never sustain clean waterways, by allowing overflow of human sewage into the lake of te wai! Then claiming, now to recycle it for drinking water....it must be radiated first - in a nutshell, metal dosed! REMOVING THE ENTIRE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AWAY FROM LAKE ROTORUA 2017 PLAN: This whole Farmer Mayor Cow cocky poo project disaster needs a local’s effort to discuss what locals want done with

279

human sewage. Should we have main sewage trunks of more pipes lined? How many trunks and lines should Rotorua have? Let’s look at history of Individual property waste to develop a state of the art evolutionary sewage address. THE FIRST PRIORITY for address is to REMOVE THE ENTIRE SEWAGE PLANT AWAY FROM THE EDGE OF LAKE ROTORUA! Because of the sewage overflow into the Lake, mass polluting Lake Rotorua in an abomination insult against the Legacies of Hinemoa & Tutanekai – PROTECT THE LAKE ENVIRONMENT. For future management, NO SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS should ever be located on the edge of Waterways, it is AN ENVIRNOMENT DANGER & HAZARD threat to the Lake nearby. INVESTIGATE NEW POSSBLE SEWAGE RETURNS TO PAPATUANUKU(MOTHER EARTH): Based upon Whakapapa Papatuanuku – Mother > Ranginui (Sky Father), Tawhirimatea (God of the Winds directions, Air circulation, reticulation), Tangaroa (God of the seas including lake waters used in washing cleansing, purifications and the types of waters used) Tane Mahuta (God of the Native Forests including the soil types used). These are PRINCIPALS of RESOURCE MANAGEMENT by a Swamp Native Forest process for purification. END A MAIN SEWAGE TRUNK LINE ALTOGETHER FOR each area to have their own sewage collection reserves. And or each backyard Home have their own local sewage RETURNS to Mother Earth A proposal 3 Chamber system may be included with a LAND FILL RETURN TO Papatuanuku (mother earth). The final outcome is that All Human waste should be Returned to the Land, Mother earth herself works to restore it by exposure to the elements of nature air, water, soil types. Planning more native trees, understanding swamplands geothermal areas all helps in sewage return here in Rotorua. ROTORUA SEWAGE PLANT A Global Company disaster! Global Company MWH - As specialists in water, natural resources and transportation, MWH employees use innovative ideas and technology to help solve complex infrastructure and environmental challenges. MWH is an International Design Firm in Sewer/Waste by Engineering News-Record. See link where New Zealand is listed as an Asia Pacific nation. http://mwh-projects.mwhglobal.com/loc/asia-pacific/

Military Policy 20: Tar sealed Roading Plans, the Outcome and Maintenance - Practical and Safe for Locals use From current observations of lands roads surveyed politicians are wasting mass millions on tar-sealed roading ruining the Natural land original state. This must be disciplined by New Government Maori! Its common sense that all Local main road highways, into residential housed people populated areas, and central city businesses need Locals to report on damaged roads, AND RESEALING Neglected or weather washed out areas to appropriate authorities. This alongside those employed, to check road SURFACES are up to safe standard. Instead of egos sitting in office positions, or offshore outsiders in offices - who do not reside here using computer maps of guesswork, it’s not practical. We need locals living here to decide. What we do not want to become - is a mass tar-sealed Roading mess like Tauranga has become. Too many authorities competing is not good governance but division. OVER TARSEALED lack of common sense. Taking too much tar and metal from Papatuanuku to lay on the surface is becoming overused abused. What roading textures, surfaces, even footpath surfaces are future. We may develop complete new roading surfaces, left open. AFTER TRAVELLING THE LANDSCAPE from Rotorua to Mount Maunganui wharf. The ROADING PLANS & ROADING SURFACES have been clearly developed according crown industry and sea trading endeavours, for example the Forestry industry of Logs forested from Kaingaroa forest. Milled at surrounding Timber Mills, then Logging trucks to Transport those logs to the SEAPORTS of Tauranga. THIS TARSEAL ROAD IS NOT BEING USED and is a waste of money and land used. The road is busy during peak hour traffic times of 8am to 9am then in the evening from 5pm to 7pm. TARSEALED TOXIC CHEMICAL RESOURCES MINED for laying on the landscape, by Intellectual adults WHO SIT IN AN OFFICE administration, then use a Satellite Map to CLAIM AREAS FOR ROADING is arrogant, impractical poor planned decisions made in spending millions & millions on roading! POLITICIANS & IMPRACTICAL Wellington based TREASURY Bankster administrations should NEVER BE ALLOWED to solely decide on money spent

280

on any such roading. There is no doubt NEGLECTED areas that need attention road wise. # FENTON STREET and HINEMOA Street Traffic lights intersection is not practical and needs changing to suit Buses and Traffic using Fenton, because there is not much traffic waiting at Hinemoa street lights as there is on Fenton. This was pointed out by a City bus Ride Driver.

Military Policy 21: SUSTAINABILITY! LET’S INTERPRET SUSTAINABILITY! Sustainability meaning - Sustain: support; keep someone alive; keep something happening; undergo suffer defeat. Ability: being able to do something; cleverness; talent. Taken from WikiLeaks In ecology, sustainability (from sustain and ability) is the property of biological systems that remain diverse and productive indefinitely. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. In more general terms, sustainability is the endurance of systems and processes. The organizing principle for sustainability is sustainable development, which includes the four interconnected domains: ecology, economics, politics and culture.[1] Sustainability science is the study of sustainable development and environmental science.[2] We must be have practical warm Housing, healthy Food and climate suited Clothing - to survive the winter seasons to sustain ourselves – look after ourselves in survival skills. This is INDEPENDENCE, self-sustained for the best health and wellbeing of peoples of all ages within our Community cities. And it is simple common sense! We need to maintain – keep this standard for Living and surviving for future generations to enjoy. RangiMarie Interpretation: HOW ON GODS GREEN EARTH can a MINING CULTURE SUSTAIN ANY NATIVE FORESTS, OR WETLANDS known as unique SWAMP LANDS with their natural aquatic life, insects and bird life? They can’t! Lands stolen via british courts of SELF RULE takings, then CUTTING DOWN OUR INDIGENOUS FORESTS to Plant toxic introduced Pine trees into the soil planting, toxic to the airways, toxic to the water waters. Now, university science altered Genetic Modified gene altering, pine trees. COVERING OVER WETLANDS. MASS SWAMP LANDS WITH LAND FILL for farming and agriculture! Suppressing Papatuanuku, with export beef and lamb endeavours all in SELF RULE Favourtism. The line has been drawn up here 2016. Our future near is, FULL LAND RETURNS TO MAORI Original landowners, not crown Maori trust board adult hoardings for profit greed. A MINING CULTURE of Mass Chemical Abusers HAS PROVEN ITS TRUE HISTORY TRACK RECORD, IT CAN NEVER SUSTAIN ANY Forests of WetlandSwamplands. Rotorua is a Geothermal and Swampland area of natural fauna and flora that needs a Starting Point for Change to Restore what’s be removed by history colonial settlers. RESTORATION OF ANCIENT SAWMPS incorporated into parks, walk ways could see a whole new City Developed for locals to enjoy and visitor (Manuhiri). Manipulating the english dictionary to get want you want doesn't work anymore! We are at the end of an era of queen elizabeth SLAVERY RULE of her people here, her slavery coat of arms, her slavery systems, slavery dollar value system has exhausted itself. Time to deport false sustainability science! SUSTAINABILITY A COMMON SENSE MAORI LORE NAVIGATIONAL PLAN: The instruction o Ariki Kingi Tawhiao Potatau Te Wherowhero was that: 1. Maori Retain their Lands* 2. Maori Preserve Customary Lore 3. Preserve Traditional Authority Note: This is read from top to bottom(1-3) and from bottom to top (3-1) in an Order of importance. Maori preserve their Traditional Authority of Ranks of the Chiefs according to Whakapapa and the Mantle of Leadership rests upon the shoulders of the Korowai makers. This Mana Authority will lead to establishing Maori Lore

281

Tikanga and Kawa for their Territorial area for understanding, keeping, guarding. This Authority and Lore will lead to MAORI RETAINING THEIR LANDS. It is paramount that Maori retain and protect this unique Indigenous certain diet – for their Health & wellbeing, and their Whanau survival. *Now in modern millennium times this understanding is changed according to what pakeha have stolen. This instruction is extended and includes all forms of te Wai, Moana – Ika Whenua, lands and rivers, lakes, seas, etc.

Military Policy 22: Creating our own employment Local Food Productions using surrounding land in the Rotorua Te Arawa Waiariki District At all times we should encourage our Individual independence, by creating our own employment of working hours. This is far more fulfilling in a WORK LIFE, and far more satisfying for a harmonious community to thrive in SELF DEVELOPMENT – NATURAL DEVELOPMENT progress. The Bay of Plenty region and Rotorua can share in LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTIONS including Aquatic Farming and Orchards of Vegetable and Multi-variety fruit, fruit, nuts, herbs, berry, avocado, plantations is our Future instead of the British colonization limited industry of Farming, agriculture and forestry – with its industrial WASTE CONSEQUENCE of mass generational Chemical use to ruin the RICH MINERAL SOILS – Native soils. With this FULL RETURN to protect the Water tables of Swamps combined with native Forests replanted. This environment can FEED AND NUTURE FOOD SUPPLIES to its highest Order of fatness productions for LOCAL ENJOYMENT.

Military Policy 23: Creating our own Income to Independence: At all times we should encourage our Individual Independence to prosper balanced by helping others also, by creating our own employment of working hours, is creating our own income. And the future will see an end to TAX COLLECTIONS which are Bank money collection agencies for profit. All money made by locals should stay in the area for locals use and shared wealth can be our future option. COMMUNITY Shared wealth, Community sharing living, Community shared Food sources.

Military Policy 24: LAKE Rotorua Restoration Project, Rotorua Swamplands Restoration project MA TE WA – IN TIME the deterioration of Lake Rotorua especially calls for a PLAN of LAKE RESTORATION. This means a ban on CHEMICAL applications such as the regional council & docs Aquatic gels of roundup used as an excuse to poison the moana water and so called weed. This deception with false reports by scientists to support a continued use – is an act of Environmental Terrorism. WE MUST BAN these Chemical companies such EBOP, DOC EPA hiding behind Chemical companies for profit they truly represent. BAN CHEMCIALS FROM LAKE ROTORUA! At all times we should encourage our Individual independence, by creating our own employment of working hours.

ROTORUA NEEDS A STARTING POINT FOR CHANGE....WE NEED METHODS TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO BRING CHANGES, PROCESSES OF CHANGE.... Military Policy 25: Partnerships for LOCAL Community Development MA TE WA – In Time we learnt Partnerships between an Indigenous Maori people and a British culture of Mining & Chemical minded people is NOT POSSIBLE and broken Treaty of Waitangi promises has proven this to be a fact. Therefore, a Te Arawa Maori Government Authority is the ONLY WAY FORWARD in truly developing this Waiariki district. Based understanding Council history and how this Policy started: Its a concern that candidates can create policies from their own personal known history on council as racially biased towards Maori...then they want partnerships?

282

The Order of Importance of Local based understanding each other and what we have to offer each other in general, out of similar interest or new interests, profit or not for profit business affairs etc, partnerships guidelines based upon trust discerned new trust earned. The 2nd Order nationwide New Zealand, the 3rd Order internationally partnerships based upon understanding, balance, order as 1st order example set. Everything should not be always about business but human friendliness in Kotahitanga (unification).

Military Policy 26: End Mayoral Citizenship Ceremonies for 3 years - Citizenship is a Birth Right Abused Understanding History: Under judge Frances D Fentons (Eng Australian) 1st NZ Census population data collection numbers of Maori population, this is the reasoning behind crown immigration. This lead to Rotorua's Fenton Agreement, later a Clarke agreement. 1953 to present Under queen elizabeth coat of arms symbol - SLAVERY Society the purpose of immigrants is to.... 1.Populate Indigenous Maori lands 2.Work as Slaves & learn english 3.Vote for British political parties of national or labour. Vote for Pakeha/British local council Mayors. Based upon these facts aligned with british NZ Mayors history abusing the NZ Citizenship ceremonies for showoff showcasing - which are a Prestel (Tohunga) Role of blessing. I want to cease Citizenship ceremonies for 3 years. Tourists are welcome to Visit - however immigration and citizenship is tapu-sacred, only few should enter! NZ CITIZENSHIP IS A BIRTH RIGHT. Note: Tohunga is a Judge & Priest combined. The Balance is with Immigration comes its opposite Deportation. Or A possible 3 Citizenship Order Identity according to history 3 generational waves of 150 year old history - may be possible in 2016 to address those, who are here now. Under a chain of command order some & many, may be DEPORTED. Especially, DEPORT BRITISH land squatter IMMIGRANTS with their Self Rule Systems. High paid authority positions, in education, health, courts, councils, boards etc. These people need singling out for removal DEPORTATION doing more damage than good. Under a Maori version of Donald Trump style address, by RangiMarie Kingi - Lady Justice System. To address Queen elizabeth crown lawlessness, to do as they please here since their arrival.

Military Policy 27: All Immigrants to be educated on NZ History facts of BRITISH COLONISATION OF NEW ZEALAND & UNDERSTANDING MAORI INDIGENOUS CULTURE ALL IMMIGRANTS WILL BE EDUCATED on New Zealand History facts - British/UK/English Colonization MINING, CHEMICAL USE CULTURE to fully understand the land they want to settle in as follows: - Frances d Fenton 1st NZ Census, Maori population data collection for depopulation planning by generational holocaust schemes - still in place in 2017! - 1835 Declaration of Independence - Te Wakaputenga signed by the Ariki Maori Chiefs in the Central North Island, including Te Arawa Tuwharetoa and over to Waikato etc. - 1840 Te TiRiti o Waitangi, to be strategically signed in Northland – the top of the North Island of New Zealand, with a purpose for British claims to the entire country. - 1850 onwards Land Confiscation Acts OF THE CENTRAL NORTH ISLAND, Rotorua district, a crown military strategy which followed after the Treaty was signed at the top of the north island. Raiding the RICH GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES of the CENTRAL NORTH by Maori settlement raids, murdering men, women, and children and raping

283

young Maori women. BURING & DESTROYING ENTIRE VILLAGES by Fenton, Victoria orders. To establish the British empires Courts, Banks & media empire records. - Frances D Fenton the Father of the Crown Court system and the Native Maori land court which introduced TRUST BOARDS. This man’s work was a paramount in establishing the British empires record collections of Courts, banks and Media record reports paperwork. Stealing MAORI people, land, resources in divide & conquer of land dividends, people dividends, and resource dividends FOR GREED FOR PROFIT GAINS by a Chemical & Mining Culture pyramid society thinker’s dictatorship. - Queen elizabeths Coat of Arms symbol 1953 - present instructing her QE hospitals, courts, now political Beehive, local central Councils, all systems of business affairs in New Zealand. Elizabeth’s coat of arms that instructs land use has nothing to do with JUSTICE or lore & order, it instructs LANDUSED for British crown profits. This symbol representing queens WHO NEVER RESIDED UPON THE LAND OF AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND, instead a symbol used that instructed Land use for crown industry profits as the Shield is read: 1st Quadrant: Stars for the BNZ Banks of New Zealand keeping our records, not just stars as in skyline. 2nd Quadrant: A sheaf of Wheat for the Agriculture industry of MASS CHEMICAL SPRAYS used 3rd Quadrant: A Lamb Fleece for the Farming Industry to use Chemicals in mass amounts for over 100 years. Stripping all the MINERALS out of Native soils – from CONFISCATION act era stolen lands used by farmers. 4th Quadrant – Cross Hammers instructing the MINING of NEW ZEALAND for the benefit of british greed which includes generational holocaust schemes – by now days INDUCING MAN MADE DISASTERS, inducing earthquakes using their science military weapons pointed at the Tectonic plates. Weather weapons induced what appears to be Floods to clear the People populated areas for MINING explorations of Oil & Gas. Practicing MICROWAVE technologies on the environment to depopulate Humans & Nature for MINING endeavour’s

Conclusion: A possible 3 Citizenship Order Identity may be possible in 2016. From understanding, we enforce ordered law including a Balance on the Scales of Justice. Lore brings order, order brings lore in a chain of command. We can welcome Tourist manuhiri here, but now john key has abused the sacred NZ Citizenship, its time to wero (challenge) this arrogance. NZ Citizenship is a Birth right - New Zealanders must be BORN here in the order of importance!! FOOD PRODUCTIONS & PROVISIONS - BEING OUR COMMON SOURCE OF RELATING TO EACHOTHER Understanding Local Foods shared: As a result to crown multi-cultural mixing through immigration while the crown reject and write

284

off locals in Human Write offs. Many immigrants have come from countries where mass poverty was seen also. Their reason for moving from their countries was Govt corruption causing poverty which is why we must address this concern. Understanding what queen liz has done, we can have a Starting Point for Change for Rotorua. Corrupt Governments cause Poverty. We can relate to other cultures, and how we relate to each other is through Good Food, Good Entertainment and Good Company.

Military Policy 28: Three Generational Voting System Possible or End Voting altogether because Queen elizabeth voting system is rigged, and or END VOTES altogether LONG TERM MAORI GOVERNMENT vs SHORT TERM BRITISH AMERICAN VOTED DISASTER Understanding history: In a so called democracy (the American Lincoln idea, NZ adapted for voting, 'for the people by the people) is questioned. Uniquely and common sense wise - there should be 3 Generational voting, including children as young as 5 years old. Otherwise we end up with what is current an OLD AGED Dominated voting system. Why hasn't this happened? Because it’s corrupted by the UKUSAAust system to favour land squatters self-rule. Voting may end, altogether to address lawlessness, we need 'long term GOVENORS' not 3 yearly limited fronts men. This experience which is attracting a disaster of employed over spenders in Self Intellectual Rule, left to do as they please without correction discipline. This is opportunity TO END VOTING ALTOGETHER UNDER A NEW ERA OF MAORI GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. I propose also maybe 3 Generational voting system including children voting. We may End Voting alongside political parties to close elizabeth’s beehive. When adults dominate the votes we need a second opinion from the younger generations, after they are the future leaders. We can choose to return to a LONG TERM TRIBAL MAORI LOCAL COUNCIL to End Votes altogether.

Military Policy 29: Local Food Service Provider Health & Safety Inspections, Food Taste Testing’s Inspection - 6months to once per year. To keep a reasonably high standard of food productions in Rotorua district supply and provided for locals, and visitors. It is important that FOOD HEALTH & SAFETY Inspections be managed locally, by the Local Government Authority. This should include at least once a year even 6 monthly inspections to encourage cleanliness, maintenance of food premises, staff personal cleanliness & hygiene in food handling skills, kitchen safety, health food preparation and storage practices. It’s a common sense governance approach to protect those eating and to continue enjoying, eating experiences here in Rotorua. This is all part of excellent HOSPITALITY – hosting. As we prepare for the future influx and other International visitors also. And with this standard, we will surely ROLE MODEL Rotorua as the place to draw many new events, occasions for future reputations welcoming OTHER NATIONWIDE opportunities to Dine in Rotorua.

Military Policy 30: Inspection of all Real Estate Property Manager/Landlord properties neglected to be prosecuted/ fined. Mass property sales made by landlords and real estate agents in 2016 to 2017, have called to attention a concern regarding the WAIARIKI DISTRICT HOUSING RIGHTS FOR LOCAL RRSIDENTS OWNERSHIP. The Local Council holds the Records of land plots of properties for the area. However Council authority is POWERLESS in regards to overseeing the LOCALS ARE THE OWNERS OF LOCAL PROPERTIES. Instead lawyers & accountants have become the Transaction agents of a greed for profit gambling den Housing industry demand. Trade me listed 280 house for sales while 56 houses were for rentals. The shift to diminish rentals to homes sold needs PUBLIC AWARENESS, instead daily post boasts to promote mass selloffs and success and prosperity when the facts are FOREIGNERS HAVE BROUGHT ROTORUA HOUSES & a drive for immigrants from Auckland’s to buy here is driven. This arrogant lawless out of order Adult behavior needs harsh correction even prosecution! As money spent will be sent outside of Rotorua again, draining Rotorua, using Rotorua for selfish adult greed!

285

RIGHTFULLY SPEAKING TE ARAWA should be the Land Lords of this district and should be the Council to take authoritive control over this out of control money laundering scam of the local housing industry. Balance, Order and understanding housing is paramount in 2030 plan management of area affairs. And mass homelessness is unacceptable and a consequence because the selfish adult behavior has not been policed! WE MUST TAKE BACK CONTROL OF HOME & BUSINESS PROPERTIES OWNED IN ROTORUA for future preservation.

Military Policy 31: Cleanup Dirty Business, Dirty Politics with Dirty Media operations in Rotorua District using understanding matters, finding our balance, and order. For the 2030 plan to be successful we must include past, and present experiences to learn from, this includes the correction of an alliance between council, media favoritism and dirty strategy to protect certain individuals positions remaining on the council, to complete a decoy showcasing season of nonsense, and to oversee certain employees remain on the council.

Military Policy 32: FIRST MAORI QUEEN FOR NEW ZEALAND INDEPENDENCE TO ESTABLISH OFFICE AT CURRENT COUNCIL SITE ROTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL now downsized to ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL Understanding History: Under the military ordered regime of Ancestor Pukaki, RangiMarie Kingi will establish the office of the Te Arawa Kingitanga. To honour the History of this area including Te Arawa Ariki ranking Chiefs never signed Queen Victoria's Treaty of Waitangi which led to Queen Elizabeths crowning 1953 and her Coat of Arms Symbol with all signage placed - its systems of law, justice, shoulder patched uniform police, queen elizabeth hospitals, social welfare, all societal slavery workforce dictated....will all be reviewed for a transition of change. Rotorua needs a starting point for change. To CLOSE OF THE KINGS & QUEENS OF ENGLAND RULE of oppression for the last 160 years of our colonized nation, local areas. This will lead to Tribal Local Independent Authority here in Rotorua.

A CLAIM OF KAINGAROA AND A PROMISE FOR THE MAORI PEOPLE HOUSING PROVISIONS A promise of Ngatoroirangi ki Kaingaroa for productions, provisions and the building of new homes for local families has been ruined by crown theft of the Kaingaroa forest and her daughter Te Puias Geothermal land claims for looking after the LOCALS. Kaingaroa and her daughter were murdered during British crown military LAND CONFISCATIONS of the central north island which held the RICHEST RESOURCES surveyed. Today the lying british administrations of CNI claimed the crown owns these lands. And now they use and hide behind Intellectual Maori trained lawyers and Maori trustboards to make Treaty settlement returns. EXCLUDING THE SURVIVING ORIGINAL FAMILY SOLE Owners here in Rotorua – the 3rd generation mokopuna Tohunga (judge & priest combined) Korowai maker Navigational pattern readers - RangiMarie Kingi. Excluding original owners excluded has seen a CONSEQUENCE OF Kaingaroa forest milled the logs being sent to China in Trades agreements, instead of sending it local mills creating employment, then timber used for building NEW HOMES for the central north island Whanau, Hapu. This injustice of arrogance by these Maori lawyers involved needs rebuking and maramatanga for a navigational direction change in GOVERNMENT HOUSING to look after Locals first. Instead of fattening countries that have little and nothing to offer us, we need expect overpopulation by their race through immigration!

Military Policy 33: A Full Review of Crown Acts & legislation, the removal of Queen Elizabeths Coat of Arms symbol strategy from Local Council Affairs As part of major local council replacement overhaul, this will include an order of dis-empowerment of the queen elizabeth Coat of Arms symbol (1953 to present). A symbol of queens past for 160 years that NEVER RESIDED HERE!

286

This will lead to a dismantling, dis-arment, and closure of administration office affairs locally, nationally and internationally. a) Abolish Terminate Fenton Agreement Family Affairs, by Replacing street names, return parks to Te Arawa Territorial governing & FULL RETURNS OF ALL LANDS STOLEN. b) Review Removal of crown legislation, acts and policies enforced for dismissal termination of its records. c) Queen elizabeth coat of arms symbols on letterheads all local government affairs transitioned out to become Independently Tribally Governed. Under a new millennia era of Tohunga (judge & priest combined) Ariki Leadership. As we come to the end of colonizing the Indigenous Maori people. A NEW MOVEMENT OF CHANGE TO FULL RETURNS TO TE ARAWA AREA MAORI GOVERNMENT IS ON THE HORIZON. Under the Military strategy watch of Military Guardian - Ancestor Pukaki.

Military Policy 34: NEW JUSTICE OF THE PEACE POSITIONS/MAORI WARDENS/STREET AMBASSADORS A) This role within our city district is paramount, New Justice of the Peace roles need appointment, more Tohunga (Judge and Priest combined) appointments is paramount. B) Replacing City Guardians with uniformed MAORI WARDENS who represent more Justice of the Peace hands on practical positions, policing Rotorua inner city and huis etc. Where ever this role takes them. Also NEW Security firms can be established here by local efforts creating their own work. In a co-operation with the Police station of respective understandings between the 2 parties. C) In communications Street Ambassadors which can be temporary street buskers entertainers etc. Why it is important that we have Street Ambassadors is because DAILY TOURISTS ARE CONSTANTLY needing directions where to go! Not just Manuhiri from other parts of New Zealand visiting Rotorua, but also overseas visitors. And an IMPROVEMENT ON MAPS, Pronouncing Maori Street names properly. Whakatauki o RangiMarie: Looking after Locals is a friendlier welcome for Tourist manuhiri-visitors.

CONCLUSION: We have come to the Conclusion that the Introduction/Opening and the Body of further understanding matters compiled, are all contributing to the FUTURE PLANS LAID FOR ROTORUA o Waiariki 2030 plan and even further beyond years ahead. From Te Arawa Whakapapa, Waiata, Whakatauki, Military Chants, stories passed down we can understand now a foundation laid for the Maori Government Authority to replace this Rotorua Borough City Council club permanently as guided by this 2030 plan and Beyond! Pioneering in new Leadership, from Old governors past is common sense. Using the past, the present, and the Future – we can find a direction to Navigate in NEW SYSTEMS and a NEW AUTHORITY to govern this area. And a TE ARAWA MAORI KAWANATANGA-GOVERNMENT WHAKAHEKEHEKE is our future.

A CHEMICAL & MINING CULTURE ENGLAND Vs AN INDIGENOUS MAORI CULTURE – WE CANNOT TATAU TATAU (we together). There is no we together(tatau tatau) As the endeavor plans of these British immigrants have proven their ONLY interest is mining explorations, stealing Maori resources, diminishing Maori authority, mass theft of Maori lands, now water mining & Oil mining explorations. With the toxic poisoning of the entire area here confirms to us, by chemical company spray poisoning applications unaccountable – WE MUST FORCE ACCOUNTABILITY. And, furthermore, that these Council Office administrations operations have claimed a right of business operations under crown kings and queens who NEVER RESIDED here and all their coat of arms symbol instructing land used and

287

abused for Farming & agriculture, forestry of pines and mass chemical applications – it’s at the close of an era. FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE FULL RETURN TO MAORI hands to lead in restoring the decay, decline of the ORIGINAL NATURAL native systems including Swamps and Native Bush areas which once fed a clean and pristine lake. This landscaped and re-shaped for RETURN alongside and complimented with Homes for Families even Papa Kainga new age Maori settlements and surrounding Maraes. BASED UPON FAMILY ROLE MODELLED, FAMILY ORIENTED FAMILY FOCUSED COMMUNITIES OF DUTY OF CARE societies. With further FUNDS poured into Rotorua to help it thrive in new Businesses established and increased FOOD SUPPLY businesses, creating work for the locals, balanced by new settlers employed in shared workloads. This is a VISION OF DISTRICT DEVELOPMENTS.

_______________________________________________________________________ MILITARY POLICY CHANGES MADE BY RangiMarie Kingi aka Lady Justice @ WHAKAREWAREWA: Conclusion: What started off as simple policies about the affairs of my local council in preparation for Mayoral candidacy 2016, has now developed itself up to 44 policies with some serious Investigations of this Council, some serious misconduct by its past Mayors, its Councillors, its CEOs etc, now Dunedin NZLG owns this Council...these are the Report findings of facts in a Karanga (call) for Justice. Under the new Authority of Tohunga(Judge & Priest combined) RangiMarie Kingi aka Lady Justice - all matters arising from now on are to be addressed in a Court like manner of Court Cases for hearing for a FULL ADDRESS. All policies & wordings are subject to change of any sort or order - only by RangiMarie Kingi consent, and may have further policies added as matters arise for address, dated: Monday, May 1, 2017. Research Investigation completed by MISA – Maori Investigative Studies Authority founder - RangiMarieKingi@JudgeLadyJustice, Whakarewarewa. Email: [email protected], mobile (021)135-3097. RangiMarie Te Arawa Marae affiliations: Pakira@Whakarewarewa & Waitahanui( Tuhourangi & TuTeMohuta hapu), Tawakapito & Makahae-(Rangitapu o Tapuika), Tamatekapua-Uenukukopako hapu, Tonuhoupu, Tikanga o Tawhiao–King Country(Ahuru). Other marae: Ohinewaiapu.

288

Date: Monday 21st November 2016 Mr John Key – National Party Priministerial Affairs Office Parliament Building WELLINGTON ATTENTION: JOHN KEY – NATIONAL PARTY PRIMINISTERIAL ADMINISTRATION Tena koe, Greetings to you, Tena koutou, katoa, Greetings to you all, NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL ANTHEM – E IHOWA God of nations at thy feet, in the bonds of Love we meet, hear our voices we entreat, God defend our free land. Guard our people and Guard our Lands, Guard our Borders as they Stand, Make her praises heard afar, God DEFEND NEW ZEALAND. Maori version: E I howa atua a, O nga Iwi matou ra, ata whakarongo na, me aroha toa, ki ahua, ko te pai, ki a tautou atawhai, Kaitiaki tia mai, Aotearoa! Aotearoa!

KAIKOURA EARTHQUAKE AN UNACCEPTABLE MAN MADE EXPERIMENT – INDUCED SCIENCE MILITARY DISASTER I demand your dismissal from the position of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, after openly, publicly, boastfully participating in a man-made human disaster. A disaster which occurred when visiting USA secretary of the State – John Kerry and GNS, NASA Scientists attended the Military Weapons 5 Day Conference in Wellington, on Friday 11th November 2016, now moved to Auckland. A conference at which was used - a weaponry device high powered Magnetic force of Nano Ion Beam technology with directional co-ordinates at the New Zealand Tectonic plates beneath the ground surface, for targeting. This unacceptable, unpoliced behaviour as part of a practice plan to match the ‘STEPPING UP TO PLATES’ GeoNet GNS science program scheme mass funded. This weapon has induced the Kaikoura to Christchurch earthquake, which also has affected almost the entire nation of New Zealand, being felt as far as Central North Island also, and continues to be felt in aftershocks. And you, John Key alongside Gerry Brownlee have done this under your administration. It has also been noted the involvement of Australia, Britain & United States of America government administrations GLOBAL MINING investments in this project, are involved and INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION from non-English and English speaking nations will advised of this crime. A project where adults have been left un-supervised, unpoliced and unaccountable to anyone – MUST BE DISCONTINUED Immediately! LETTER OF JUDGEMENT - CALL FOR THE DISMISSAL OF JOHN KEY FROM OFFICE Therefore, in this Letter of Judgement, I order and demand you are be dismissed immediately, from the Office of the New Zealand Prime Minister in Wellington Parliament Building. You are found guilty for participating in this act of Terrorism, Crime against Humanity. Not only this massive catastrophe, I also hold you FULLY RESPONSIBLE for: 1. Christchurch Earthquake 2011 Induced by the same technology weaponry 2. Pike River Mining Disaster, killing Innocent employed Mining Staff 3. Kaikoura and New Zealand Earthquakes during this month of November 2016 A Prime Minister position being openly boastfully used to support Human Disasters without a conscience is unacceptable, unjustified, behaviour and needs harsh disciplinary action of prosecution orders. Are you understanding the seriousness of what you have committed? How dare you! To Honour the dead, of Pike River Mining disaster, Christchurch Quake and now this Earthquake, I order for your dismissal and prosecution and Gerry Brownlee

289

also. As an honour of these memorials of Human disasters. Three Strikes and you’re out, enough is enough now. JOHN KEY TO BE DISMISSED FOR ACTS OF TERRORISM – CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN NEW ZEALAND This Act of Terrorism Crime Against has caused massive damage to the Tectonic plates, surrounding land, and ocean and Human lives of New Zealand citizens – men, women, and children, also causing a loss of life and mass OVERNIGHT HOMELESSNESS! YOU ARE FOUND GUILTY OF THIS CRIME MR KEY and must face prosecution! Not only causing trauma to NZ Citizens but also to visiting Tourists. 

    

Therefore, under the order of the 1st Maori Queen for New Zealand Independence as declared by our 1835 Declaration of Independence which has founded a NEW JUSTICE SYSTEM. I demand and order you be dismissed immediately of the duties you have been appointed to, falsely. YOU ARE NOT FIT to be a Prime Minister of any country. And you are certainly not a Minister as in Priestly duties! You are ordered to take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for these disasters, you are not fit to govern New Zealand, and instead your proven work history is in support of MINING Culture endeavours endangering us. You have failed in your Duty of Care obligation by supporting another MINING Initiative science project led disaster here. You failed in your Duty of Care obligation to PROTECT New Zealand citizens and this entire land boundary, its borders and its seas and ALL areas pertaining to the territorial boundary defined as New Zealand. You have failed in personal duty leadership here. I demand you be dismissed even to be arrested. You’re entire Judgement is blurred and deceptive leading to decline and decay of the nation - in running our country into the ground! How dare you continue in this direction.

TAKING BACK THE FULL MANA – AUTHORITY OF AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND FOR INDEPENDENCE As the great great Grand-daughter of Kingi Tawhiao of Tikanga o Tawhiao Marae. And also the original Indigenous Ariki Maori Governor General Kaingaroa who was the mother of Te Puia(another Kingitanga appointment) also a lineage of the Te Arawa Tainui Kingitanga, I also declare: I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN Queen Elizabeth of England and call for ALL her AFFAIRS TO BE DISMANTLED IN NEW ZEALAND. A FULL CLOSURE OF ALL HER KAWANATANGA AFFAIRS is immediate, a call for her representatives return to United Kingdom, Britain also known as England Ingarangi AFTER facing charges here. Huri huri Hoki mai koe! I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE in the Indigenous Tribal Authorities or Individual Maori, who have supported you, up to this point. They are rendered as ineffective in delivering Justice. In a Karanga(call) for Justice they have failed. All Maori language, symbols & signage must be removed supporting Queen Elizabeth and her representation. I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE in the Chief Justice position held by Sian Elias who also failed to act instead supporting the above mention crimes. I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE in the Governor General past Jerry Mataparae or this new replacement - Patsy Reddy. I HAVE NO CONFIDNECE in any and all forms of crown Court Judicial Councils, Commissions who claim an authority whether government or non-Government even PRIVATE, as all have failed to speak out on a serious misconduct of Political Criminal behaviour, against our nation

290

New Zealand. It is with deep disappointment, and grievous dissatisfaction these people be dismissed from duties of employment. Alongside the entire National party government. I also demand an address for the MEDIA involvement of Fairfax & Media works especially, TV1 & TV3 News reports supporting even promoting Intellectual criminal behaviour and I demand Senior employed positions and all influences of arrogance be Prosecuted also. This dictatorship, is a Disaster and your plans for the future are a disaster! This selfish arrogant, adult behaviour is described as the HIGHEST ORDER OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT of AFFAIRS New Zealand has ever experienced in history, as liken unto, participating in War Crimes. And equal to that. And you are held accountable John Key in leading in such! NEW ZEALAND DECLARED UNDER A RETURNED AUTHORITY OF LEADERSHIP In a shift in the Balance of Power of Authority in a FULL RETURNED CLAIM to original Indigenous Ariki Maori leadership as inherited, alongside the inherited Scales of Justice to Judge. I demand and declare an immediate forced changeover of Authority in ‘relief sort’ for the sake of all those directly involved and grievously affected. This letter of Judgement, and order of dismissal must come into play as of the date above specified. And actioned, including a transitional change out from Ingarangi, to claim our Independence, in honouring the1835 Declaration of Independence signed by Te Arawa and Tainui Ariki Chiefs. TE ARAWA Central North Island, of New Zealand. A replacement of affairs to be RETURNED under the Mantle of Leadership held by the Office of Judge Lady Justice at Whakarewarewa, Rotorua. A NEW JUSTICE SYSTEM is immediate and urgent to judge cases, using common sense Understanding, Order, Balance to deliver Justice. Email: [email protected] Phone (07) 562-4605 or (021)135-3097 Thank you. MA TE WA, IN TIME

RangiMarie Kingi MAORI QUEEN NEW ZEALAND INDEPENDENCE, OFFICE OF JUDGE LADY JUSTICE@WHAKAREWAREWA GOVENOR GENERAL Cc: All NZ Political parties, International Court Authorities, Governments of non-english and english speaking nations, and all appropriate authorities

291

625

From: Jerry Douglas Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2017 9:04 a.m. Subject: FW: Another Rates Hike Importance: High

Mayor & Councillors & RDC administration

Submission on Annual Plan

Oppose: * Increase in the General Rates * Introduction of a Museum Targeted Rate * Increase in the Economic Development Rate

Support: * Long term program of maximising the UAGC & commensurate reduction in general rates, as this is more equitable * Move towards more targeting of rates, as this supports user pays * Removal of 100 day B&B rule & replace with a more appropriate user pays system * Long term program of capping the overall quantity of rates to affordability measures * Reduction of non core services * Sale of surplus assets * Long term program of debt reduction to bring the the debt to income ratio nearer to 100%

Signed Jerry Douglas, Chairman, Hamurana and Awahou Ratepayers and Residents Association.

292

626

-----Original Message----From: "Shelly Skiffington" Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017 7:32 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: “complaints”. To Whom It May Concern, My family has & still farms, works & lives in the Waikite & Ngakuru districts for over 40 years. I grew up in these districts & consider myself a true local who after 30 years has now returned home to what I believed would still be a peaceful & quiet rural community. That being said I am not adverse to progress or change but not at any cost. I write this email to voice my concern on two matters. 1. Proposed waste & recycling services. My wife Michelle & I own a five acre life style block & understand the challenges of rural living. I work in Rotorua & Michelle in Tokoroa which both have recycling facilities. In addition we burn, compost & bury appropriate garbage, all other garbage is disposed of on one of our visits to town during the week. I do not feel the need for a recycling service & believe that garbage bins at the end of driveways will detract from the rural atmosphere of our community, add additional safety hazards & on the whole are not required by what is still by & large a rural community who understand how to manage their garbage responsibilities. Whilst believing that a minority may need this service I cannot understand why we & others should be burdened with these additional costs when our city counterparts have a recycle cost component factored into their RDC rates. 2. Targa rally. One year prior to 18/03/17 Michelle & I began planning Michelle’s 40 th birthday celebrations. This involved significant logistical challenges not including guests arriving from several different countries. A few months prior to our event the Targa rally announced they planned to close several roads in the Waikite, Ngakuru & Atiamuri districts to hold their annual event. Being an extreme motorsport enthusiast I am not adverse to events as these & decided I would contact the Targa folk & arrange for ours & their event to be held in conjunction. After several phone calls & emails a plan was struck whereas our road would have a window of passage from 10.15-11.15. A defined route was planned & as agreed, I was at the end of my driveway at 10.00 awaiting an escort car to take me to a neighbouring farm to collect a pig for my wife’s guests dinner. After numerous phone calls at 11.00 an escort car arrived with an extremely rude driver who instructed me to lead the way. 10 minutes later I arrived at my destination, collected the pig, ten minutes later the escort vehicle arrived & I was rudely advised “ I should keep the escort vehicle in my rear view mirror”. When I advised the escort vehicle driver I had not driven fast, needed to collect the pig & didn’t want to delay the race I was further rudely told that he had the “power” told stop me from entering the road. After departing, the escort vehicle followed me to the next intersection the rally was on & I travelled unaccompanied across a non-rally route. Upon arrival at the next intersection of the rally, I was told “f**k of, the road is closed”.

293

626

After discussion the quite vocal “official” was actually a photographer employed on behalf of the Tagra rally. Finally another escort vehicle arrived & I was allowed to drive to my residence. It goes without saying that a sixty kilogram pig on a spit was extremely late in being served. I am still at a loss as to how my compliance with a predetermined plan warranted such abuse. This rude, arrogant, foul behaviour, numerous destroyed roads & fences has now made myself & many residents of our districts resentful of such an event. I feel that the Targa rally folk have become complacent with their empathy to rural communities & after lack of objection believe it their right to hinder, be rude, bombastic & destroy our community serenity. Why should I accept this? In finishing, as of today there are in excess of 30 Targa rally closure announcement signs attached to fence posts, sign posts, bus shelters, power poles & gateways in our districts, the following day I removed the birthday signs for my wife’s celebration. Please let it be known that I & numerous others are tired of this event. I ask that this event is not held in our district for years to come, surely there are other roads that impact less residents………. Kind regards, Richard Skiffington.

294

627

-----Original Message----Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017 10:18 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Annual plan

Robert Okell

I wish to speak I prefer wed pm 24 May

conv 1 It is not clear if an OSET is cheaper than a treatment system. Targetted rates is good, but it appears that some properties will not pay. In addition the operating cost is 3/14 users and 11/14 ratepayers representing a considerable subsidy to their properties of $1.1 million. I propose no scheme and make people comply with the Regional Rule

conv2 giving me x plastic bags that can be taken to a landfill represents no service. Countdown will give me plastic bags for nothing. I still have to bag and cart all my waste to the nearest CP which for me is the landfill 17km away,so no service there. pretending to offer a service is a sham and reprehensible.

I propose no change to the existing as the only thing that is transparent is the plastic bag. This does point the way forward which is to abolish the administration, employ contractors and leave the community to deal directly with the contractors.

conv 3 Where is the cost benefit analysis of the expenditure v income? The building is not that old so why was it not strengthened during the last upgrade? Why was the last upgrade not carried out with its proposed use in mind?

295

627

This is reminiscent of the continual changes to the central city which provide change but no improvement. I propose only strengthening required by statute .

conv 4 If the budget has $400000 less income spend less.

I propose no targetted rate

conv 5 I propose leave the targetted rate in place

rates differentials There has been no information provided of why rating differentials should not remain based on services provided and benefits that accrue.

I propose no change in differentials until real reasons are provided.

farming remission My opinion of remissions is that they are symptom of a rating system that is unfair. remissions are made to try and placate interest groups I propose a review of the rating system that leaves no room for political manoeuvring after the rates have been determined

rates increases The statement is false. Council has no plan to reduce debt within its current term of office. it proposes increasing debt by 15.3 million over three years and increasing rates. We were told that the last step change was a one off now there is a new step change. Councils should not be allowed to make statements that will only come into force after their period of office has expired. My opinion of Councils abilities is well known and the proposed plan only confirms it.

rentals

296

It will probably just increase staff income. I oppose

levels and provide no additional

interfering, both other councils have shelved it.

Other The publication in the weekender was in error stating 30% of waste is general rate.

The annual plan document p24 shows a bar graph with the airport debt as black. There is no part of the graph showing the airport debt which would be expected to be a stacked bar.

627

297

628

Annual Plan as Push Marketing Please Council, cancel the expensive double-page adverts promoting the draft Annual Plan. They repeat the content of the booklet that came through the mail. In the view of many who have contacted me, the PR overkill is yet another waste of rates. The saturation advertising is doubly offensive because it is a poor substitute for genuine consultations. There are no programme plans, budgets or comparisons to previous years’ expenditure in the Annual Plan. Hence, the barrage of adverts is seen as little more than crude political advocacy seen last year in the CEO’s Pre-Election Report. Finally, the draft Annual Plan makes no sense out of context. Residents and ratepayers have waited three years in vain for a district spatial plan. On 27 March this year, for example, a Council Press Release promised “Consultation on future growth and development” in order to integrate “population changes and global and national trends” with local preferences on the “allocation of resources, land use and development of infrastructure and public facilities.” The promise for consultations included an “online hub, public events” and “engaging with groups within geographical areas of interest.” But no promise to consult directly and respectfully with legitimate stakeholders, such as residents and ratepayers. Just repetitious adverts that push market the decisions already made. Reynold Macpherson Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers

298

629

From: Colin Dittmer Sent: Sunday, 7 May 2017 10:04 a.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: Annual Plan

Dear Sir, Madam, Regarding the Annual Plan 2017 / 2018 consultations I would like to comment. I feel that all new work, upgrades, enhancements etc should be halted until all council debt is cleared. In the meantime council should concentrate solely on council duties; which are essential maintenance, repairs, and a much better emphasis on rubbish removal from the streets, parks and walk ways. The same goes for Vision 2030; stop spending rate payers money on bling! But I understand I am too late to submit on this pipe dream. Regards, Colin & Suzanne Dittmer.

299

To: Rotorua Lakes Council

630

Feedback on 2017-18 Annual Plan and Future Planning Sir Howard Morrison Performing Arts Centre: I do not support anything further than earthquake strengthening at this time. The Centre recently had a large amount of money spent on theatre upgrades. The Centre is something that is used by the middle and upper-class residents. We need to focus our money on solving the homeless and low income housing needs. Housing: Sub-division development of middle and upper-income homes does not address the acute shortage of housing for low-income people and families. There needs to be new thinking about how to develop communities. Two-storey, terraced housing with community spaces and community gardens can be lovely. Land is precious. Not everyone wants to have a little patch of lawn to mow. Sub-divisions and industrial and business development should not take over good, fertile farming soils. Beautification: I applaud the beautiful plantings that the Council maintains on all medians and roundabouts. They are second to none in New Zealand and a great joy to all. The ugliest building in our CBD is the Zen Centre. Ideally I would like to see it demolished, but since that is highly unlikely may I suggest screening that huge mirrored façade with plantings. I refer you to 4 Leonard Isitt Drive at the Auckland Airport which has been screened by a woody vine that has climbed up steel cables. Such a planting would provide shade to the building without blocking views from inside, and would provide a carbon sink. Environment: we need to take immediate action to protect our lakes and waterways. All storm water drains should be designed to flow into settling ponds before they continue to the lakes and the sea. All stream margins need to be planted to prevent runoff, and, of course, fenced to prevent stock entering waterways. We need to control pest species everywhere including in the CBD – rats, feral cats, stoats and possums. All city vehicles should be electric with many free charging stations available to the public as well. That would be a small step toward reducing our carbon emissions. Recycling: We need to make Rotorua plastic bag free. Surely with our local pine forests and the Kawerau mill all stores could be using paper bags, if people do not bring their own shopping bags. We need to find a way to recycle ALL plastics as is possible in Auckland. Once a month there should be free collection of large items such as mattresses, furniture, and appliances, so that material is not dumped by the roadside. Cyway and City Focus and Pedestrians: Unfortunately the cycle way through the CBD is almost never used. It should be removed, and the parking restored. Likewise, the City Focus is no longer the pleasant meeting place it used to be. The sails should be restored to protect us from the summer sun and winter rain. Cars should not be allowed to pass through. Our city needs to be safe for pedestrians. Pedestrians and bicycles should have the right of way at ALL crossings and roundabouts. In conclusion: I would like to see Council focus on making this a liveable, beautiful city for our residents first, before making it an ever more desirable tourist destination. We must provide homes for the homeless. We must get all children into creative and friendly early education centres. We must take care of our precious lakes and our whole environment.

Respectfully submitted by Delight Gartlein,

300

-----Original Message----From: "Alan Deverson" Sent: Friday, 5 May 2017 8:56 p.m. To: "'RDC Mail'" Subject: Submission on annual plan I wish to make an oral presentation on the following topics Waste collection and recycling centre Revamp of airport Revamp of Convention Centre Art work around city Advertising in press Alan Deverson

631

301

Rotorua Lakes Council Annual Plan Submission 2017

Short Term Rentals: I see in the RLC Consultation Flyer that short term rentals are “something other councils are grappling with”. What exactly are they grappling with ? And what are the issues ? If it is the supposed commercial use of the property then I see no difference between someone making a financial return from a short term rental or a long term rental. In fact the short term rental probably requires less use of the council services and infrastructure than a permanently rented property. I would also suggest that a short term rental let to tourists visiting Rotorua brings more money into the region than a long term rental. There are also a large number of other Home Based Businesses (hair dressers, builders, plumbers, beauticians, lawyers, automotive repairs, massage, canvas covers, accountants, dress makers, IT, etc) in Rotorua paying residential rates. Why is council singling out one use and how could council justify this as fair and equitable ? A lot of the properties on Airbnb and booking.com people who only rent spare bedrooms – not the entire property. How does council envisage calculating what part of the Rates is commercial and what part residential ? A number of the properties on these sites are also only available for short term rental part of the year. Some are private homes that may be only rented 2 or 3 weeks a year when the owners are themselves away on holiday. If the issue is that there are a couple of short term rental properties that are causing issues for their neighbours then this needs to be addressed by the same rules that apply to everyone. If it’s a noise issue or a health issue there are rules in place to deal with that. This is no different to a long term rental or person operating another type of business from home. There is also the availability of tourist accommodation in Rotorua. Obviously, there is a demand for this type of holiday accommodation or people would not be doing it. Many of these guests are overseas visitor and if Rotorua does not offer this type of accommodation they may stay in towns that do or just not visit New Zealand at all. You mention 2 booking sites but there are hundreds of online travel sites where people can book accommodation. What will the cost of monitoring and enforcing a different rating policy for short term rentals be ? I would think the cost of trying to implement and enforce a different rate for short term rental would far outweigh any extra rate income. I strongly suggest that council do NOT pursue this. Museum recovery targeted rate Fully support this. This work needs to be done asap please. Waste Services Support the proposals for 100% targeted rate. It seems reasonable that everyone pays their fair share. And also support removing option to opt-out.

302

Performing Arts Centre Support earthquake strengthening – this has to be done. Don’t know enough about upgrade to comment - what portion of the $6.5m relates to this or what is proposed. Lakes Community Board If the Boards work is relevant to all rate payers and residents of the District, which I imagine it is, then it should be funded by all.

Thanks and Regards Trevor Newbrook

303

304

305

306

307

From: RLC engagement team [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 1:28 p.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: Anonymous User completed Feedback Form - Annual Plan 2017-18

Anonymous User just submitted the survey 'Feedback Form - Annual Plan 2017-18' with the responses below. Title Other How do you identify? (Will remain confidential) Other First name Kepa Family name Morgan Name of organisation (if you are representing an organisation) Haumingi 10a2b Trust Phone (Will remain confidential) 022-4362324 Email Address (Will remain confidential) [email protected] Address (Will remain confidential) 1504 State Highway 30, Rotoiti Forest, Rotorua I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Yes If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit)

308

AM - Tuesday 23rd May AM - Wednesday 24th May Conversation #1 – Proposed East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme for 770 lake properties: A preferred option approved by Council has been progressed in collaboration with a community-led steering committee and the estimated capital cost of the proposed scheme is $34.5m with $25.9m in subsidies from the Ministry of Health, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Ministry for the Environment and Rotorua Lakes Council. Council will incur the difference in total cost and subsidies up front, resulting in $9.8m in additional borrowing during the 2018/19 and 2019/20 financial years. After subsidy the cost per property is $12,900 and Council proposes introducing a targeted rate for this. Following construction of the scheme there will be an on going cost to all ratepayers resulting in an increase of 8% or $37 dollars. Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 8 of the Annual Plan? No My Feedback is: Two community hui held on Easter Monday (17 April 2017) with Council representatives clearly opposed the use of low pressure grinder pumps for the Rotomā community. STEP was considered the better system on offer. There were people at the Rotoma meeting who wanted to opt-out completely and install an OSET system that complies with BOP Regional Council rules. STEP is a poor substitute for Biolytix and our preference is that the Rotomā community also uses a Biolytix pod along with Rotoiti. We are aware that the Biolytix effluent contains too high a concentration of Total Nitrogen (for the Rotorua Lakes catchments) and this is part of the rationale to pipe Rotoiti's Biolytix treated effluent away for further treatment. As the Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) and Total suspended solids (TSS) maximum concentrations found in the Biolytix effluent are well below those given by BOP Regional Council (OSET National Testing Programme, 2015), we recommend the following: 1. Rotoiti AND Rotoma communities use a Biolytix OSET system. This will reduce the need for the MBR treatment plant being proposed at Haumingi 9B3B and will significantly reduce the overall project cost. 2. Effluent from each community is piped to 2 much smaller, not the very expensive MBR, treatment facilities (1 in Rotoiti and 1 in Rotomā) that reduce the Total Nitrogen concentrations before dispersal to land. Alternatively, the excess N is used for crop development in the dispersal field. Having a treatment 'hub' in each community is much more culturally acceptable as it avoids transferring paru from one watershed to another. Furthermore, Rotoiti and Rotoma have different demographics. Why is Council proposing to transport untreated (LPGP) or semi-treated (STEP) sewage from a community with a higher proportion of Pakehā to a community that has a high proportion of Māori? Each community should deal with their own faeces and urine! This is not a new practice by Councils and in the event that this bias is 'unconscious', we draw this to your attention. 3) The costings for this project seem outrageous. The Rotoiti and Rotomā communities need to see the full costings for this project as we are having to pay for it. We understand the the per pod cost of the Biolytix system is approximately $7.5K. How can Council then justify the per household cost pre-subsidy of $52K? This is simply too high and implies that approximately $44K per household goes towards a treatment plant (MBR) that is not needed or wanted by our

309

community. 4) Staying with the costings - many households will find it difficult to pay the lump sum of $14-15K and so are stuck with the 25 year payment plan of approximately $1000 per year. How can Council justify these households paying almost double ($25K) over that period? Again, this cost is not necessary if both communities use Biolytix and the treatment plant/s focus on reducing Total N only (since cBOD5 and TSS are already well below the levels required for dispersal). 5) It looks like you/Council are determined to build an over the top treatment facility at Haumingi 9B3B. Is this to facilitate further housing development? Why is the treatment plant being located in the community that is very much a Māori community. It happened at Okahu Bay (Auckland) and Mangere (Auckland). There is learning there. 6) There should be the option for those who are well distanced from the Lake to opt-out. 7) We are not interested in paying an upfront payment in the 2017/18 year when Rotoiti does not get added to the scheme until August 2019. I suspect many of our community will feel the same. 8) How are Maori going to be involved in the review of these submissions? Conversation #2 - Three changes proposed for waste services A move to a 100% targeted rate for waste services is proposed. Currently 20% of the cost of waste services comes from the general rate and the proposed change will make costs for these services more transparent and more readily enable potential future changes. It’s also proposed all ratepayers be charged for the service, removing the current opt-out option and ensuring every property has access to the Council service. 1400 rural properties currently have no direct waste services and it is proposed services be extended to these communities. This would introduce a new targeted rate for these ratepayers. Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 10 of the Annual Plan? No Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Yes My Feedback is: No Answer Conversation #3 – Performing Arts Centre Council proposes undertaking earthquake strengthening of the Sir Howard Morrison Performing Arts Centre and at the same time refurbishing to cater for national and international performances and for the needs of the local performing arts community. The total estimated cost would be $6.5m, to be spread across two years. Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? No My feedback is:

310

We prefer Option 2 - just do the work that needs to be done. Conversation #4 – Introducing a Museum recovery targeted rate It is proposed every rateable property be charged an additional $14.20 per year – the same for everyone regardless of capital values. The rate would apply only until the museum re-opens. The alternative is to fund the shortfall – about $400,000 per year – through the general rate which would result in an average 1% rates increase for each rateable property (based on capital values). Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 15 of the Annual Plan? No My feedback is: Fund the short-fall through rates charged based on the CV of rateable properties. Conversation #5 - Removal of community board targeted rate It is proposed Council’s funding policy be updated to allow for partnership/community boards to be fully funded through the general rate. This would see the removal of the existing targeted rate for the Lakes Community Board ($21.50 per property covered by the board). Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Yes My feedback is: Consistency is required. Rating differentials Pause on the current programme that aimed to return rating differentials to 1.0 for rural residential and business. My feedback is: Differentials should remain for fairness. As rural residents, we do not have the comforts of urban residents e.g. good, safe footpaths; a library; children's playgrounds; bus service; cycle lanes removed from the road, a satellite council building. Farming remission Reduce remission by 50% in preparation of likely removal of it in the next Long-term Plan. My feedback is:

311

We support this and the complete removal of the remission because dairy farming has an adverse effect on the environment - in particular, surface and groundwater. Rates increases An average 3.8% rates rise is proposed for the 2017/18 financial year. This includes a 0.5% targeted rate to cover a revenue shortfall caused by the unexpected closure of Rotorua Museum. The other 3.3% base general rate increase is required to fund growth and critical projects and reduce debt over the long term. My feedback is: This increase can be reduced if some sensible planning was done with the Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme. It is taking far too long and many residents in Rotoiti and Rotomā are still confused as to why reticulation is needed (for everyone rather than those who septic tanks are failing) and the difference between LPGP, STEP, OSET and Biolytix. We were in the Environment Court in 2011 and are concerned that Council staff are still bumbling along forcing communities to reticulate with sub-standard, expensive solutions. Is it time for you to get rid of certain staff? They're a huge cost to us, the rate payers. Short-term rental accommodation Addressing the impact of a proliferation of short-term rentals (eg those advertised on sites like Book a Bach and AirBnB) is something other councils are grappling with. Rotorua Lakes Council wants to know if locals want more rigorous regulation of this type of accommodation. My feedback is: No. There's quite a difference between a hotel and a private home offering lodging occasionally to visitors. The differential factor cannot be justified in our opinion. General Comments Do you have any other general comments? My feedback is: Our side of the road (even numbers on State Highway 30, Rotoiti Forest) needs a good footpath well removed from the road. It is very dangerous walking anywhere there. Debt: Council should not borrow any more than is absolutely required and should be focused on reducing debt. Council could save $9.8M if Rotoiti/Rotomā were to downgrade the proposed treatment plant at Rotoiti. An MBR is not required if the effluent is highly treated at source ie use Biolytix in both Rotoiti and Rotomā. We reiterate that: a satellite council office at Rotoiti would be appreciated (perhaps once a week and rotate between all our marae?); Maori need to be involved in reviewing the submissions.

312

634 From: "Lynne Reardon" Sent: Wednesday, 10 May 2017 12:18 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Annual Plan Submission Please find attached my Annual Plan Submission. I found it very confusing using you Annual Plan page to find where I could submit a submission using my format and not yours. Please acknowledge that it has been received in time for the submission process. Lynne Reardon Annual Plan Submission 2 May 2017 1. East Rotoiti Rotoma Sewerage Scheme I have read all of the literature sent to me by Rotorua District Council on this scheme and nowhere have you informed me that the scheme that was consulted on and agreed to back in 2014 has been objected to by iwi. We own a property at Rotoma but live in town and it was only when we cleared the letter box at Rotoma that a leaflet from the RRSSC alerted us to the situation. Many ratepayers at Rotoma and Rotoiti do not live out there and you should be sending information to their mail address not leaving it to chance that they will clear their letterbox. Poor communication on this issue. The Lake Rotoma community has repeatedly missed out on development because of Council’s inability to engage and get the support of local iwi. The much hailed “partnership” with Te Arawa has been totally ineffective for our community. It is no surprise that it is the only Lake that has not seen the capital gain of other Lakes. Will the sewerage scheme end in the same vein as the transfer station - endless expense on consultation and no result. For the sake of the health of the Lake and the community the sewerage scheme needs to go ahead. The longer the delay the greater the cost - both monetary and environmentally. I believe that Hamurana residents, with less subsidy, only had to pay $7,000 and yet we are looking at $15,000 plus. It is a quandary that those residents with money who are able to pay for the scheme in one hit will pay substantially less than those without money who have to drip feed the payment. The interest rate charged needs to be looked at to ensure that Council is not charging more than necessary for this scheme - as they did the Water Scheme for many years. Levying the money for the scheme prior to any work being done is putting the cart before the horse and given the history of projects in this area it is likely that Council would have our money for some time before any work is done. I strongly object to the rate being levied in July 2017. Will Council pay interest on any money collected for the project if there are delays. Council need to engage with the community and get this done. Put the resources in to talk to the community and get agreement. If iwi were truly concerned about the health of the Lakes then this would be a priority and these stalling tactics would cease. Council needs to progress the project for the greater good of the community - which is what Council’s job is. 2. Eastern Corridor By gifting back the land that was purchased, with foresight, for an Eastern Corridor, Council consigned Rotorua to a bottleneck in our eastern accessway. Tinkering with SH30 may

313

634 ease congestion for a time but if Rotorua ever gets the growth that this Council keeps promising then we will have congestion. To try to find a solution to the problem after giving up the option that had been planned and scoped decades ago, indicates a lack of understanding in how cities are planned and an ineptitude in future proofing our city. 3. Targeted Rate for Waste Services The change to the waste collection services has been excellent. With a few communication teething issues Council has implemented a scheme that is effective and much more time efficient than taking my recycling to the transfer station. As long as the new scheme does not impose additional costs on ratepayers - then well done. 4. Staffing Levels I would like to know how the current staff levels compare to the numbers that were employed prior to the redundancies made in 2014. (Official information request) Given that rates have not decreased and services have not noticeably increased (there is an argument that they have in fact decreased) there was absolutely no reason to treat long serving staff so appallingly. Treating staff as mere inputs in the production process never has good outcomes. 5. Regulation of Book a Bach and Air BnB Keep your nose out and do not bow to the pressure exerted by accommodation businesses to regulate this area. It is none of your business if people are using their spare bedrooms to earn extra cash. (They need it to pay for the rates increase). If people are choosing alternative accommodation to traditional accommodation, the traditional providers need to lift their game or reduce their charges - supply and demand. 7. Rates Increase Council indicated that the large increase in rates in 2015 was a one off increase to put Council back onto a sound financial footing. To then propose a 4% increase so soon after, shows a lack of awareness of the situation of many of your ratepayers and is against the promise of inflation only increases for the next 9 years of the LTP. Given inflation is currently around 2% there is no justification for a rate increase of almost double that amount. Cut your cloth according to your income - do not seek to constantly increase your income at ratepayers expense. 6. Lake Rotoma (Oxford Road) Playground For the 10th year in a row - could we see some upgrade of the facilities in this playground. We have watched over the decade the renewal in equipment at many playgrounds in the region and still our park waits. The one goal post waits. The children of Rotoma wait. My children no longer wait because they have waited so long they are no longer children. Lynne Reardon

314

ROTORUA LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL 2017 ANNUAL PLAN

SUBMISSION FROM ROGER LOVELESS

315

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

Submitter Details............................................................................................................ 3

2.

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3

3.

Evidence Based Planning .............................................................................................. 3

4.

Future Footpath Use. ..................................................................................................... 5

5.

Examples of Access Issues ........................................................................................... 5

6.

Comments on Conversations ......................................................................................... 6

7.

Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 7

316

1. Submitter Details I have very recently moved to Rotorua and have a strong interest in ensuring our infrastructure is fit for use by everyone. I retired from CCS Disability Action in April 2016 where I worked as an access coordinator and was responsible for introducing the idea of providing street accessibility audits for local authorities. As an active user of an electric wheelchair, access to our footpaths, public buildings, commercial premises, parks and gardens is important to me, and advocating for improvements in these areas will have benefits for very many people. Now being a resident of Rotorua means I am developing a much better idea of where improvements can be made. My decision to move to Rotorua with my wife after 39 years as residents of Hamilton was made so we could be closer to our family, including two granddaughters. We were also attracted by the vibrancy of the city and a number of its facilities including recent developments in the Redwoods.

2. Introduction I would firstly like to congratulate Rotorua Lakes District Council, RLDC, for opening up their annual plan to submissions. I am very aware that under recent legislative changes local authorities are not obliged to do so unless they wish to consult on matters they deem of material significance. I recognise that 2017 is year 3 of the previous long term plan and that 2018 will see full consultation for the following 10 years. This submission quite deliberately does not cover issues in detail, but the challenge I place before RLDC is to take a close look at its existing infrastructure, changes of usage, and to plan for a future population demographic that is and will be significantly different from that which existed when much of that infrastructure was first built. In particular the incidence of disability has increased significantly, partly as a result of people living longer, but also due to improvements in medical care. Many people also still do not recognise the full range of disabilities in the community and the expectation that those with disabilities lead lives as normal as possible in their community. Although people with intellectual and psychological impairments are less common than those with sensory of mobility impairments, they do comprise a significant proportion of our population. Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, ratified by New Zealand, places an obligation on Council. It requires that “States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to people with disabilities, access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, transportation, information and communications, communications technologies and systems, and other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and rural areas. These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia (a) Buildings, roads, transportation….”

3. Evidence Based Planning It is good to note that RLDC has commissioned a Street Accessibility Audit for a part of its jurisdiction. This will provide a useful planning resource and it is hoped the issues identified will raise awareness of deficiencies that will be found throughout the region. I note the details on footpaths included in the KPI report to Councils Operations and Monitoring Committee held on Thursday, 4 May 2017 and am rather surprised that

317

Attachment 1, page 32 seems to indicate little concern with them. It includes a performance measure target of greater than or equal to 98% for all footpaths to be condition four or better: this to be measured by a random annual sample for which the last result was 100%. Whilst I can believe this measure may indicate that footpaths are in a satisfactory state to provide the level of service they were originally designed for, many would no longer be providing the level of service appropriate to today’s needs. By way of example, there are 57 new lots almost all now built on at the end of Iles Road with relatively wide footpaths on both sides of the street. However when pedestrians wish to travel down the road to Te Ngae Road they must negotiate a section of carriageway with a narrow footpath on one side of the road only. Over this section pedestrian traffic would not only have increased due to those living in the new houses, but also from recreational users taking advantage of a pedestrian pathway from Brundon Place to make a pleasant walking route. One of the foundations of good planning is to have a clear idea of the levels of service we wish to provide for our citizens and not to assume that a lack of concerns raised is a sign that we are meeting people’s needs. Levels of service will depend on usage patterns and the facilities RLDC decides to provide for its citizens and increasing numbers of visitors of all descriptions. I would suggest that to enable the 2018 LTP to better reflect the needs of the city, resources be found to assess the extent and state of the existing infrastructure, monitor usage patterns and determine potential costs of bringing it up to a common, district wide level of service that has been agreed with the ratepayers. The levels of service should be agreed using the current usage levels and demographic, not only on who is using the footpaths, but also those who would wish to use them if they were able. Changes in the numbers using, or wishing to use, footpaths can be a safety issue and are as a result of, for example:       

Construction of older person’s villages and rest homes. Infill housing. Extension of cul de sacs to areas of new housing. Construction or extension of schools. Construction of new commercial premises. Incidence of people with disabilities in the community. Increased safety risk when crossing busy highways.

When considering changes such as this it may well be that original designs, often including the use of a narrow footpath on one side of the road, are no longer fit for purpose and should be upgraded. There are also some cases of streets with no footpaths whatsoever. At this stage of the LTP cycle, determining the resources required to meet this requirement would seem important, as this would then allow planning to achieve the desired result to be fed into the 2018-28 LTP consultation process. The findings may well be considered too expensive to address but, with knowledge of the demographics, prioritisation becomes possible and the long term plan can become the vehicle to make improvements over an achievable time span. Another issue that affects the disability community is that where they wish to make a full journey, that journey can become impossible due to even one access issue which in many cases could be easily remedied. Identification of such issues can often make a significant difference at limited cost. A commitment to building a body of evidence in the current year will enable the levels of service that the council proposes in the next long term plan to be agreed upon by the council in consultation with an informed public. Furthermore, knowing the scale of resources required to provide the agreed level of service provides evidence that may be useful in order to seek funding from non-traditional sources.

318

4. Future Footpath Use. I am aware that NZTA is actively considering opening up the use of all footpaths to use by cyclists, which in itself will significantly change usage patterns. Of particular concern must be the likely impact of electrically powered personal mobility devices which are becoming available at rapidly reducing costs. Where a path is to be shared, that path must have adequate width to allow safe passing in both directions, and in Rotorua this is often not the case. For Councillors information I attach a paper to the NZ Road Controlling Authorities Shared Footpaths Working Group on behalf of CCS Disability Action, Living Streets Aotearoa, VICTA (Vision Impaired Charitable Trust Aotearoa), Alzheimers New Zealand and the Blind Foundation. Whilst the issues included in the paper have yet to be accepted by the Working Group, they will need to be addressed. Whilst safety is of paramount importance, social inclusion is also an important footpath function, as they enable everyone (including vulnerable users) to participate without facing barriers or discrimination. As our population ages, it is vital that agencies responsible for transport infrastructure, policy, planning and funding recognise the role they have in providing an accessible environment that all people can use. A potential unintended consequence is that if footpaths are available to cycles and other personal transport devices, albeit with conditions, then cyclists and other personal transport device users may believe they have an inferred right to use those routes over and above the rights of pedestrians, and not make allowance for them. Furthermore, motorists may also infer that cyclists and other personal transport device users should not be permitted on the roadway. To achieve inclusive, accessible footpaths, the benefit cost analyses used must not only consider the reduction in accidents that will enhance safety, but also recognise that pedestrian infrastructure is also an enabler for many people, including those who have an impairment and who are vulnerable, to participate in society.

5. Examples of Access Issues Even in the few short weeks I have lived in Rotorua I have identified several access issues that need to be addressed.





My new residence at 105 Iles Road has good footpaths but beyond the extent of new housing the footpaths linking towards Te Ngae Road reduce to one side of the road and I find it necessary to use the road carriageway in places where there are no kerb cutouts and at the intersection with Blackmore Drive where it is far too steep to negotiate safely. There is a rear entrance to the Neil Hunt recreation area off Lynbert Road. This has wooden barriers that I cannot negotiate and the path down to the lower area has a series of small steps that would be a trip hazard for any elderly people wishing to use it. This path clearly predates the older persons rest homes in the area but could form a part of a very pleasant off road route for recreational use by them.

319







Many footpaths in the older areas are narrow and in a poor state. They are often difficult to negotiate in an electric wheelchair or scooter and are on only one side of the road. Lewis Road is an example. There are no provisions for disabled persons using wheels to move along Long Mile Road, and there is very limited level access to the communal area outside the visitors centre from the carpark due to log barriers. At the corner of Amohau and Amohia Streets is a Dry Cleaning business. For some reason motor vehicles are permitted to cross the footpath at any time to stop outside the front door to drop off and pick up items. This is hazardous to persons with sensory impairments and is something many people would not be expecting as there are almost no visual clues that vehicles may cross at that point.

6. Comments on Conversations I note the reference to a number of conversations in the annual plan document. I have some observations on several as follows.  Waste Management Services. As new residents, in a new house, we still await delivery of the new bins as clearly there have been delivery problems with them. I have noted that on some streets they almost totally block the footpath on rubbish days, which is unacceptable as they force pedestrians to move on to the road way. I am fortunate that I am married to an able bodied person who can move them around but it seems a number of issues have not been adequately addressed prior to roll out of the scheme. When the bins are beside the road, I am not aware of any additional parking restrictions that would assist the pickup trucks from gaining unobstructed access to the bins. I assume there are provisions for the bins to be collected from premises occupied by persons unable to move them as a result of disability.  Performing Arts Centre. As with other councils, there are concerns with many facilities as a result of recent enhancements to seismic strength requirements for buildings. As a supporter of the performing arts I would be happy to see the building refurbished but it seems that the project has been advanced significantly due to a perceived need for urgent seismic strengthening. If the project were delayed for say 3- 5 years it would give time to investigate alternative strengthening options that may be cheaper as a result of more innovative approaches. It would also give time to investigate alternative funding methods. Seismic strengthening of this building must surely also be a lower priority than bringing the museum up to acceptable standards and re-opening it as a matter of urgency.  Museum Recovery Targeted Rate. I find it difficult to accept the concept of a targeted rate to cover a shortfall whilst the museum is closed. There must surely be visitors still wishing to learn about and appreciate the museum offering and it would seem the use of temporary accommodation for them would be welcomed and a targeted rate to get something open much sooner would seem a better option. It would also enable staff to be re-employed. The museum is one of New Zealand’s iconic buildings and should remain being celebrated without undue interruption. I wonder if a section of the Events Centre could be set aside for temporary accommodation or whether other options were considered.

320

7. Conclusions 



  

I believe at this stage of the LTP cycle the opportunity should be taken to gather the data necessary to enable consultation on access issues, in particular footpaths, to include informed discussion with residents using far better information than is currently available to them. I have noted a number of access issues I have noted in the short time I have been a resident of Rotorua, and it would seem a more active method of identifying such issues across the region is necessary. Such issues should be sought out, rather than merely depend on complaints being received. It appears the introduction of the new waste management process has been poorly thought through, especially with respect to the bins obstructing the footpaths and kerb side. Rather than treating refurbishment of the Performing Arts Centre as an immediate priority I suggest delaying this work for 3-5 years whilst urgent attention is given to re-opening the museum. To lessen the impact of visitor numbers and museum staff, several having been laid off, I suggest temporary accommodation for the museum be considered. This would seem a far better use of a targeted rate than merely to cover a shortfall due to closure.

I wish to speak to my submission.

Attachment: Analysis of footpath regulation and guidelines and gap analysis for Road Controlling Authorities (RCA) Shared Footpaths Working Group Prepared by CCS Disability Action, Living Streets Aotearoa, VICTA (Vision Impaired Charitable Trust Aotearoa) Alzheimers New Zealand and the Blind Foundation.

321

Analysis of footpath regulation and guidelines and gap analysis for Road Controlling Authorities (RCA) Shared Footpaths Working Group

Prepared by CCS Disability Action, Living Streets Aotearoa, VICTA (Vision Impaired Charitable Trust Aotearoa) Alzheimers New Zealand and the Blind Foundation

1

322

Acknowledgements The advocacy groups would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of Susan Mellsopp and Roger Loveless, both formerly of CCS Disability Action, in preparing this paper.

Disclaimer This paper is designed to be a discussion paper and reflects some of the issues for consideration which the advocacy groups deem important to any policy decision regarding the use of footpaths and shared footpaths. It is expected that as the RCA Forum Shared Footpaths Working Group progresses through this work, the discussion will evolve and new issues will need to be addressed. To this end, the advocacy groups reserve their right to amend their position on any particular issue.

2

323

Executive Summary This discussion paper analyses the policy regimes in New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore and USA and assesses the regulation, enforcement, education and monitoring regimes regarding footpaths. Most of the regulatory regimes in other countries do regulation well but little else, with enforcement being largely reactionary. Many of the countries reviewed have regulation which focuses on what is being used (bicycles, personal mobility aids or devices and other powered devices) rather than how they are being used (including regulating speeds or user priority). Monitoring and evaluation of footpath regulations, as a whole, do not assess the impacts of regulation (or its absence) on the full range of pedestrians using the infrastructure. While safety is of paramount importance, social inclusion is also an important footpath function, as they enable everyone (including vulnerable users) to participate without facing barriers or discrimination. As our population ages, it is vital that agencies responsible for transport infrastructure, policy, planning and funding recognise the role they have in providing an accessible environment that all people can use. A potential unintended consequence is that if footpaths are available to cycles and other personal transport devices, albeit with conditions, then cyclists and other personal transport device users may believe they have an inferred right to use those routes over and above the rights of pedestrians, and not make allowance for them. Furthermore, motorists may also infer that cyclists and other personal transport device users should not be permitted on the roadway. Careful consideration of these issues is required in the development of any regulatory changes relating to footpath use in New Zealand. To achieve inclusive, accessible footpaths, the benefit cost analyses used must not only consider the reduction in accidents that will enhance safety, but also recognise that pedestrian infrastructure is also an enabler for many people, including those who have an impairment and who are vulnerable, to participate in society. Research is necessary to quantify these benefits and planning guidelines issued by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) should reflect the results of the research. Significant gaps have been identified in the literature reviewed, and highlight the need for a sound policy approach for New Zealand footpaths, in order to ensure that the entire transport system functions for the benefit of all users. To this end, this paper proposes a number of inclusive principles which must be considered when determining the policy response (including the policy ‘tools’ of regulation, education, incentives, monitoring and enforcement): 1. That accessibility for all and safety for all must be central to the decision-making process. 2. Any regulatory regime needs to protect the transport choice for those who have the least amount of transport choices/options. Infrastructure must be

3

324

3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

4

designed for all users, including potential users who currently may fear using it due to perceived or real safety concerns; That any policy response/regulatory regime must provide an analysis of how the proposed rules meet the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities; That an evidence base regarding the use of footpaths needs to be progressed in order to develop the level of sophistication which the car-related component of our transport system currently has. Co-development between government agencies with a transport mandate and advocates is the best approach; That practical and achievable enforcement is required, as is a robust monitoring programme in order to understand the impact of any new rules (and therefore any amendments should the regime not be working); That there needs to be a hierarchy of footpaths (whereby the footpath on the quiet suburban street with low traffic volumes is still very much the realm of the pedestrian) which is based on the assumption that the footpath is primarily infrastructure which is designed for pedestrians; That co-design – whereby NZTA, local government and advocates determine the policy response – is best practice and should be adopted as the preferred method for this work.

325

Table of Contents 1

Introduction ................................................................................................... 6

2

Definitions ..................................................................................................... 6 2.1

Pedestrian ..................................................................................................... 7

2.2

Personal Transport Device ............................................................................ 7

2.3

Footpath ........................................................................................................ 7

2.4

Shared Path .................................................................................................. 7

2.5

Segregated or Dedicated Path ...................................................................... 8

3

Analysis of the Regulatory Regimes ............................................................. 8 3.1

New Zealand ................................................................................................. 8

3.2

Australia ........................................................................................................ 9

3.3

United Kingdom........................................................................................... 10

3.4

Canada ....................................................................................................... 10

3.5

Singapore .................................................................................................... 10

3.6

USA ............................................................................................................. 11

4

Gap analysis and discussion ....................................................................... 12 4.1

Education .................................................................................................... 12

4.2

Monitoring use and enforcement ................................................................. 12

4.3

Monitoring of pedestrian injury .................................................................... 12

4.4

Education and Enforcement ........................................................................ 15

4.5

Obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons .. 16

4.6

Availability for All ......................................................................................... 16

4.7

Inferred Rights............................................................................................. 17

4.8

Respect for Sensory Impaired ..................................................................... 17

4.10 Data and Statistics ...................................................................................... 18 4.11 Minimum Standards .................................................................................... 19 5

Inclusive Principles...................................................................................... 20

6

Conclusions................................................................................................. 20

About Us .................................................................................................................. 22

5

326

1

Introduction

The Road Controlling Authorities Forum Shared Footpaths Working Group (the Working Group) is tasked with considering regulatory regimes, policy and planning guidance relating to footpaths and shared paths. At the Working Group meeting on 18 August 2016, the advocacy groups (CCS Disability Action, Living Streets Aotearoa, VICTA (Vision Impaired Charitable Trust Aotearoa), Alzheimers New Zealand and the Blind Foundation) agreed to review publicly available information on footpaths in selected countries to identify current gaps in guidelines and policy regimes. This discussion paper covers these organisations’ views on the use of footpaths for presentation to the Working Group. We begin by analysing regulatory regimes relating to footpath use in New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore and USA. The monitoring, education and enforcement of footpath use within these countries is also discussed. A gap analysis provides a commentary on some of the key issues which must be addressed when considering any change to footpath use in New Zealand. This section concludes with a set of inclusive principles which the advocacy groups deem vital to any policy decision regarding footpaths in New Zealand.

2

Definitions

It is important to recognise that although many terms are defined in various regulations and guidelines, understanding of these terms may not be particularly clear. With the proliferation of electrically powered personal transport devices, even the definitions of pedestrian and bicycle is not always clear. The following definitions have been used in this discussion paper, except when referring to alternative definitions from referenced documents. In New Zealand, the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA)1 appears to rely on historic common law interpretations. Simple terms such as ‘pedestrian’ have been made complex. In the case of ‘pedestrian’ there is no definition in the LTA, but the following definition is used in New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) guidelines: Any person on foot or who is using a powered wheelchair or mobility scooter or a wheeled means of conveyance propelled by human power, other than a cycle.2 NZTA also define ‘mobility devices’ under their low powered vehicles guidelines for mobility scooters as follows: Under traffic law, mobility devices are vehicles:

1 2

6

Land Transport Act 1998. Source: www.legislation.govt.nz https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/pedestrian-planning-guide/docs/pedestrian-planning-guide.pdf page 5

327

designed and constructed for people needing help with mobility because of physical or neurological impairment  powered solely by a motor of up to 1500 watts. Under existing law, Segways are not mobility devices.3 

There have already been concerns raised over conflict on footpaths between able bodied people walking and people using such devices. 2.1 Pedestrian For the purposes of this paper, we have assumed a narrow definition of pedestrian that refers only to ambulant people walking on paths. This narrower definition does not require a distinction to be made between personal transport devices designed for those with disabilities, sometimes classified as pedestrians, and for able bodied people. 2.2 Personal Transport Device For the purposes of this paper this is a generic term used for relatively low speed (less than 8 km/hr) transportation devices primarily designed for use by a single person, whether solely human powered or motorised. This would include those designed for fully ambulant persons, disabled persons and the elderly. 2.3 Footpath A footpath is defined in the New Zealand Pedestrian Planning Design Guide4 as “the part of road or other public place built and laid out for pedestrian use”. For the purposes of this paper, the design intention of footpaths is considered the determining factor, which is that a footpath is primarily designed for ambulant persons walking along it. In some jurisdictions footpaths may be called footways, sidewalks, pavements or walkways. Walking speeds of up to around 6km/hr would be the normal expectation for footpaths. 2.4 Shared Path This term is used widely, but for the purposes of this paper shared paths are deemed to be paths that are primarily designed to not only provide safe passage for ambulant pedestrians who are walking, but also for various other categories of individuals who may be using personal transport devices. This concept appears to have assumed the other categories will be conventional bicycles. Shared paths can be either off road or at the road side. On shared paths it would be normal to have a group of users moving at up to 6km/hr with other faster users sharing the path. Within this, there is an expectation that there would be provision for safely passing slower users. In some jurisdictions these are referred to as multi-use paths.

3 4

7

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/vehicle-types/low-powered-vehicles/mobility-scooters/ https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/pedestrian-planning-guide/

328

2.5 Segregated or Dedicated Path Various terms are used for paths designed for specific types of user. Many dedicated paths have been designed specifically for bicycles. For the purposes of this paper they are considered primarily designed for classes of road user other than ambulant people who are walking, and allow movement at speeds well in excess of walking pace.

3

Analysis of the Regulatory Regimes

Regulations relating to footpaths in jurisdictions in Australia, the United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA) and Canada were found to operate in a similar way to those in New Zealand. They generally prohibit certain categories of personal transport device from being used on footpaths, but are supported by a proliferation of local requirements and bylaws. This section discusses some of the key aspects of regulatory regimes in these different jurisdictions, including legislation relating to footpath use which was recently adopted in Singapore. 3.1 New Zealand The regulations in New Zealand aim to control movement on the various classes of path by considering the types of user or the types of personal transport device that can use them. Hence, the definition of a pedestrian has been expanded to include users of electric wheelchairs and scooters which can frequently travel at speeds far in excess of walking pace. As a proxy for speed control, limits are placed on the power output or capacity of engines for personal transport devices that can be used on various types of path and the roadway. There is also a dispensation for users of wheeled recreational devices on footpaths, provided the wheel diameter is less than 355mm5. In effect, this provides dispensation for young children to ride bicycles on footpaths. In simple terms, the regulations primarily attempt to regulate what types of device can be used on different types of path, rather than how they should be used, although there is a requirement for safe use of wheeled recreation devices and mobility devices6. In the case of a footpath, this means that once a type of personal transport device has been approved for use on it, some users will see it as their right to do so, irrespective of whether the design of a particular path is suitable. For example, some mobility devices that are 700mm or more in width are legally permitted to use footpaths although there are many kilometres of footpath that are less than 1000mm wide making passing difficult or impossible without backing up or using an adjacent grass berm if available. In effect the regulations become 5 6

Section 11.1, Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004. Source: www.legislation.govt.nz Section 11.1(4) and (5), Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004. Source: www.legislation.govt.nz

8

329

superfluous and users must negotiate how best to handle the situation, hopefully in a courteous and safe way. Whilst design criteria give guidance on footpath and shared path widths based on usage patterns, there is little data available on usage, except for high pedestrian traffic commercial areas where the use of simple counters are often used. Given the lack of evidence on usage, monitoring and data collection must be a key aspect of, and precede, any regulatory changes to footpath use in New Zealand. 3.2 Australia Whilst having some excellent design guidelines and codes of practice put out by Austroads and the different states, the regulatory emphasis is placed more on what types of device can be used on different types of path rather than how they should be used. Western Australia has allowed all bicycles to be ridden on footpaths since April 2016, with their use regulated on both footpaths and shared paths.7 In New South Wales, children aged under 12 years and those supervising them may ride on all footpaths, and all cyclists may ride on specifically signposted footpaths.8 There are however ‘de facto’ regulations by way of their definition of a pedestrian being extended to include some personal transport devices. For example, the Australian Road Rules9 state that a person using a mobility scooter is classed as a pedestrian if the maximum speed on level ground cannot exceed 10 km/h. As such the rider must:  observe the same road rules that apply to pedestrians  not obstruct the path of any driver or other road user  not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip  if travelling along a road: o keep as far to the side of the road as possible o travel facing the approaching traffic unless it is not practicable to do so o can use shared paths, off-road bike paths and shopping malls o does not need to have a driver’s licence. There is also a requirement that to be classed as a mobility scooter it must have an unladen weight of less than 110kg and must carry one person only. They do not need to be registered and the rider does not need to wear a helmet or a seatbelt when travelling on a mobility scooter. Persons using other personal transport devices such as skateboards are also deemed to be pedestrians with respect to the road rules.

7 8 9

9

http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/active-transport/AT_P_CyclingRulesWABooklet.pdf http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/bicyclists/cyclingrules.html http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/58530/Motorised_mobility_scooters_web_June2013.pdf

330

3.3 United Kingdom Although written in different terms, the UK regulations operate in a similar way to New Zealand’s. However, they have found it necessary to respond to an increase in the use of electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters (which are classed as invalid carriages) by placing maximum speed capabilities on these devices. These are known as Class 2 and 3 invalid carriages, with Class 2 being powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters with a maximum speed of 4mph (6.44 km/hr) and Class 3 being with a maximum speed of 8mph (12.9 km/hr). Class 2 invalid carriages are intended to be used predominantly on footpaths and Class 3 invalid carriages are intended for use on footpath and on roads. They can travel at 8mph on roads but must be fitted with a switch that reduces their top speed to 4mph for use on footpaths. Class 3 invalid carriages are also subject to registration, albeit at zero fees, so that they can be issued with registration plates for identification. 3.4 Canada There does not appear to be national legislation on the use of footpaths in Canada, but most municipalities have their own regulations. As with the UK and New Zealand, these operate on the principle of prohibiting classes of vehicle from footpaths. As an example the city of Kelowna, in British Columbia, has Traffic and Cycle Regulations that state in Part 9, Cycle Regulations: No person shall use in-line skates, roller skates, cycles, skateboards, sleighs, skates, skis or other similar means of conveyance on a highway or sidewalk except as otherwise permitted in this Bylaw. Section 9.1.2 Cyclist duties stated that cyclists may not ride on sidewalks unless otherwise directed by a traffic control device, is under the age of 12 years and is operating a nonchain driven 3 or 4 wheeled cycle which is designed for recreational use. Skaters have the same rights as cyclists and can use bicycle lanes.10 In most jurisdictions power-assisted bicycles are controlled in a similar way to conventional bicycles but they must comply with the requirements of their national Motor Safety Regulations11. 3.5 Singapore Singapore has recently adopted new regulations governing the use of footpaths. As a result of concerns over conflict between footpath users, Singapore established an Active Mobility Advisory Panel (the Panel) to consider how best to regulate use of footpaths and shared paths.

10

http://apps.kelowna.ca/CityPage/Docs/PDFs/Bylaws/Traffic%20Bylaw%20No.%208120/Part%2009%20%20Cycle%20Regulations.pdf http://apps.kelowna.ca/CityPage/Docs/PDFs/Bylaws/Traffic%20Bylaw%20No.%208120/Part%2009%20%20Cycle%20Regulations.pdf 11 http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.%2C_c._1038/FullText.html

10

331

The Panel’s extensive consultation processes resulted in public feedback that it was more important to ensure that cyclists and users of personal transport devices behave in a safe and considerate manner, than to regulate where certain classes (bicycles and personal mobility devices) can or cannot be used. In other words, it was more important to determine how a device was used rather than what the device was. As a result, the Active Mobility Act was passed into law in February 201712. The new regulations place all personal transport devices that can be ‘driven’ on footpaths and shared paths into four categories13: personal mobility aids; personal mobility devices; conventional bicycles and electric bicycles. The regulations will be supported by: penalties including imprisonment and fines for non-compliance, education designed to foster a culture of safety and ‘community policing’ of the regulations by volunteers. In undertaking research on Singapore’s Active Mobility Act, no monitoring programme to evaluate the impact of the legislation could be found. Additionally, it should be noted that Singapore has a strong compliance culture and that this culture is likely to be a significant factor in ensuring the success of the legislation. 3.6 USA In the USA, local authorities (in the form of municipalities or counties) can allow cycling on footpaths, but many do not. There is a wide variety of local regulation. Some local authorities provide guidance on riding on footpaths. For example East Bay, California14 has the following; If you do not feel comfortable riding your bicycle in the street on a specific stretch of roadway, try dismounting and walking your bike on the sidewalk until you reach a location where you can ride in the street again. However, if you do bike on the sidewalk for any reason, consider the following:  Ride in the direction of traffic, not against it (cross the street to the opposite sidewalk if necessary)  Keep your speed below 10 mph, as close to a walking pace as possible  Yield to any pedestrians on the sidewalk, and when passing call out and use extreme caution  Keep your distance from doorways or side paths, and always look for and yield to cars pulling out of driveways and side streets. Whether the variations are as a result of differences in local infrastructure would be merely conjecture, but it would seem that consistency is something which has been

12

Source: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg Recommendations on Rules and Code of Conduct for Cycling and the Use of Personal Mobility Devices (in Singapore) https://www.lta.gov.sg/data/apps/news/press/2016/20160317_AMAPPanelReport(final).pdf 14 https://bikeeastbay.org/SidewalkCycling 13

11

332

lost. In the USA literature surveyed, what little monitoring of the situation and enforcement there is focuses on controlling anti-social behaviour and reckless use of personal transport devices.

4 Gap analysis and discussion 4.1 Education There is currently a lack of information in road safety education material on how to ensure the safety of vulnerable transport users. Although NZTA have devoted significant resources to educating young people through its Education Portal15, the prime function of this portal is to ensure young children are educated to keep themselves safe as they grow up and begin to move around independently. However, obligations to other transport system users, particularly the elderly, disabled and vulnerable appear to be poorly covered at this level. Additionally, New Zealand Road Safety Policy for Schools16 makes no reference to people who have an impairment, who other pedestrians and path users must be aware of and respect when using pedestrian infrastructure. As children grow older, most will be exposed to further training as they aspire to gaining their vehicle driver’s license, but again there is little emphasis on the interaction between drivers and pedestrians or users of personal mobility devices or on disability awareness generally. 4.2 Monitoring use and enforcement The monitoring and enforcement of users of footpaths is primarily reactive and in response to complaints and accident investigations. Unless a technically illegal action causes harm, or is likely to cause harm, offenders are not apprehended and are even less often prosecuted. There are occasional cases reported of conflict between pedestrians and others in the New Zealand media, but there is no objective monitoring of such conflict, thus making it difficult to know the scope and scale of non-compliance. 4.3 Monitoring of pedestrian injury Of the literature surveyed, most jurisdictions have significant data relating to fatal crashes involving motor vehicles which are reported by country through the World Health Organization17. However, most crashes currently recorded on footpaths that do not involve motor vehicles are relatively minor, with very few fatalities. 15

https://education.nzta.govt.nz/resources/policy-and-practices/road-safety-education-policy https://education.nzta.govt.nz/resources/policy-and-practices/road-safety-education-policy 16

https://education.nzta.govt.nz/__data/assets/word_doc/0004/60853/NZ-Road-Safety-Education-Policy-example2016-2.docx https://education.nzta.govt.nz/__data/assets/word_doc/0004/60853/NZ-Road-Safety-Education-Policy-example2016-2.docx 17

12

http://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/en/

333

Although some data is available on injuries sustained on footpaths and other paths, extensive internet searches have not revealed any international data relating to how the numbers of such crashes relate to footpath user numbers, particularly for basic footpaths along suburban streets. Research considering bicycle accidents in Japan18 was found but was produced in 2009. Since then, the number and types of personal transport devices have increased significantly and no information appears to be available on how many accidents involve their use. However, due to the huge advances in battery technology19, a significant increase in such devices can be expected and that the value of any historical evidence, if it were available, would be very limited. In New Zealand, ACC has extensive records of all accidents that involved claims through the ACC Scheme and allows public access to consolidated annual data. A targeted search using their statistics tool20 gave the following results for two scenarios for the 2015/16 financial year. The causes selected were: Collision/Knocked Over by Object, Driving Related, Falls, Folding/Collapse, Loss of Hold, Other or Unclear Cause, Pushed or Pulled, Recoil/Ejection, Skid, Struck by Person/Animal, Twisting Movement, Unknown Scenes selected were Road or Street. From these two scenarios it is clear that although the highest number of claims do not involve motor vehicles some 80% of costs associated with accidents for the causes selected do involve motor vehicles.

Search 1:21

18

Account Types All except Motor

Number of New Claims 64,284

Number of Active Claims 82,538

Total Cost $103,226,236

http://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/p08_yoshida.pdf

19

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2015/09/15/five-emerging-battery-technologies-for-electric-vehicles/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2015/09/15/five-emerging-battery-technologies-for-electric-vehicles/ 20

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/injury-statistics-tool/# statistics-tool/# 21

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/injury-

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/injury-statisticstool/?claimtype=all&account4=4&account5=5&account99=99&age_group=all&gender=all&injury_site=all&cause68896026=688 96026&cause68896016=68896016&cause68896011=68896011&cause68896028=68896028&cause68896008=68896008&cau se68896998=68896998&cause68896003=68896003&cause68896027=68896027&cause68896015=68896015&cause6889601 0=68896010&cause68896041=68896041&cause68896999=68896999&diagnosis=all&sport=all&scene448032003=448032003 ®ion=all http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/injury-statisticstool/?claimtype=all&account4=4&account5=5&account99=99&age_group=all&gender=all&injury_site=all&cause68896026=688 96026&cause68896016=68896016&cause68896011=68896011&cause68896028=68896028&cause68896008=68896008&cau se68896998=68896998&cause68896003=68896003&cause68896027=68896027&cause68896015=68896015&cause6889601 0=68896010&cause68896041=68896041&cause68896999=68896999&diagnosis=all&sport=all&scene448032003=448032003 ®ion=all

13

334

Search 2:

22

Vehicles All

92,428

129,889

$509,786,152

Data is not currently collected to determine whether the injuries not involving a motor vehicle occur on the roadway or the footpath, or, whether they involve a bicycle or other personal transport device. Hence, more detailed data gathering that includes the actual location along with subsequent research would be necessary to disaggregate the data relating to safety on footpaths, and this would also need to consider actual usage patterns over the huge variety of footpaths that exist. In order to demonstrate the need for additional resources to ensure footpaths can be used safely by all users, the current NZTA benefit cost analysis requires a level of evidence that currently does not exist. Understanding how an inclusive transport system (with a particular focus on the pedestrian network) can create an economic benefit has been the focus of recent collaborative research between CCS Disability Action, the University of Waikato and TDG23. This work quantifies the benefits and costs of creating an inclusive transport system, and discusses preliminary evidence generation using people with visible mobility aids (including wheelchairs, walking frames, service dogs and white canes) as a proxy indicator for the degree of accessibility of pedestrian infrastructure24,25. This is an emerging research area and is likely to continue to grow in sophistication as it addresses methodological gaps in evidence generation. One such challenge is that it is difficult to identify people who have an impairment, but do not use a mobility aid. The UN Road Safety Collaboration26 notes that 270,000 pedestrians are killed each year on the world’s roads. However, the focus of the associated guidance 22

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/injury-statisticstool/?claimtype=all&account3=3&account4=4&account5=5&account99=99&age_group=all&gender=all&injury_site=all&cause6 8896026=68896026&cause68896016=68896016&cause68896011=68896011&cause68896028=68896028&cause68896008=6 8896008&cause68896998=68896998&cause68896003=68896003&cause68896027=68896027&cause68896015=68896015&c ause68896010=68896010&cause68896041=68896041&cause68896999=68896999&diagnosis=all&sport=all&scene44803200 3=448032003®ion=all http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/injury-statisticstool/?claimtype=all&account3=3&account4=4&account5=5&account99=99&age_group=all&gender=all&injury_site=all&cause6 8896026=68896026&cause68896016=68896016&cause68896011=68896011&cause68896028=68896028&cause68896008=6 8896008&cause68896998=68896998&cause68896003=68896003&cause68896027=68896027&cause68896015=68896015&c ause68896010=68896010&cause68896041=68896041&cause68896999=68896999&diagnosis=all&sport=all&scene44803200 3=448032003®ion=all 23

This work was funded by the Ministry of Social Development’s Think Differently Fund. http://www.itf-oecd.org/economic-benefits-improved-accessibility-transport-systems-roundtable-0 oecd.org/economic-benefits-improved-accessibility-transport-systems-roundtable-0 24

25

http://www.itf-

http://conf.hardingconsultants.co.nz/workspace/uploads/burdett-bridget-measuring-a-53224498e36e2.pdf http://conf.hardingconsultants.co.nz/workspace/uploads/burdett-bridget-measuring-a-53224498e36e2.pdf 26

14

http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/pedestrian/en/

335

documents is the reduction of the injury toll, and not the enablement of all pedestrians (including those with disabilities) to use pedestrian facilities on an equitable basis. For example, the manual on Data Systems27 states “the ultimate result of effective road safety management is the reduction of social costs (such as medical costs, property damage) associated with road traffic deaths and injuries”. Hence, at the highest level, there is no recognition of the benefits of enabling vulnerable pedestrians to use roading infrastructure, including the footpaths, which in economic terms can be substantial28. 4.4 Education and Enforcement Of the literature surveyed, many road rules that apply to pedestrians are flouted in most jurisdictions and the consequences can be serious injury. However, the injuries are generally caused by motor vehicle/pedestrian conflict. Some research on this topic was undertaken in Canada29, which examined the potential association between violations made by pedestrians and motorists at signalised intersections, and collisions between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Both motorists and pedestrians were frequently observed committing road-rule violations at signalised intersections. The research suggested that the findings could be applied to targeted prevention campaigns designed to reduce the number of pedestrian injuries at signalised intersections. While the research focused on very high pedestrian traffic sites, it did not discuss footpath user (pedestrian and nonpedestrian) conflict. Another educational factor is that of identifying the needs of particular user groups. There is a significant amount of information for the training/education of children as they grow up and become more independent, and also for specific groups of vulnerable people. However, this is targeted at the vulnerable people, who are trained to cope with their environment. The focus is not on educating others, including both transport professionals and other users, to become more accepting of vulnerable people’s rights to reasonable safe access to our roading infrastructure. Enforcement is also targeted towards the avoidance of injuries and fatalities. Rules and regulations affecting footpaths are generally not enforced, particularly when pedestrian traffic is low and footpaths are considered safer by cyclists and other users than the carriageways.

27

28 29

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44256/1/9789241598965_eng.pdf?ua=1 (n.d.) Valuing access to work.

PLOS (Public Library of Science) Conference Paper: Pedestrian Injury and Human Behaviour: Observing Road-Rule Violations at High-Incident Intersections by Jonathan Cinnamon et al Published: June 2011. Source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021063

15

336

4.5 Obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons Underpinning these proposed principles are the rights of disabled people, as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). This convention was signed by New Zealand in 2007 and ratified in 2008.30 As such it should be recognised that this places significant obligations on government agencies to show how they are protecting the rights of disabled people. In the context of transport, this means that reasonable accommodation must be made for all disabled transport users. Articles 8, 9, 19, 20 and 31 are of particular relevance to policy decisions relating to footpath use. Article 9 (Accessibility) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (the Convention) states that: 1. To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including ............These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia: (a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including ……………………. Additionally, Article 20 (Personal Mobility) of the Convention includes obligations for State Parties to ensure personal mobility with the greatest possible independence. This includes measures to facilitate personal mobility, to access quality mobility aids, devices and assistive technologies. 4.6 Availability for All To move forward in a meaningful way, it is essential to recognise all road users have a right to move around safely, and ensuring safety for one group should not be at the expense of another. For many footpath users – particularly vulnerable pedestrians – the assessment of risk is an important factor in the decision making process. This results in ‘the trip not taken’. For example, at this stage, there is no comprehensive data on the potential benefits to society of making footpaths more usable by disabled people, as current cost-benefit analyses are based on the reduction in accident risk to existing users. Developing an evidence base and undertaking research which quantifies the movements of all pedestrians will greatly assist in creating a pedestrian network which is available to all users. Such research will require careful consideration of research assumptions and data collection to ensure that all users, and potential users, are accounted for. 30

http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

16

337

4.7 Inferred Rights Any regulation that allows certain types of vehicle on a footpath or shared path will be seen by some as giving them the right to use that vehicle along any footpath or shared path. As the variety, usage and condition of footpaths and shared paths are variable, the suitability for any particular footpath or shared path by particular vehicle types will vary. It is therefore necessary to reinforce the obligations of faster users and of all users to other users. When an incident involves a pedestrian and a vehicle, it should always be considered the fault of the vehicle user, or that user’s supervisor if a minor. There is also a danger that if bicycles and other mobility devices can be used on footpaths, albeit with conditions, then the cyclists and other personal transport device users may believe they have an inferred right to use those routes over and above the rights of pedestrians, and not make allowance for them. One such example is cyclists not being prepared to dismount when there is significant pedestrian traffic. Furthermore, motorists may also infer that cyclists and other personal transport device users should not be on the roadway. 4.8 Respect for Sensory Impaired A major reason why many people who have an impairment avoid using footpaths, is the fear that other people may not recognise their situation and act inappropriately towards them. Unfortunately being identified with a disability, especially for many elderly people, is seen as a stigma and hence not being aware of persons approaching (from behind or in front) can be misinterpreted as them just being difficult. Furthermore, if the situation arises on a footpath when a bicycle approaches, the technical illegality may be perceived by some pedestrians as a reason to demand the riders use the roadway, regardless of any safety concerns the rider may have. In some circumstances walking pace may be the only safe maximum speed for any user. Those who are blind, or have low vision, may not be aware of the designation of a footpath as a shared path, the allocation of path space or be able to maintain a straight line of travel on wider pathways. Faster footpath users may not be aware of this, nor ensure they give the priority to the pedestrian. This may lead to conflict and the person who has a vision impairment subsequently choosing not to travel on a particular path. 4.9 Petition of Jo Clendon on Law Change to Allow Cycling on Footpaths The petition is an example of the recent calls for rules to be changed to allow a variety of different transport devices to be used on footpaths. This petition clearly presents the case for allowing certain cyclists the right to use footpaths based on reducing the chance of severe injuries, and avoiding the social costs of those injuries. It is the same approach that is often used to justify alternative off road paths, whether shared or dedicated for all cyclists.

17

338

The petition includes little consideration of the potential loss of service that adoption may cause to disadvantaged and vulnerable pedestrians. Any benefit cost analysis must recognise both the avoided costs of accident and the value of societal benefits, including enabling disabled persons to participate more fully in their community. Clendon stated cycling on footpaths by under 14’s and over 65’s would not put pedestrian safety at risk and she offered evidence linked to Australian research as well as healthy community data, statistics on the numbers of children cycling, extensive information on children’s attitude towards cycling, injury statistics and footpath widths. The petition provided little information on how it would impact on pedestrians who rely on footpaths as their main method of transport31. Clendon noted that “there is currently little quantitative guidance available in New Zealand or Australia regarding the determination of shared path widths...observations of user interactions on New Zealand paths should be undertaken to determine the values of user widths, clearance requirements, user speed distributions and delayed passing thresholds appropriate to New Zealand conditions32.” Unfortunately many vulnerable people, in particular people who have a sensory impairment, are invisible in any analysis based on accidents as when a route is perceived dangerous, it is not used at all by this group, and there is no means of evaluating the loss of potential benefits to this group. She also notes, p 55, “that given our aging population and their use of mobility scooters, and that we wish to promote active transport in all its forms, it is essential that our footpaths are fit for purpose. I propose that if a footpath is not wide enough for a child cyclist to find a safe opportunity to pass a pedestrian, then the footpath is not fit for purpose for even its current legal users. (This includes adjacent berm/verge/nature strip which can be utilised when passing pedestrians.) The impact of this short observation is enormous as the variety of footpaths currently in service is huge, especially as many date back many decades since construction, and furthermore different local authorities had different requirements. There are also varying levels of roadside trees and other features that affect sight lines. Considering the variety of footpaths currently in existence, it would seem allowing even some cyclists on some footpaths would degrade their usability by traditional footpath users. 4.10 Data and Statistics It is an accepted fact that New Zealand has an ageing population and that in this age group the incidence of disability is significantly higher than for younger people. Despite this, there is very little information available on where older people live, the 31 32

Jo Clendon’s petion to allow cycling of footpaths, pages 55-56. Fowler, Lloyd, and Munro, 2010, p59

18

339

types of journey they would like to make, the value of these journeys to them and society as a whole. This lack of evidence is also the case for vulnerable pedestrians, including those with disabilities. Access to data is key to managing and prioritising all infrastructure improvements and making sound policy decisions. At this stage, data relating to the benefits of accessible paths in dollar terms is not available for use in standard benefit cost analysis as used by NZTA. Monitoring the presence (or otherwise) of vulnerable people on footpaths, shared paths and public spaces is one way of determining whether they are being used by this group. If correlated with the incidence of various disabilities in an area, then gaps in appropriate service levels to fulfil their needs could be determined. As noted earlier, the research would need to be expanded to capture all pedestrians during the study period to ensure those with impairments that are not obvious to the researcher (for example, people with cognitive impairments or sensory impairments) are not missed. Lack of data is recognised as a gap in New Zealand’s Ministry of Transport’s recently published Transport Domain Plan33 which includes two recommendations, of which R2.13 is considered a high priority action: R2.13 Gather additional information about pedestrian and active mode person travel. R10.7 Improve data collection about injuries suffered on the pedestrian network. Comprehensive information on pedestrian injuries and deaths from collisions - not only with motor vehicles, but also with bicycles and other personal mobility devices is available in two Ministry of Health data sets: mortality data and publicly funded hospital discharge data. Evidence-based decision-making on footpath use needs to be fully informed by these data. However, it should be noted that injuries encountered whilst using footpaths is considered by advocacy groups to be under reported, and therefore a mechanism will need to be developed to capture this. 4.11 Minimum Standards Many footpaths date back several decades and fall far short of standards now in place for new infrastructure. There are also footpaths that have been narrowed to create more lanes within the carriageway. Whilst the ideal would be to bring all such infrastructure up to modern standards, the cost would be prohibitive. However, upgrading of legacy infrastructure could be encouraged by amendment to the NZTA subsidy regime, in particular allowing enhancements to footpath infrastructure to be

33

19

www.transport.govt.nz/transport-domain-plan.pdf

340

considered as essential capital work when data shows a clear change in usage patterns. Reallocating road space should also be an option.

5

Inclusive Principles

The advocacy groups recognise that the entire transport system should function for the benefit of all users. In order to ensure this, there are a number of principles of decision-making which must be considered when determining the policy response (including the policy ‘tools’ of regulation, education, incentives and monitoring or enforcement):  

 

 



6

That accessibility for all and safety for all must be central to the decision-making process. Any regulatory regime needs to protect the transport choice for those who have the least amount of transport choices/options. Infrastructure must be designed for all users, including potential users who currently may fear using it due to perceived or real safety concerns; That any policy response/regulatory regime must provide an analysis of how the proposed rules meet the United Nations Convention on the Rights for Disabled People; That an evidence base regarding the use of footpaths needs to be progressed in order to develop the level of sophistication which the car-related transport system currently has. Again, co-design between government agencies with a transport mandate and advocates is the best approach; That practical and achievable enforcement is required, as is a robust monitoring programme to understand the impact of any new rules (and therefore any amendments should the regime not be working); That there needs to be a hierarchy of footpaths (whereby the footpath on the quiet suburban street with low traffic volumes is still very much the realm of the pedestrian) which is based on the assumption that the footpath is primarily infrastructure which is designed for pedestrians; That co-design – whereby NZTA, local government and advocates determine the policy response – is best practice and should be adopted as the preferred method for this work.

Conclusions

CCS Disability Action, Living Streets Aotearoa, VICTA, Alzheimers New Zealand and the Blind Foundation support the right of all people to have good lives within the context of an inclusive society. As our population ages, the incidence of disability is rising and it is vital that central government, local authorities and their partners recognise the role they have in providing a welcoming and accessible environment that all people can enjoy without barriers. It is important that inclusive principles are accepted by everyone so that no one group becomes disadvantaged by measures designed to improve the situation for

20

341

others. Safety is of course of paramount importance, but it is also important to enable everyone, including vulnerable persons, to participate in society without facing barriers or discrimination. In order to ensure that footpaths remain the realm of the pedestrian, the benefit cost analyses used must not only consider the reduction in accidents that will enhance safety, but also recognise that infrastructure is also an enabler for many people, including those who have impairments and those who are vulnerable to participate in society. Research is necessary to quantify these benefits and planning guidelines issued by NZTA should reflect the results of the research.

21

342

About Us CCS Disability Action is one of the largest disability services providers in New Zealand. We have been advocating for people with disabilities since 1935. Today, our organisation has a strong disabled leadership and human rights focus. CCS Disability Action has a National Office and regional management structure, and provides services nationally from sixteen incorporated societies to about 5,000 people of all ages and with a range of impairments. We also administer the Mobility Parking Scheme which has over 119,000 users. Living Streets Aotearoa is the New Zealand organisation for people on foot, promoting walking-friendly communities. We are a nationwide organisation with local branches and affiliates throughout New Zealand. We want more people walking and enjoying public spaces be they young or old, fast or slow, whether walking, sitting, commuting, shopping, between appointments, or out on the streets for exercise, for leisure or for pleasure. The Blind Foundation is New Zealand’s main provider of practical and emotional support for the 12,100 Kiwis who are blind or have low vision, enabling them to face their future with confidence. With a vision of ‘Life without limits – Kahore e Mutunga Ki te Ora’, Blind Foundation staff around the country aim to enable people who are blind or have low vision to be self-reliant and live the life they choose. We equip people with the skills needed to participate fully in society. This includes support in living independently, getting around, using technology, continuing to read and communicate, being socially active and staying in or looking for work. The Blind Foundation’s vital work helping people with sight loss is only possible thanks to the generous support of the public. VICTA (Visual Impairment Charitable Trust Aotearoa NZ) is an energetic new charity established in 2013 to address the unmet needs of the growing number of New Zealanders with uncorrectable vision loss. VICTA’s objects are to: 

 

22

facilitate the independence, integration and well-being of people disabled by visual impairment in New Zealand, and, in particular, of people disabled by visual impairment who are ineligible for assistance from the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind; facilitate the provision of services for the support and assistance of people who are disabled by visual impairment; facilitate community awareness and understanding of the needs of people who are disabled by visual impairment;

343

 

assist state, civic and other agencies to recognise and effectively eliminate barriers to the full participation of people who are disabled by visual impairment in New Zealand society; facilitate research into all aspects of visual impairment in New Zealand, including, but not limited to, research into the causes, treatment, rehabilitation and social impact of the disability;

Alzheimers New Zealand represents people affected by dementia at a national level by raising awareness of dementia, providing information and resources for people affected by dementia, advocating for high quality services for people affected by dementia, and promoting research about prevention, treatment, cure and care of people affected by dementia. We support a federation of 16 local Alzheimers NZ organisations throughout New Zealand, each of which is a member of Alzheimers NZ.

23

344

-----Original Message----From: "Megan Cleverley" Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 6:20 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Annual Plan Good morning Please find attached our submission to the Annual Plan 17/18 If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me, we would like to speak to our submission on the afternoon of the 23rd May Kind regards Megan 11 May 2017 Rotorua Lakes Council Draft Annual Plan Submissions Private Bag 3029 Rotorua Mail Centre Rotorua 3046 RE: SUBMISSION TO ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL DRAFT LONG TERM PLAN 2017 Introduction Sport Bay of Plenty is a charitable trust which focuses on informing and supporting the Sport, Recreation and Physical Activity sector of the Bay of Plenty. We work in collaboration with a number of stakeholders including regional and local sport and recreation organisations, health organisations, Local Government and Sport New Zealand. We endorse the work of the Rotorua Lakes Council and look forward to working alongside Council on their journey to achieve Council’s 2030 goals for the community.   

A resilient community ... He hāpori pūmanawa Inclusive, liveable and safe neighbourhoods give us a sense of place; and confidence to be involved and connected. Outstanding places to play ... Papa whakatipu Recreation opportunities are part of our lifestyle; connecting us, transporting us and surrounding us. Vibrant city heart ... Waahi pūmanawa Our inviting and thriving inner city reflects our unique heritage and lakeside location

We would like to thank the key staff members at RDC for their approach to working with Sport BOP. In particular, Rob Pitkethley, Julianne Wilkinson and Stephanie Kelly for their commitment to recreation, sport and active lifestyles.

345

Key points for our submission 1

We advocate that Sport and Recreation is a core service of Council - the provision of sport and recreation places and spaces, and the activities that occur on these should remain a core service of the council.

2

We value our relationship with Rotorua Lakes Council and look forward to continuing to deliver services to help Council achieve their vision.

3

We would like to thank Council for their contribution to the development of the Bay of Plenty Spaces and Places Strategy and the ongoing commitment

4

We support Councils decision to continue to invest into key projects in the sport and recreation area to enhance the sporting experiences at venues for hockey, netball soccer and rugby. Improvements to the forest trails and entrance and the upgrading of play equipment across the city.

The following Key tends within sport and recreation in the Bay of Plenty may be of interest to Council  Sport and recreation remains one of the best vehicles to bring communities together. 

There is a move away from traditional sports structures, and growth in nontraditional activities, however traditional sports are still where most people participate and create hubs in the community.



Future sustainability of sports will be about reducing fragmented delivery and the duplication of sport and recreation services.



The sector is still heavily reliant on volunteers, however there are greater accountabilities for volunteers, and they have less time to volunteer.



Changing lifestyle patterns and work commitments are having a negative effect on physical activity levels.



In the Bay of Plenty 42% of men and 49% of women are not active enough to maintain a healthy, quality of life (NZ Health Survey 2011-14).



Time and cost are the two biggest barriers to participation.

Sport and recreation activities are highly valued by people in the Bay of Plenty   

91% of young people (5-17 years) take part in at least one sport or recreation activity. 94% of adults take part in at least one sport or recreation activity over a year. These are supported by 53,000 volunteers.

Sport and recreation industries provide employment for people in the Bay of Plenty • •

3,438 people work in sport and recreation industries and occupations. This is 3% of all those in employment.

The Value added by the Sport and Recreation sector is significant

346

•

$337.2m or 2.9% of GDP in the Bay of Plenty

These trends continue to influence the work of Sport Bay of Plenty and have played an important part in the development of our new Strategic Plan 2017-2021. This Plan is available on our website www.sportbop.co.nz We would like to thank you for your consideration of this written submission and would like to take the opportunity to speak to the submission on the afternoon of the 23rd May Yours sincerely SPORT BAY OF PLENTY

Heidi Lichtwark Chief Executive

347

Te Runanga o Ngati Kea Ngati Tuara Trust PO Box 716, Rotorua 3040

10 May 2017 Tena koe, Submission: Local Roads - Upgraded and Parking Issues (Urban and Rural) The purpose of this letter is to make two requests: 1. That Kearoa Road, Horohoro be sealed. 2. The area outside Tarewa Marae, Tarewa Road, be considered for off road parking due to heavy traffic issues. Te Runanga o Ngati Kea Ngati Tuara Trust is the post treaty settlement governance entity for Ngati Kea Ngati Tuara, and our hapu rohe is covers Horohoro and the Tarewa area with our Runanga office and one of our marae, Tarewa (also known as Taharangi) Marae both based on Tarewa Road. 1. Our first kaupapa is that our main marae, Kearoa, is on Apirana Road which is sealed. However Kearoa Road, which branches off Apirana Road, is not sealed. This road, as well as leading to a number of waahi tapu of Ngati Kea Ngati Tuara, also has a number of elderly hapu members who live on the road and the unsealed nature of the road adds to safety and health concerns we have for them. In addition a number of hapu owned land trusts operate farms accessed by Kearoa Road, those trusts and local hapu members all pay rates to Rotorua Lakes Council. Finally as an aside the Treetops Lodge is also on Kearoa Road and from a tourism perspective we believe it will be beneficial for the road to be sealed, but also having Treetops Lodge out in Horohoro has increased the level of traffic on that road.

2. Our second kaupapa is to point out that the amount of traffic, the speed of traffic and the level of tourism happening down Tarewa Road has heavily increased within the last 5-10 years and the Council does not seem to have addressed this at all.

348

Tarewa Marae has become a venue for many vital community programmes, such as Rangatahi Court (Ministry of Justice), the Alcohol Impairment Education Programme (RLC, Ministry of Corrections and NZ Police), the Police Recruits Assessment Programme (NZ Police) and Family Group Conferences (NZ Police and Ministry for Vulnerable Children) and these are just the main ones. There are many other smaller groups that use the marae as a meeting place. When these events are on, parking becomes a big issue on Tarewa Road for example every second Tuesday Rangatahi Court has over 60 people attending it, throughout the day, and this means over 40 cars can end up being parked on both sides of the road, which makes the road very dangerous to drive through, and just the other week, the Maori Warden van was damaged by a car hitting it as it drove past. There are several other centres in the immediate vicinity of the marae, such as a Kohanga Reo, the Rotorua Islamic Centre, Kuirau Medical Centre and Lifewise, so the parking issue affects more people than just the residents of Tarewa Road. There are also two different backpackers along the road, a hotel, and two other childcare centres, let alone the bakery, dairy and fish & chip shop. It is a very busy road that has become a main arterial of the CBD and also has several tourists visiting the thermal area of Kuirau Park, which is now frequented by a number of large buses each day.

Above is a photo of a number of the cars parked on the road and grass verges from sections 22 – 26 Tarewa Road on the previous Rangatahi Court day on the 2 May 2017.

349

Te Runanga o Ngati Kea Ngati Tuara has been approached recently by RLC Community Engagement/Events Advisors regarding Tarewa Road Section 1622 Harakeke Planting Project and have asked us and Tarewa Marae for our support on this project, which we are more than happy to give and we have already had two meetings with them. However, we are concerned that with the current traffic situation on Tarewa Road, stretched to its capacity and with the potential of this project encouraging more tourists and locals to the area, we would like the councils help to address this situation and our suggestion is that the grass verge in front of the marae at 26 Tarewa Road and the grass verge in front of 16-22 Tarewa Road be used for extra parking to assist with these issues.

If you have any questions or queries regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Nga mihi Kataraina George Environmental Manager Te Runanga o Ngati Kea Ngati Tuara Trust

350

638

-------- Original message -------From: anthony lynskey Date: 11/05/2017 5:27 pm (GMT+12:00) To: Tim Senington Subject: Feedback to Council - Annual Plan 10th May 2017 Feedback to council on the 2017-18 Annual Plan Conversation #1 - My Feedback is: Agree with a targeted rate for the residents of Rotoiti/Rotoma to fund their sewerage scheme. If an 8% increase to this group for ongoing maintenance of the scheme will only increase their rates by $37, indicating total rates payments of less than $500/property, perhaps they should be individually contributing more towards their scheme. The provision of a subsidy requiring council to incur further debt will ultimately become a cost to all ratepayers through an increase in the general rate.

Conversation #2 - My Feedback is : Happy with a move to 100% targeted rate for refuse collection. If all ratepayers are to be charged equally for waste services however, it is reasonable to expect that everyone receives the same level of service. The proposal that people all pay the same amount regardless of whether they are having to cart their rubbish & recycling to an inconveniently located transfer station as their neighbours who are receiving a full kerbside collection service, is preposterous. Also the proposal that a waste service fee be charged on bare land is equally absurd. As has previously been stated to the mayor – it is people who create waste, not unoccupied land. The proposed charge for bare land is simply a revenue gathering exercise, targeted once again at the rural population. I am vehemently against council imposing a compulsory uniform waste management charge across all property & yet providing markedly differing levels of refuse service. I look forward to my neighbours & I receiving rubbish & recycling bins & being added to the existing service which operates in our district & which runs past my gate.

Conversation #3 - My Feedback is : Earthquake strengthening is fine.

351

Refurbishment – “No”

This is a luxury that your current budget clearly does not run to.

Please differentiate in your annual plan how much of the proposed $6.5 million is for earthquake strengthening & how much for refurbishment.

Conversation #4 - My Feedback is : Agree with the targeted rate of $14.20 until the museum reopens.

Conversation #5 - My Feedback is : A move to funding partnership/community boards through the general rate instead of the existing targeted rate would decrease transparency and therefore I do not support this proposed move. Signed : Nerene & Tony Lynskey

638

352

Toi Te Ora – Public Health Service PO Box 2120 TAURANGA 3140 Ph: 0800 221 555 Website: www.ttophs.govt.nz 12 May 2017 Rotorua Lakes Council Private Bag 3029 Rotorua Mail Centre ROTORUA 3046 Submission to Rotorua Lakes Council Annual Plan 2017/18 Consultation Document Toi Te Ora - Public Health Service (Toi Te Ora) is the public health unit for the Lakes District Health Board. Our key role is to promote, protect and improve population health, prevent ill health and minimise the risk of disease and injury through population based interventions. Many of the crucial underlying factors that contribute to improve, promote, and protect the health of people and communities are directly influenced by the decisions and activities of councils. For this reason Toi Te Ora is committed to working more collaboratively with councils and welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the draft Annual Plan. Conversation 1: East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme Toi Te Ora will continue to work with Council to bring to fruition a sewerage solution which will safeguard the health of Rotomā/Rotoiti communities. Toi Te Ora notes that the capital works present a considerable cost to homeowners in the East Rotoiti and Rotomā communities, even after subsidies and the Council contribution has been accounted for. It is noted that Council’s contribution is about 10% while homeowners in these communities are expected to contribute 90% of the outstanding costs. We ask that consideration be given to spreading a greater proportion of the remaining cost of the scheme across all ratepayers in the Rotorua district i.e. that the Council contribution be greater than the proposed 10%. Rating individual communities through targeted rates for capital works, which are for the greater good of the whole community, increases inequity by placing a significant economic burden on the individual communities and homeowners. Toi Te Ora supports Council’s intention to spread the annual operating costs of the Rotoiti and Rotoma scheme across all Council ratepayers who are connected to a Council sewerage scheme. We ask, however, that Council consider basing the pan charge on property capital values rather than charging the same rate across the district. This is because an equalised rate is not equitable and places a greater economic burden on those less likely to be able to afford it. Conversation 2: Waste management services Toi Te Ora supports Council’s proposal that all properties in the district be able to receive the kerbside collection, or an equivalent service. We also support upgrading the Reporoa transfer station to provide 24/7 access and establishing collection points at key locations. It is important that waste is safely disposed of to reduce the risk of disease and to minimise aesthetic and environmental impacts of waste. Therefore we support the removal of the ‘opt out’ option and that everyone will pay for waste services. However, we do not support the same rate for everyone as this inequitable, as seen in the tables under Option 1 and 2 where the lower capital value properties have the greatest percentage increase. We ask that Council consider graduated rates for public health infrastructure and services based on property capital values.

353

We encourage Council to make funding decisions that ensure people who struggle financially pay less so they are able to have an equal opportunity to be healthy. Thank you for the opportunity to submit to the annual plan. Toi Te Ora wishes to talk in support of this submission.

Dr Phil Shoemack Medical Officer of Health Contact Details: Toi Te Ora – Public Health Service PO Box 2120 TAURANGA Ph: 07 577 3770 [email protected]

354

640

-----Original Message----From: "John Buddle" Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 11:47 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: RLC Annual Plan 2017/18

11 May 2017 Rotorua Lakes Council: Annual Plan 2017/18: submission

Introduction I am a Trustee for a residential property in Rotorua. In this capacity the following submission is made to the Rotorua Lakes Council on its draft Annual Plan 2017/18. Comment The Rotorua Lakes Council’s draft Annual Plan 2017/18 proposes an average rates rise of 3.8% for the 2017/18 June year. This increase considerably exceeds expected inflation, which is expected to rise 2.0% during the 2017/18 June year. This is based on the NZ Institute of Economic Research’s consensus forecasts of the consumers price index and the Treasury’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (December 2016) forecasts. The Council’s proposed 3.8% rates rise is therefore almost twice as high as expected inflation. If agreed to, this will create further stress and hardship for RLC ratepayers, particularly for those on fixed and low incomes ‒ recall that the 2015/16 rates rise of 7.0% was almost four and a half times higher than inflation. The rates increase should not exceed 2.0% ‒ the Council must generate the efficiencies in its operations to achieve this result and balance the level and range of services it provides with the ability of ratepayers to meet rates payments. Furthermore, at 3.8% the increase is one and a half times the 2.6% annual average rise assumed for rates in the Council’s 10 year plan. For the Museum targeted recovery rate (Option 1) the $14.20 annual charge should be implemented.

Summary

355

640

The RDC must keep faith with its ratepayers and achieve efficiencies to ensure the average rates rise for 2017/18 does not exceed 2.0%.

Recommendation

It is strongly recommended that the Rotorua Lakes Council:

i) note that the proposed 3.8 % average rates rise for 2017/18 is nearly twice the expected inflation rate and one and a half times more than the 2.6% annual average increase in the Councils 10-year plan;

ii) agree that the 2017/18 average rates increase not exceed 2.0%;

iii) .agree that the level and range of its services be balanced with the ability of ratepayers to afford them; and

iv) agree that $14.20 be the annual Museum targeted recovery rate.

Thank you.

J N Buddle

356

641

-----Original Message----From: Christian Walter Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 10:36 p.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: Annual Plan Good morning, thanks for providing the opportunity to comment on the Annual Plan. I wish to provide a few remarks: 1. In general I feel that the way rates are calculated in Rotorua is illogical and unfair to many residents: Properties with higher rateable value have to pay significantly more rates than properties on lower rateable values. The rateable value of a property means absolutely nothing to a homeowner. Even when a house is sold and another one purchased, no gain is made because the individual has to purchase in the same market that they sold to. Also, a higher property value does not mean that the council is providing more services to this property. So how does the Council justify charging a significantly higher rate? Secondly, I note that residents in the area where I live (Lake Okareka) had to suffer a disproportionally higher rates increase than many other property owners. Rates increases in this area were more than double the average in the last round. The Council has not provided a logical explanation for such unfair treatment of residents in the Okareka area. Thirdly, Okareka residents have to pay additional for services that are included in the rates for other residents. I am referring to additional water rates, which property owners in Okareka have to pay on top of already inflated rates, whereas property owners in town are not required to pay this. Finally I note that Okareka and Tarawera property owners had to pay huge cost for a sewerage system. Sewerage reticulation and treatment is however included in the rates for property owners in Rotorua. I am supportive of activities that improve water quality in the Rotorua Lakes area, however, I do not support Council charging a small minority of property owners only, to achieve these goals. I further note that the Annual Plan now states that for financing a sewerage scheme at Lakes Rotoiti and Rotoma "Council will incur the difference in total cost and subsidies up-front, resulting in $9.8m in additional borrowing...". In other words: The cost of the scheme is paid by all Rotorua residents. Why did the Council require Okareka residents to pay for the shortfall in funding? This is treating some residents unfairly. If Council is now paying for the Rotoiti / Rotoma shortfall, then I expect a reimbursement of about $12,000 per property that Okareka owners had to pay. 2. The Council is proposing a 3.8% average rates increase. I object to this proposol for two reasons: Firstly, the rates increase should be similar to inflation rates, and not higher than those. Secondly, I find the term "average" grossly misleading. In essence what this means is that some property owners will (again!!) get away with a very small rates increase, whereas others (and I can almost predict who these are going to be) will have to pay a disproportionally higher rates increase. I submit that those who incurred an above average rates increase last time, now get an increaseholiday paying 0% increase, whereas those who paid lower than the average should pay a higher increase this time.

357

641

3. In general, I support many of the proposed activities that Council seeks funding for. However, I believe that all proposed activities that are geared at maintaining visitor numbers, or at attracting more visitors to Rotorua, should in turn be funded by visitors coming to Rotorua. If we provide those facilities then those using them should be asked to make a contribution reflecting the full cost of tourism to Rotorua residents. For example, why are we providing freedom camping in our city? Visitors to our area should not have a right to explore the area for free and with us (the ratepayers) co-funding their holidays. They should instead be asked to make a contribution to setting up the infrastructure they are using. Consider taxing all tourism related businesses a Rotorua development fee on a per visitor basis. 4. Some of the activities proposed can, in my view, be postponed, essentially providing savings. There should be more community involvement in deciding which improvements to parks, facilities, roads etc are really necessary in the short term, and which ones can be postponed. I have criticised this Council before, for not consulting appropriately with the community on important issues and have made suggestions on how this can be improved. Neither have I received a response, nor have I seen any of the suggestions taken on board. 5. Potential regulation of short term rentals: It is my understanding that property owners who rent out their properties or part of their properties, have to pay tax on the income. Council should lobby Government that part of this income flows back into the community (if it does not already). Additional regulation should be considered very carefully. My experience with New Zealand authorities is that once regulation is considered, it usually leads to overregulation with a lot of compliance cost and very minimal real gain. If it was possible to simply charge overnight visitors a small fee that contributes to the overall income of the Council, then this should be considered. However, I would not want to see property owners to be loaded with unnecessary administrative burden and unproductive (and costly) compliance procedures. In summary, I am opposed to the current rates increase proposal. While I agree that Council needs funds (and perhaps an increase of currently collected rates), significantly more needs to be done to decide upon priorities and the way rates are increased in future. This Council needs to consider significantly improving community consultation. Kind regards

Christian Walter

Fold this form on marked lines and tape edges - then post (no stamp required)

358

Plans to provide blueprint for district’s future

General Comments (continued)

Council is currently consulting on several key plans which, together, will guide our future direction.

FEEDBACK FORM

Locals are providing input into a refresh of the 2030 vision, defining what makes our district special and what Rotorua’s strengths and opportunities are to help set the direction for the next few years. We’re also now seeking community input on proposals for Council’s 2017/18 annual plan following a series of workshops that took a thorough look at services, projects, financials and challenges. The challenge for Council is meeting community needs and expectations while encouraging future progress and at the same time managing finances prudently. Debt reduction remains a focus. Council also wants your input into development of a spatial plan which will guide future growth and development in the Rotorua district. We expect this will involve some difficult discussions but they are important conversations for us to have. I encourage you to have your say and look forward to your input and involvement in preparing for our district’s ongoing progress. Fold here

Fold here

Tatau tatau – We together. Mayor Steve Chadwick This is your chance to ensure the mayor and councillors understand your views about the Annual Plan 2017/18. You can give feedback on Rotorua Lakes Council’s Annual Plan 2017/18 by: • • •

Filling in this feedback form, folding it, secruing it and sending it to us (Freepost). If you want to include some extra pages, it may be easier to put your feedback into an envelope and send it to the Freepost address; or Go to rotorualakescouncil.nz/letstalk or rotorualakescouncil.nz/koreromai and complete an online submission form; or Email your submission to [email protected] and enter the ‘Annual Plan’ in the subject line.

All submissions will be made available to the mayor and councillors who will consider the views and comments expressed before finalising the Annual Plan 2017/18. You are also welcome to speak to the mayor and councillors at a ‘Hearings’ meeting in support of your feedback. Please let us know if you wish to do so and the days that suit you best. We will the contact you with a time. (Please  the boxes that apply) I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings

If yes my preferred day/s would be: (circle all days/times that suit) Fold here

Fold here

Yes 

No 

Tuesday 23 May

AM 

PM 

Wednesday 24 May

AM 

PM 

Contact Details (Please print clearly) FreePost Authority Number 172337 Name: (who is the feedback from?)

Mr 

First Name:

Family Name:

TL & SL Taylor Ltd

Mrs 

Miss 

Ms 

Contact Person: (if the name above is an organisation) First Name: Suzanne Phone: Evening: 07 3338 487

Rotorua Lakes Council Private Bay 3029 Rotorua Mail Centre Rotorua 3046

Family Name: Taylor

0274 954 362

Email address: [email protected] Postal Address:

3400 Broadlands Road, RD 1, Reporoa 3081.

Daytime: 07 333 8487 0274 954 362 Gender:

Male 

Female  X

FEEDBACK CLOSES: 4pm Friday 12 May 2017 HINT - We recommend you read the Annual Plan 2017/18 Consultation Document before making your submission. Visit www.rotorualc.nz/letstalk or www.rotorualc.nz/koreromai to view the document.

359

Conversation #5 - Removal of community board targeted rate It is proposed Council’s funding policy be updated to allow for partnership/community boards to be fully funded through the general rate. This would see the removal of the existing targeted rate for the Lakes Community Board ($21.50 per property covered by the board).

My Feedback is:

Share your views on the following major conversations: Conversation #1 – Proposed East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme for 770 lake properties

Rating differentials

A preferred option approved by Council has been progressed in collaboration with a community-led steering committee and the estimated capital cost of the proposed scheme is $34.5m with $25.9m in subsidies from the Ministry of Health, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Ministry for the Environment and Rotorua Lakes Council. Council will incur the difference in total cost and subsidies up front, resulting in $9.8m in additional borrowing during the 2018/19 and 2019/20 financial years. After subsidy the cost per property is $12,900 and Council proposes introducing a targeted rate for this. Following construction of the scheme there will be an ongoing cost to all ratepayers resulting in an increase of 8% or $37 dollars.

Pause on the current programme that aimed to return rating differentials to 1.0 for rural residential and business.

My Feedback is:

My Feedback is: Farming remission Reduce remission by 50% in preparation of likely removal of it in the next Long-term Plan.

My Feedback is: Conversation #2 - Three changes proposed for waste services A move to a 100% targeted rate for waste services is proposed. Currently 20% of the cost of waste services comes from the general rate and the proposed change will make costs for these services more transparent and more readily enable potential future changes. It’s also proposed all ratepayers be charged for the service, removing the current opt-out option and ensuring every property has access to the Council service. 1400 rural properties currently have no direct waste services and it is proposed services be extended to these communities. This would introduce a new targeted rate for these ratepayers.

My Feedback is: Rural areas are not serviced well. The proposed waste serviced planned for the Reporoa area is not consistant. if a standard compulsory charge is included in our rates we should all be receiving the same service. We would like to see a standardised bag waste collection service, at gate,for the whole of the Reporoa Valley. We support the ugrading of the Transfer Station at Reporoa Village to a 24/7 access for recycling & bag drop off.

Rates increases An average 3.8% rates rise is proposed for the 2017/18 financial year. This includes a 0.5% targeted rate to cover a revenue shortfall caused by the unexpected closure of Rotorua Museum. The other 3.3% base general rate increase is required to fund growth and critical projects and reduce debt over the long term,

My Feedback is:

Conversation #3 – Performing Arts Centre Council proposes undertaking earthquake strengthening of the Sir Howard Morrison Performing Arts Centre and at the same time refurbishing to cater for national and international performances and for the needs of the local performing arts community. The total estimated cost would be $6.5m, to be spread across two years.

My Feedback is:

Short-term rental accommodation Addressing the impact of a proliferation of short-term rentals (eg those advertised on sites like Book a Bach and AirBnB) is something other councils are grappling with. Rotorua Lakes Council wants to know if locals want more rigorous regulation of this type of accommodation.

My Feedback is:

Conversation #4 – Introducing a Museum recovery targeted rate It is proposed every rateable property be charged an additional $14.20 per year – the same for everyone regardless of capital values. The rate would apply only until the museum re-opens. The alternative is to fund the shortfall – about $400,000 per year – through the general rate which would result in an average 1% rates increase for each rateable property (based on capital values).

My Feedback is:

Do you have any other general comments?

360

-----Original Message----From: "Gaylene and Dick" Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 10:52 a.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: RLC Annual Plan 2017/8 submission from LR R & R Assn.

Lake Rerewhakaaitu Residents and Ratepayers Assn (LR R & R Assn) Contact Gaylene Brough

Rotorua Lakes Council Annual Plan due 12 05 17 RLC Annual Plan Submission formatted after discussions at LR R & R meetings 3rd and 8th May LR R & R Assn. wish to verbally discuss this submission; preferred day 23rd May; Time; mid-day

Submission feedback; Conversation #1 Proposed East Rotoiti /Rotoma sewerage scheme for 770 properties; LR R & R Assn. support/ the preferred option – Continue the scheme Introduce target rate from 2017/8 & dwelling payment of $12900.00 July 2017 to progress scheme

Conversation #2- Three changes proposed for waste services LR R & R Assn. support/ Approve 100% targeted uniform rate for refuse collection Service upgrade request; LR R & R meeting (3rd May) voted for Rerewhakaaitu, Rotomahana & Waimungu District to receive Kerbside bin and recycle collection for every dwelling Oppose: The extension of refuse targeted rating for rural bare land (its people that generate rubbish) Support / Delay implementation of full rural Refuse collection for 1 year / cost all district kerbside collection options

Conversation #3- Preforming Arts Centre LR R & R Assn. support Option 2- Earthquake Strengthen

Conversation #4- Introduce a Museum recovery targeted rate LR R & R Assn. support option 1/ targeted rate $14.20 per year Suggest RLC future proofs by ‘Business Interruption Insurance’ to reduce $$$ loss with adverse events

361

Conversation #5- Proposed removal of Community Board target rate LR R & R Assn. support option 2/ Status Quo. We envisage a targeted rate for our RLC Rural Community Board Decisions- Rating differentials Our districts standalone fully self-servicing rural households are disadvantaged by RLC rating system. We request a more equitable rate differential of .75/100. Farming remission L R R & R Assn. support $$ remission/ reduce by 50% for 2017/8 year Short term rental accommodation LR R & R Assn. support Option 1; current policy of 100 days use must be enforced RLC must expect these rental business to form an industry group for future planning

Rotorua Lakes Council Capital spend RLC LTP anticipated rate increase of 2.6%/ We do not support the now 3.8% 2017/8 increase request RLC needs to revisit its budget and defer capital projects when adverse events occur/ ratepayers are not cash cows! L R R&R Assn object to a rate increase to compensate for the loss of revenue for Museum closure LR R & R Assn. object to the Rural Seal Extension reduction again/request full 2017/8 $700,000.00 Budget We again request that all unsealed roads utilized by 54T trucks be sealed with 10 years We support Prioritization of Core infrastructure such as; Sewerage, Water and Storm water projects LRR R & R Assn residents are disadvantaged with unsatisfactory internet and cell phone coverage This disadvantages our school children for their homework, businesses and is a Health and Safety concern

We look forward to the opportunity to personally represent this Annual plan submission

Gaylene Brough, Lea Snowden & Barbara Allen Lake Rerewhakaaitu Residents and Ratepayers Assn,

362

12 May 2017 Submission on the:

Draft Annual Plan 2017/18

Made to the:

Rotorua Lakes Council

From:

The Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa (Creative New Zealand)

1.

Creative New Zealand welcomes the opportunity to consider and make submissions on Rotorua Lakes Council’s Draft Annual Plan 2017/18.

2.

While we do not wish to make a personal presentation in support of our submission, we are more than happy to discuss our submission further upon request.

3.

The key contact person for matters relating to this submission is: Name: Title: Email: DDI: Mobile:

David Pannett Senior Manager, Planning, Performance and Stakeholder Relations [email protected] 04 473 0772 027 671 2286

Initial Comments 4.

We commend Rotorua Lakes Council for its continued support for the arts and culture in Rotorua through its support and investment in artists, community arts, arts organisations and arts institutions.

5.

Rotorua Lakes Council’s Percent for Art Fund continues to be a benchmark for support of public art by territorial authorities. It demonstrates both a fiscal commitment by ring-fencing funding, as well as representing a sensible and strategic use of these funds.

6.

We commend Council for the on-going success of this policy and believe Council was a deserving finalist for the Creative New Zealand EXCELLENCE Award for Best Creative Place at the 2016 LGNZ EXCELLENCE Awards.

Conversation #3 – Performing Arts Centre 7.

Creative New Zealand strongly supports Council’s preference for option 1: to strengthen and enhance the Sir Howard Morrison Performing Arts Centre.

8.

Although an unfortunate reality of living in Aotearoa New Zealand, earthquake strengthening and resilience assessment continues to provide an opportunity for councils to review whether or not their assets are fit-for-purpose more broadly. We congratulate Council for using this earthquake strengthening review to also acknowledge the centre is in need of further upgrades.

9.

We support the proposed design as it provides greater accessibility for local performing arts groups alongside commercial productions and major events. A budgeted cost of $6.5 million

363

spread across two years appears to be a cost-effective proposal, considering Council’s prudent management of its debt. 10.

We hope this will also address the concerns raised by respondents during consultation that pricing structures were a limiting factor for community groups.

11.

We are also very supportive of the proposal for a permanent art gallery space within the foyer that would be accessible by local artists.

Conversation #4 – Introducing a Museum recovery targeted rate 12.

Creative New Zealand is supportive of Council’s long-term work to repair and reopen the Rotorua Museum, as well as maintaining services to support museum operations during the shut down period.

13.

It isn’t our place to comment on how Council should fund the shortfall, other than to praise Council for its continued support of the Museum.

Creative New Zealand and its interest in this consultation 14.

Creative New Zealand receives funding through Vote: Arts, Culture and Heritage as well as the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board. In 2015/16, Creative New Zealand invested over $42.4 million into New Zealand’s arts sector.

15.

In 2015/16, Creative New Zealand invested at least $1.2 million in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato regions including Rotorua. This amount includes the funding of individual arts projects as well as organisations in the Waikato and Bay of Plenty.

16.

Creative New Zealand also granted $565,000 in 2015/16 to the Bay of Plenty and Waikato region’s councils through the Creative Communities Scheme (CCS), in order to support and encourage local communities to create and present art.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment, and please don’t hesitate to contact me if you wish to further discuss this submission. Yours sincerely

David Pannett Senior Manager, Planning, Performance and Stakeholder Relations

364

645 Yvonne Hathaway

This is my feedback submission on the proposed Annual Plan 2017-18 presented by the Rotorua Lakes Council. Conversation 1: East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme I agree with the proposal presented by council

Conversation 2: Waste management services I agree with Option 3 – 80% targeted rate, on page 10 of the proposed Annual Plan, but would like it to include the opt out option I agree with Option 2 – Do nothing on page 11 of the proposed Annual Plan. The preferred proposals here are unfair. Rural properties will be paying the same as urban properties but the service is not the same. Rural dwellers will be required to take their rubbish to a transfer centre or collection point…..how is this an equivalent service? Targeted rates charges will be charged to each house on the property which in my case is 3 houses per property. Houses on my properties are staff houses and therefore I am unsure if the proposed waste services offered by council will be used by the occupants of the houses on the property, especially if they have to take their rubbish to a collection point or transfer centre, I see this as highly unlikely. I will be charged an estimated $562.50 for a service that may not be used by my property. I also have a property, used as a “runoff’ to support the dairy farm with no buildings on it and I will be charged a “partial charge until such time as a building is constructed”. No buildings will be constructed on this property and it does not contribute any rubbish to the waste services of the district. I do not believe I should be charged any fee for this property. “The benefit of charging all properties the same is simplicity and full transparency of the system. A full targeted rate also recognises that effective waste management services benefit everyone in the community regardless of where they live.” I do not agree with either of these statements and believe simplicity is a poor excuse for charging all properties the same fee. What is offered to rural dwellers is not an effective service that will be utilised or benefitted by everyone in the community.

Conversation 3: Performing Arts Centre I agree with Option 2 Strengthening only

Conversation 4 – Introducing a Museum recovery targeted rate

365

645 I agree with Councils preferred option on pg 15 of the Annual Plan

Conversation 5 - Removal of community board targeted rate I do not agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan

Rating differentials The rating differentials should remain the same and should not be changed Farming Remissions I disagree the remission should not be reduced by 50% Rates Increase No the council should not increase its borrowings, and keep the rates rise to a minimum.

366

646 Matthew Hathaway

This is my feedback submission on the proposed Annual Plan 2017-18 presented by the Rotorua Lakes Council. Conversation 1: East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme I agree with the proposal presented by council

Conversation 2: Waste management services I agree with Option 3 – 80% targeted rate, on page 10 of the proposed Annual Plan, but would like it to include the opt out option I agree with Option 2 – Do nothing on page 11 of the proposed Annual Plan. The preferred proposals here are unfair. Rural properties will be paying the same as urban properties but the service is not the same. Rural dwellers will be required to take their rubbish to a transfer centre or collection point…..how is this an equivalent service? Targeted rates charges will be charged to each house on the property which in my case is 3 houses per property. Houses on my properties are staff houses and therefore I am unsure if the proposed waste services offered by council will be used by the occupants of the houses on the property, especially if they have to take their rubbish to a collection point or transfer centre, I see this as highly unlikely. I will be charged an estimated $562.50 for a service that may not be used by my property. I also have a property, used as a “runoff’ to support the dairy farm with no buildings on it and I will be charged a “partial charge until such time as a building is constructed”. No buildings will be constructed on this property and it does not contribute any rubbish to the waste services of the district. I do not believe I should be charged any fee for this property. “The benefit of charging all properties the same is simplicity and full transparency of the system. A full targeted rate also recognises that effective waste management services benefit everyone in the community regardless of where they live.” I do not agree with either of these statements and believe simplicity is a poor excuse for charging all properties the same fee. What is offered to rural dwellers is not an effective service that will be utilised or benefitted by everyone in the community.

Conversation 3: Performing Arts Centre I agree with Option 2 Strengthening only

367

646 Conversation 4 – Introducing a Museum recovery targeted rate I agree with Councils preferred option on pg 15 of the Annual Plan

Conversation 5 - Removal of community board targeted rate I do not agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan

Rating differentials The rating differentials should remain the same and should not be changed Farming Remissions I disagree the remission should not be reduced by 50% Rates Increase No the council should not increase its borrowings, and keep the rates rise to a minimum.

368

647 SUBMISSION TO ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN 2017/18 The Rotorua Citizens Advice Bureau’s Submission – We are positive our organisation would contribute significantly to the success of the new Library/Child Health Hub and are asking Council to find space for us in the Hub, or alternatively close by in the Haupapa Street quadrant. How we can add value to the Library/Child Health Hub:     

The provision of up-to-date, accurate, timely information, advice and advocacy is our core business, therefore we have natural synergies with the Library/Child Health Hub and the Tourism Information Centre. But we are much more than an information service – we are the eyes and ears of the local community, providing a wrap-around service to people who more often than not are disadvantaged through poverty, poor decision-making, or an inability to effectively communicate. Clients are frequently referred to us by government departments, banks, not for profit organisations and Council staff when these agencies run out of options to assist them. We can help both the Council and the DHB by becoming the conduit between the health providers and other agencies within the community, particularly with our knowledge of who provides services, what is happening in the community etc. We deal with a wide range of enquiries which are essential issues for families and their children. We are strongly of the belief that the health of children in a city like Rotorua is extremely dependent on the health/state of mind/economics of the family.

If the above is not possible, is there somewhere in the vicinity Council can assist us to relocate to?   







The Bureau does not consider our current premises at 1143 Eruera Street as a permanent home – if inclusion in the Child Health/Library Hub is not possible, we would like to establish somewhere in the vicinity of the Health Hub/Tourism Centre/Haupapa Street carpark. Volunteers are handling a significant number of complex enquiries, however, the number of requests for quick snippets of information and for use of our public phone have decreased significantly, now that we are no longer part of a community house and somewhat out on a limb in the new premises. The ability to quickly refer clients to other agencies, assist with clients visiting other agencies and networking opportunities has also ceased now that we are in a stand-alone situation. This frequently means that clients are not receiving the advice or advocacy they need and are being “lost” between the different referring agencies. We are aware that the Library currently attracts many of the clients we used to see on a daily basis and frequently fields enquiries from them that we would normally help with. Whilst Library staff refer these clients to us, more often than not they do not turn up, as they are put off by having to walk three blocks to our premises. As discussed with Council staff we are prepared to review how we operate to reduce our footprint, provided we have access to space to conduct confidential interviews. Being placed in the new facility or adjacent to it would also overcome the difficulties we have now of accessing appropriate meeting and training rooms and of securing large amounts of funding just to be able to pay rent costs. We are concerned that when the Council funding for rent subsidies becomes contestable in 2019, we could struggle to continue operating if we do not secure this assistance.

We do not wish to present this submission in person. Rotorua Citizens Advice Bureau Management Board 12 May 2017

369

SUBMISSION TELEPHONE 0800 327 646 I WEBSITE WWW.FEDFARM.ORG.NZ

Rotorua/Taupo Federated Farmers Submission on the Rotorua Lakes Council Annual Plan 2017/18 Consultation Document 12 May 2017 Address for Service: Alan Wills Double A Oaks 928 Forest Road RD2 REPOROA [email protected] 07 333 8528 027 281 8626

We wish to be heard in support of this submission

1.

INTRODUCTION

This opportunity to submit on the key conversations in the draft Annual Plan for 2017/18 is appreciated. Rotorua Federated Farmers values the relationship and dialogue we have with council. We have consistently submitted on behalf of farmers in the district on the annual and long term plans of council, and our concerns are well known to councillors. We seek in particular an equitable and transparent rating system, within which  the uniform annual general charge is used to the maximum allowable extent, to reduce rates on property value;  where practicable rates are targeted to the beneficiaries of services; and  fees and charges are used where user pays funding regimes can be applied. This submission is based on these principles and addresses the “conversations” set out in the consultation document most relevant to our members.

370

2.

RATES INCREASE

The reported rate increase of 3.8% is above that forecast in the Long Term Plan. We understand that some of this increase will arise from the situation with the museum and the new rate proposed – and we can accept that – however the proposed substantial increase in revenue for waste management must also contribute, and the element of this that is from rural areas is not supported. As we note each year percentage increases mean a lot to individual farmers in dollar terms, as the percentage works off a high base. 3.

WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Rotorua Federated Farmers is opposed to the proposed system of charging for refuse collection that accompanies the transition to ‘kerbside’ wheelie bins. We are particularly concerned at the negative and inequitable impact of; 1. the removal of the reduced targeted rate for residents that choose to ‘opt-out’ of the collection service, and 2. the application of a ‘partial charge” on bare land SUIPs. 3.1

Removal of the ‘opt out’

To require all residents to pay a full targeted rate for a collection service, whether the service is desired or not, is counter-intuitive to the objective of minimising waste. As we understand it there are a number of rural properties that, while the council collection service is available to them, make their own arrangements for minimising waste and disposing of it. The proposed targeted rate regime, with a uniform and compulsory charge across all properties, would create a significant disincentive to minimising waste; rather, given the prospect of paying the full amount regardless, users of the service will tend to maximise their use of it. Council’s Long Term Plan (‘Challenge 3’, p.14) and Waste Strategy 2015 both strongly indicate a desire to “…minimise the impact of waste and the amount of waste we dispose of”; indeed, the purpose of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 is to “… encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal…” Removal of the option to ‘opt out’ of the waste collection service runs directly counter to any waste minimisation objectives, or education towards such objectives, as it incentivises maximum use of the service. The information sheet accompanying the Annual Plan consultation document sets out the tonnes of rubbish per year from kerbside rubbish bags, but does not forecast where this volume is anticipated to be with the introduction of this new targeted rate.

371

Rotorua Federated Farmers submits that an ‘opt out’ option at a reduced rate should remain, particularly for rural areas. People’s choices as to how they manage refuse should not be arbitrarily removed. 3.2

Partial charge on vacant land

Some of our members have already received correspondence from council indicating that land titles forming part of a farm, but without buildings or residences upon them, are to be charged a targeted rate for refuse disposal. This would result in some farmers paying a number of times for refuse collection, as many farms incorporate grazing titles in their make-up. Again, this runs counter to the objective of waste minimisation, and is also and obviously inequitable for rural ratepayers. We refer council to section 101 of the Local Government Act 2002, which sets out the principles for the funding of local government activities. There is no rationale under these principles for applying a targeted rate for refuse collection on bare land grazing titles. Rotorua Federated Farmers is opposed to the imposition of a targeted rate for refuse collection on bare land titles in the rural area. This proposal is completely unjustified and is an inappropriate use of the council’s authority to impose targeted rates. 3.3

100% targeted rate

Federated Farmers is a strong and consistent supporter of the use of targeted rates to fund activities where the direct beneficiaries of a service can be identified. Targeted rates have the qualities of transparency and equity that general rating lacks. On that basis we would support moving refuse collection to a fully targeted basis, however we see the introduction of the proposed uniform targeted rate for waste management as terribly flawed. As proposed the element of compulsion, and the ‘scatter gun’ approach of applying the rate to bare land titles in the rural area (which we understand are themselves treated as separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit, or a SUIP), suggests a rate that does not have the qualities and is not accompanied by the underlying principles of a targeted rate. In principle we support the funding of waste management on a 100% targeted rate basis, but find the structure of the rate here to be very flawed. 3.4

Extension of the service

On the basis of the structure of the proposed targeted rate proposed, we do not support the extension of services. While there may be some desire for the service to be extended, this would result in all properties in the extended area paying the full targeted rate.

372

4.

PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE

It is acknowledged that this issue was raised as a challenge in the Long Term Plan 2015, and that community groups wish to see the facility improved. It is difficult to assess the value of the enterprise for our ratepayer members in the absence of a funding impact statement to show how the forecast costs will be funded over time. 5.

MUSEUM RECOVERY TARGETED RATE

The introduction of a targeted rate to fund museum recovery is supported. The use of a targeted rate mechanism has the advantages of transparency, in that the additional cost is visible ratepayers, and all ratepayers are charged an equal amount. This is an issue for the whole community, in which all should take an equal share. We are concerned however that if the rate is to be applied per SUIP that farmers with multiple titles will pay more than once. Rotorua Federated Farmers supports the introduction of a targeted rate of $14.20 to fund museum recovery, with the reservation that farmers with farms in more than one title may pay more than once for one household. 6.

LAKES COMMUNITY BOARD TARGETED RATE

We of the general view that all of the community boards should be funded by targeted rates across their respective constituencies, and contend that this matter – like the adjustments to general rate differentials - should be held over to the Long Term Plan 2018. Rotorua Federated Farmers requests that council defer any decision on the Lakes Community Board targeted rate until the Long Term Plan 2018. 7.

RATING DIFFERENTIALS

Federated Farmers has made a strong case in several submissions against the winding back of the business differential. We agree that further decisions on differentials should be taken as part of a full rating review and that no further changes should be made until there is a full rating policy review as part of the Long Term Plan 2018. The retention of existing rating differentials until a full rating policy review is supported. 8.

FARMING REMISSION

The farming community has greatly appreciated the introduction of the farming remission, and accept that this measure was temporary in nature.

373

On this basis we support the reduction in the remission by 50%. We also hasten to emphasise that part of the reason the remission was introduced was the considerable wind back of the UAGC in the Long Term Plan 2015 that accompanied and amplified the effects of the property revaluation in that year. The impact in terms of the share farmland is paying of council’s rating revenue was considerable and continues. We look forward to a proper review of the level and use of the UAGC in the course of the Long Term Plan 2018. The reduction in the farming remission is accepted; we look forward to further discussion on the level and use of the UAGC.

THANK YOU

374

Hospitality New Zealand (BOP Branch)

SUBMISSION ON DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN– ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL Friday May 11th 2017 Hospitality NZ is a voluntary trade association which has operated since 1902 and currently represents over 3,300 hospitality businesses throughout New Zealand. As Regional Manager for Hospitality New Zealand, I support and represent fifty seven businesses throughout Rotorua Lakes District and these businesses employ a total of 1,071 staff. This submission is made on behalf of the Bay of Plenty branch of Hospitality New Zealand. We appreciate the opportunity to make a submission on the Draft Annual Plan. We are committed to working with Rotorua Lakes Council in order to develop a practical and effective plan. We would like to speak to our submission. CONTACT DETAILS: Alan Sciascia Regional Manager Hospitality New Zealand [email protected] 0274 922-475 0800 500-503

Equal footing for all businesses Hospitality NZ does have concerns about boutique accommodation businesses running under the guise of a private residence. The policy guidelines already in place by RLC allow a liberal 100 business days per annum before a property is considered to fall under the commercial classification. This compares to the Queenstown model which allows a maximum of 90 days before it is considered a commercial enterprise. However the Queenstown model also has a partial commercial classification for less than 90 nights where a loading is applied depending on various criteria. We are pleased to see that RLC are working closely with QLDC and TCDC as all three districts have similar problems with large numbers of private residences apparently operating as businesses for a considerable part of the year. We point out that the liberal 100 days allowed by RLC equates to two nights every week during the year. We question whether this allowance is fair and equitable in comparison to the system being followed by QLDC. Compliance We note RLCs current policy on allowing residents an ability to run their property as a business for up to 100 days without any rates penalty being applied. We also note your discussion paper states “Currently properties being used like this are rated residential” and also states “To determine the overall numbers will take time and resources, potentially requiring additional staff resources or contractors to quantify”. While we appreciate the difficulty and cost associated with controlling this issue we do urge the Council to put in place a monitoring and enforcement regime which will ensure that all businesses (large and small) are compliant.

Hospitality NZ Submission – Rotorua Lakes District Annual Plan

1

375

The Changing Market

The accommodation market is continually evolving and private residences are being increasingly used as an option for both domestic and international tourists. In particular we refer to AirBnB and BookABach which RLC has already identified as significant players in this market. We also point out holidayhouses.co.nz as another facility used by Rotorua ratepayers using private residences to operate as a business and some private homes are also being used by commercial accommodation booking websites such as www.booking.com When RLC put together its consultation document it showed Book-A-Bach as listing 443 properties in Rotorua District. We can now confirm that as at 11/05/17 the number of listings had increased to a total of 455 in this short time. It is likely that this increase is due in part to the high level of business expected for the upcoming Lions tour and also in part to the increasing number of property investors moving into the Rotorua residential accommodation market. Many such investors now recognise that they can collect the equivalent of a full week’s rent by letting their property for just two days and the potential to more than treble that during busy periods (peak summer, school holidays, long weekends and events). Such investors realise they can get a much better return on their investment than they would with a recognised commercial enterprise. We checked available rooms for the weekend of the upcoming Lions vs Maori All Blacks to be held on June 17th 2017. As at 11/05/17 the three main websites listed the following as being available Book A Bach 112 of 455 total listings Air BnB 187 of 300+ total listings Holiday Houses 27 of 121 total listings This indicates as many as 550 residences have been sold for that weekend alone though it may well be less as it is likely that some residences are listed across multiple platforms. It could also be higher as it is unknown exactly how many properties are listed in AirBnB. We are very aware that for the recent Crankworx weekend many participants and supporters were found to be utilising these facilities as it suited their particular needs. We have no doubt that a similar situation applies on other occasions such as the Rotorua Marathon and other numerous smaller events. We do not begrudge property owners from capitalising on this business opportunity. The accommodation market is evolving and the participants in that market need to evolve accordingly. However we do expect that businesses be treated as businesses where they operate as businesses. It is completely unreasonable for one business to be subject to property levies and another not simply because to levy that other business is seen as being too difficult. Recommendations 1. RLC have a monitoring and enforcement provision in their district plan which will ensure the Council policy and bylaws are complied with 2. Include the definition of commercial accommodation in the district plan 3. Actually enforce the provisions of the district plan to ensure compliance by all businesses Hospitality NZ thanks Rotorua Lakes Council for the opportunity to submit on the Annual Plan

Hospitality NZ Submission – Rotorua Lakes District Annual Plan

2

376

TE HUNGA HAUĀ MAURI MŌ NGĀ TĀNGATA KĀTOA

Submission to the Rotorua Lakes Council Annual Plan 2017 – 2018

12 May 2017 All correspondence to; Mandy Gudgeon

650

377

The Rotorua Access Committee appreciates the opportunity to submit on Rotorua Lake Council’s Annual Plan 2017 - 2018. We value the constructive, mutually beneficial working relationships we continue to enjoy. We’ve all heard the talk about the aging baby boomer population but indulge me in reminding you that as our 65 year plus age group grows significantly during the next decade, so too does our number of residents living with an age related disability. The greater Bay of Plenty already has a higher than national average of people living with disabilities (27% as opposed to 24% nationally) and it is for this reason that Rotorua Lakes Council must prioritise the needs of these groups. 1) Footpaths Footpaths are the foundation of our public spaces, used by all members of the community – including older people, children, families (prams), people using mobility aids (walkers, mobility scooters or wheelchairs) and other people with disabilities. Footpaths are not only thoroughfares – they are for stopping, talking, living and learning on. Footpaths provide for independence, promote health, and connect neighbours and communities. Footpaths in the city centre are mainly cobbled and as time has shown, they have lifted or moved and created trip hazards for all manner of pedestrians. Our preference is that further use of cobble stones around the city are not laid.

650

378

The Rotorua Access Group regularly receives complaints regarding unsafe or inaccessible footpaths and in particular steep or poorly constructed kerb ramps. These issues are acted on by a Contracts Engineer in the Transport Department of RLC whose efforts in addressing the concerns are much appreciated.

However some of the remedial works can take considerable time to rectify. The budget for this work comes from a ‘minor improvement fund’. We understand that there is a lot of dated infrastructure in the greater Rotorua area and our requests come from only a few members of the community covering limited areas of Rotorua. With this in mind we have tried to keep to the main areas of the CBD and key routes that link suburbs to the CBD to ensure that the greatest number of people benefit. However it still appears to be a piecemeal ad hoc approach for essential maintenance and remedial works. Request:  Limit the further laying of cobble stones in the city centre.  Review the funding allocation for remedial works on footpath infrastructure.  Develop a planned maintenance schedule for remedial works to footpaths all over the city (i.e. 10 years plus). 2) Website & Council Communications

650

379

Accessibility is one of the fundamental principles on which the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities is based. It encompasses the right to access the physical environment, transportation, information and communication, and services. It is important that these multiple components of accessibility are recognised because they are essential for disabled people to live independent and full lives. The New Zealand Government Web Accessibility Standard requires core agencies to deliver online information and services that are accessible to persons with disabilities. RLC publications, notices, invoices and the website require more attention to their readability. There are recommended font sizes and colour/contrast to background for a person with a visual impairment. Documents on RLC’s website (maps for example) are only available in PDF format which limits users who utilise an assistive reading device. Request:  RLC adopt the E-Government Guidelines and ensures all information, invoices, advertisements and documents are available in a machine readable format. 3) Longmile Road The current footpath into Long Mile Road only extends from Tarawera Road to just short of the forestry gate. Beyond this all foot traffic, parents with prams, scooters & wheelchairs cannot make a safe trip to the Redwoods Information Centre without navigating a busy road with lots of cars and tourist buses. The

650

380

grass edge on the side of the road is not suitable for pedestrians (and wheels) especially in the winter/wet months as it becomes impassable in places. The Tarawera Road entrance is very popular as it provides the most direct access to the information Centre from Tarawera Road. Request:  RLC partner with the local iwi and owners to ensure a safe and accessible route is provided into the Redwoods via Tarawera Road.

4) Cy-Ways The development of the Cy-Ways and the supporting infrastructure around the city has been beneficial to many members of the elderly and disabled community as well as cyclists. The route from Ngongataha for instance allows many mobility scooters and powered wheelchair users to access the city in an independent and safe manner. Support:  We strongly support the continued development of the cy-ways around the city. 5) Public toilets

650

381

The elderly and individuals with disabilities enjoy getting out and about in their communities as per everyone else. To be able to use public toilet facilities when out is a basic human right. We appreciate that RLC has recognized the need for unisex public toilets that enables individuals who require assistance from a person/partner of the opposite sex to actually enter and render assistance. Some public toilet facilities are in urgent need of an upgrade including older facilities that do not comply with the NZ Standard 4121:2001. Request:  RLC continue to upgrade and increase the number of accessible unisex public toilet facilities within the city and parks and reserves.

6) Strategic Policies It is very disappointing to note that RLC has no current Elder Housing or Disability Strategy to provide assurance to rate payers that these important issues are factored into all work that RLC undertakes. Many other local authorities in NZ have such policies in place to guide and direct staff to the needs of all their communities. Without RLC’s public commitment and statements on these important aspects of the greater community, individuals are rightly left wondering how much attention is paid in practice, to the needs of these groups. Request:

650

382

 RLC prioritise the development of appropriate strategies/policies relating to the elderly and people living with disabilities in the city.

Thank you for taking the time to read this submission, Your sincerely, Peter O’Flaherty and Mandy Gudgeon (on behalf of the Rotorua Acess Committee).

Prevalence for Overall Disability Rotorua District - Statistics NZ 2013

650

383

650

384

651 Graeme Hathaway

This is my feedback submission on the proposed Annual Plan 2017-18 presented by the Rotorua Lakes Council. Conversation 1: East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme I agree with the proposal presented by council

Conversation 2: Waste management services I agree with Option 3 – 80% targeted rate, on page 10 of the proposed Annual Plan, but would like it to include the opt out option I agree with Option 2 – Do nothing on page 11 of the proposed Annual Plan. The preferred proposals here are unfair. Rural properties will be paying the same as urban properties but the service is not the same. Rural dwellers will be required to take their rubbish to a transfer centre or collection point…..how is this an equivalent service? Targeted rates charges will be charged to each house on the property which in my case is 3 houses per property. Houses on my properties are staff houses and therefore I am unsure if the proposed waste services offered by council will be used by the occupants of the houses on the property, especially if they have to take their rubbish to a collection point or transfer centre, I see this as highly unlikely. I will be charged an estimated $562.50 for a service that may not be used by my property. I also have a property, used as a “runoff’ to support the dairy farm with no buildings on it and I will be charged a “partial charge until such time as a building is constructed”. No buildings will be constructed on this property and it does not contribute any rubbish to the waste services of the district. I do not believe I should be charged any fee for this property. “The benefit of charging all properties the same is simplicity and full transparency of the system. A full targeted rate also recognises that effective waste management services benefit everyone in the community regardless of where they live.” I do not agree with either of these statements and believe simplicity is a poor excuse for charging all properties the same fee. What is offered to rural dwellers is not an effective service that will be utilised or benefitted by everyone in the community.

Conversation 3: Performing Arts Centre I agree with Option 2 Strengthening only

Conversation 4 – Introducing a Museum recovery targeted rate

385

651 I agree with Councils preferred option on pg 15 of the Annual Plan

Conversation 5 - Removal of community board targeted rate I do not agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan

Rating differentials The rating differentials should remain the same and should not be changed Farming Remissions I disagree the remission should not be reduced by 50% Rates Increase No the council should not increase its borrowings, and keep the rates rise to a minimum.

386

652 Ryan Hathaway

This is my feedback submission on the proposed Annual Plan 2017-18 presented by the Rotorua Lakes Council. Conversation 1: East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme I agree with the proposal presented by council

Conversation 2: Waste management services I agree with Option 3 – 80% targeted rate, on page 10 of the proposed Annual Plan, but would like it to include the opt out option I agree with Option 2 – Do nothing on page 11 of the proposed Annual Plan. The preferred proposals here are unfair. Rural properties will be paying the same as urban properties but the service is not the same. Rural dwellers will be required to take their rubbish to a transfer centre or collection point…..how is this an equivalent service? Targeted rates charges will be charged to each house on the property which in my case is 3 houses per property. Houses on my properties are staff houses and therefore I am unsure if the proposed waste services offered by council will be used by the occupants of the houses on the property, especially if they have to take their rubbish to a collection point or transfer centre, I see this as highly unlikely. I will be charged an estimated $562.50 for a service that may not be used by my property. I also have a property, used as a “runoff’ to support the dairy farm with no buildings on it and I will be charged a “partial charge until such time as a building is constructed”. No buildings will be constructed on this property and it does not contribute any rubbish to the waste services of the district. I do not believe I should be charged any fee for this property. “The benefit of charging all properties the same is simplicity and full transparency of the system. A full targeted rate also recognises that effective waste management services benefit everyone in the community regardless of where they live.” I do not agree with either of these statements and believe simplicity is a poor excuse for charging all properties the same fee. What is offered to rural dwellers is not an effective service that will be utilised or benefitted by everyone in the community.

Conversation 3: Performing Arts Centre I agree with Option 2 Strengthening only

Conversation 4 – Introducing a Museum recovery targeted rate

387

652 I agree with Councils preferred option on pg 15 of the Annual Plan

Conversation 5 - Removal of community board targeted rate I do not agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan

Rating differentials The rating differentials should remain the same and should not be changed Farming Remissions I disagree the remission should not be reduced by 50% Rates Increase No the council should not increase its borrowings, and keep the rates rise to a minimum.

388

653

Moana Mikaere – The 1 Minute Submission Form Q1: What is your first name? Moana

Q2: What is your last name? Mikaere

Q3: What is your email?

 

Q4: What is your location? Suburb Arncliffe City Sydney

Q5: The things I would like to see Rotorua Lakes Council focus on in the 2017/2018 Annual Plan are:

Include others in the project so that the community grasps a big picture of the future and justify the increase and change. Contingency plan towards homeless and provide shelters or support. Local council to reach out to the organisation Increase te reo every year. Are the rates fixed? No increase of rates ??

Q6: Additionally, I support:(Tick all that apply)  

The establishment of a stand-alone Te Arawa Whare Toanga – given the current circumstances surrounding the Museum Devolved funding to Te Tatau o Te Arawa to enable iwi engagement on major projects

Q7: Additionally, I think Rotorua Lakes Council needs to:(Tick all that apply)     

Provide greater clarity on how the rates are applied Not give priority to the economy over the environment Ensure that Te Arawa culture and values form a key part of planning, policy and action Support the development of Papakāinga on Te Arawa land Keep me informed of the enhanced iwi participation with the recent changes to the Resource Management Act

389

Submission on the Annual Plan 2017/18 G. P. Horgan Summary: •

Council needs to go back to the premise of the Long-term Plan of no real increase in rates and cut its cloth accordingly. If that means some ‘nice to have’ projects need to be deferred then so be it.

•

To date Council’s spending on Economic Development has not proved particularly cost effective. Rather than increasing real spending in this area Council should consider decreased expenditure and leave Economic Development along with research to the private sector.

•

All current, and any future, Board/Partnerships, should be funded from a mix of targeted and general rate funding. The split between specific (targeted rate) funding and general rates funding should be reviewed regularly (every two or three years) and adjusted to reflect the then applying current as to the fraction of benefits produced by having the Board/Partnership are obtained by the group that the Board/Partnership was set-up to represent and the fraction of benefits that spill over to the wider community.

•

Rather than going to a fully (100%) targeted rate for Refuse Services Council should retain the current system with part targeted funding. Ratepayers able to use the service, and hence in-line to pay the targeted rate for the service, should be able to ‘opt out’ and avoid paying for the targeted part of the service if they neither need it, or alternatively, don’t believe they are receiving value for their money with the service offered by Council. This ‘opt-out’ provision puts a consumer pressure on Council’s commercial refuse services to perform in an efficient and cost effective manner. There should continue to be general funding of those aspects of refuse services which reflect the public good aspects of such a service.

•

Funding for Museum recovery should come from within the existing rates and from a reprioritisation of those funds – not a new special targeted rate. Although Council might also like to look to other external funding sources, such as Central Government, as well. (Recently the local paper carried a report which had the local Member of Parliament indicating Government money might be forthcoming to cover some/all of the extra Museum costs. Council should explore that possible source of funding). In addition to reprioritizing current spending to pay for the Museum there may also be possible savings/reductions within Council’s current budgeted expenditure arising from, for example, the change to the funding of rural fire services which will happen on 1 July with the new Fires & Emergency New Zealand organisation. Savings on already budgeted expenditure arising from organisational change could also be put towards the cost of Museum recovery.

•

The case for spending on the Performing Arts centre needs be re-examined – and a proper business case for it prepared. In the first instance, and before that business case is prepared, efforts should be directed at finding a charging policy for the use of the existing facilities – a policy which increases the current usage of those facilities - rather than simply

390

seeking to spend more to create better facilities. If earthquake strengthening is genuinely required and essential then this should be done as a matter of priority. However, if strengthening is more of a ‘nice-to-have’ matter then delaying strengthening could be part of the reprioritisation of funding to pay for the extra Museum costs. Cost-benefit assessment of earthquake strengthening the current building should be done – and the results of that assessment used to inform any action (see Natural disaster horror stories and similar breakfast reading by Bryce Wilkinson p14 National Business Review 12 May 2017). •

The need for a wider discussion with all ratepayers on sewerage schemes is clearly demonstrated by the figures in the Consultation Document. Those discussions are required now before, not after, Council simply decides to continue with current existing proposals such as the one for East Rotoiti/Rotoma. That scheme which will service 700 households is a $40 million one. While local ratepayers need only find a quarter ($10 million) of that capital cost ($1.155 million of which will be from ratepayers not directly benefited by the scheme) operating the scheme results in an ongoing increase of $1.1 million per annum in ratepayer costs. The cost effectiveness of the scheme doesn’t compare well with that for the proposed upgrading of the urban wastewater treatment plant – expected capital cost $25~$30 million. The new urban plant will service 22,000 + dwellings or 30 times the number expected to be serviced by the East Rotoiti/Rotoma scheme and do so for a total capital cost that is something like three quarters that of the proposed Rotoiti/Rotoma scheme. In terms of the direct capital cost to Rotorua ratepayers the cost of the proposed Rotorua urban scheme is only two to three times that of the Rotoiti/Rotoma - to treat the sewerage output from 30 to 40+ times the number of people serviced by the East Rotoiti/Rotoma one. How many more scheme of the proposed East Rotoiti/Rotoma type can the district afford? How many more might be needed? What, if anything, are the alternatives? If there are no alternatives and we need to proceed with the current scheme and perhaps a few more like it to service places such as Lake Tarawera etc., the need to limit rate rises now is obvious because these schemes are going to impose a significant new and increased rate burden on all in the future. Unless some things currently funded drop out of the future mix just servicing the operating costs of the proposed East Rotoiti/Rotoma scheme will add something like an additional 1.3 percent to the rates required to run the district. How many more extra 1.3 percent increases to make Rotorua a better place to live do ratepayers believe they can afford? And how many such increases is Council possibly planning?

391

General: The proposed Annual Plan breaches one of the understandings arising from the consultations on the 2015-17 Long Term Plan – and does so without good reason. Those consultations outlined a couple of “sustainable” rating options with Council eventually choosing to go with the one which had a ‘one-off’ 7 percent rate increase for the 2015/16 year to be followed (supposedly) by rate “increases at the rate of inflation in the following years”. In my submission on the Long-Term Plan, I noted that the worked example Council produced in the Consultative Document to demonstrate the working of that option appeared to imply that, despite the words used, an intention to continue year-by-year increasing rates in real terms. (Based on the Proposed Rates Rises (indicated in the figure on p13 of the document) given official Central Government inflation projections the real increases implied in the worked example ranged from around 0.5% pa (2017) up to something like 1.5% per annum (2025). I characterising the proposal described as “sustainable” and “increases at the rate of inflation” as misleading and neither when it apparently proposed continued increases in the level of resources being transferred from citizens (ratepayers) to Council. A year later when rates were increased by an average 1.9 percent although inflation, as measured by the CPI, had been no more than 0.4 percent for the year (and only 0.1 percent if one used a calendar year) I, along with others, believed that Council had demonstrated just how misleading its previous words had been. Council’s response though was: Council's costs are dictated by factors that don't generally affect the average householder. These include the cost of asphalt for roads, building materials e.g. iron, steel and concrete for building construction, pipes and pumps for water and sewerage reticulation. These items are generally much more expensive. Council stated in its long-term plan that for the year 2016/17 the rates would increase by the cost of inflation and modelled a 2.5% average rates increase. Each year councils across the country use an independent company to provide updates on the cost of inflation. This is then used to check the inflation assumptions used. The company is called BERL (Business and Economic Research Limited). BERL states inflation for councils is 1.9%. After reviewing assumptions Council has adjusted the expenses and revenue accordingly and is proposing an average 1.9% rate increase.

Essentially RLC claimed no breach of the undertaking – and any concern about the issue was essentially one of failure on the part of ratepayers to properly understand Council’s inflation. There are several problems with this, not the least being misuse by Council of the term “inflation”. There are also issues with the measure of “inflation” offered among which is that BERL’s index not being readily open to peer review and it being a forward, rather than backward, looking index. It is a projection by BERL of what is expected to occur in the future. Generally, the more widely accepted ‘official’ inflation measures, such as the CPI, are backward looking and describe how prices have evolved over the preceding year. Adjusting rates each year with backward-looking figures simply brings one back to the same starting base point at the beginning of each annual cycle. These indices don’t adjust for inflation’s impacts during the year – so depending on exactly how inflation evolves during one year compared to how it evolved during

392

the previous or next year there will be slightly different year-to-year inflationary impacts. Indexation simply brings one back to the same starting level at the beginning of each cycle. Forward looking indices, such as that produced by BERL for Local Government, try to adjust for how inflation will impact during the term of the cycle (year) – and they can be wrong simply because it is possible that some price increase assumed as likely to occur when calculating the index may not in fact happen at all – or happen on a different timing to that assumed in developing the index. Not only can a forward- looking projection be wrong (anticipate too much or too little inflation) but adjusting by this type of measure will, over time, almost inevitably result in a real rate increase. Last year, despite Councils protestations, there was almost certainly a real increase in rates. This year, the only BERL projections for 2017/18 available to non-Council persons are a couple of years old. These indicate Local Government ‘inflation’ of between 2.5 and 2.8 percent. With RLC proposing a 3.8 percent increase in rates this, on the face of it, will make 2017/18 the third year in a row of real rate increases after the supposedly “one-off” 7 percent real increase in 2015/16. As mentioned the publicly available BERL projections are old. BERL does update its projections regularly but does so for Local Government New Zealand. If one goes to the Local Government website for the latest Local Government Cost Index one get the following: In early 2015 SOLGM asked BERL to review and if necessary adjust the methodology for developing the adjustors and the Local Government Cost Index. It is regarded as best practice to review the composition of price and cost indices at least once every five years to ensure that they adequately reflect the actual costs or prices they attempt to measure. For budgetary reasons, SOLGM had not undertaken a review of the adjustors since their creation in 2006, or of the LGCI since its creation in 2010. This review has generated significant change to the adjustors – which has been signalled as a likelihood since the decision to commission the review was made in March. BERL have provided a recommended matching of activities to the adjustors (see page 6) but have also provided forecasts of the individual cost indices (e.g local government salary and wage rates). As always, there is a commentary on the economic situation - which has deteriorated since the production of the last adjustors You can find the adjustors at: http://www.solgm.co.nz/berl-resources (Note: you will need your council password to access the adjustors. If you do not know your password please email [email protected]).

Not being members of the local government priesthood- the Society of Local Government Managers – most ratepayers simply don’t have access to any updated or revised figures nor the opportunity to ‘peer review’ the adjusters. This simply isn’t good enough. BERL, SOLGM and RLC, given that Council’s regularly use this material, should be making it, and all the assumptions associated with it, publicly accessible – and they should also be doing ex-post reviews of adjustments made because of the figures.

393

Conversation #1 - East Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Scheme Turning to the various Conversations of the Consultative document a general comment would be that there seems to be a lack of accuracy/consistency with costs, a lack of clarity as to how the list of potential options has been determined, while the process for settling on which of the listed option should be the Council’s preference is not always obvious or transparent. The East Rotoiti/Rotoma sewerage scheme provides a good example of a number of the issues of concern. The Table below sets out the financials of the scheme as presented in the Consultation Document East Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Capital Project Costs, Funding and Operational Parameters Capital Cost of Project (GST excl) Capital Subsidies (GST excl) NET Capital to be Funded BY ROTORUA – GST excl General ROTORUA ratepayer Which leaves a Net GST excluded Capital Cost Proposed Capital Contribution Charge Per Property GST inc is $12,900

$34,580,000

For 770 properties

$24,726,000

For 770 properties

$9,854,000

For 770 properties

$1,155,000

PROJECTED SCHEME ANNUAL OPERATING COST Expected cost recovery per user pa

$1,400,000 (GST inc or exc???)

Subsidy of $1,500 per property for 770 properties To be funded by Rotoiti/Rotoma scheme users Funding raised by targeted charge on 770 properties payable in a lump sum or 25 annual payments of $994 (interest rate of 6%) Approx. $1,818 per property

Operating subsidy from the rest of the Rotorua ratepayers (pa)_ Impact on ratepayers of this (in terms of their pan charges)

$1,100,000

$8,699,000

$9,933,000 (GST inc) or $8,443,050 (GST excl)

$ 300,000

$37 pa (GST inc)

$389.61 per property per annum - less than urban ratepayers currently pay Projected to be spread over 29,730 other ratepayers

Will lift current sewage disposal charge for 1-4 pans from $455.50 pa (GST inc) to $492.50

The first point to note is that the ‘conversation’ includes a mixture of GST included and GST excluded figures – making it more difficult and not always appropriate, to directly compare figures. In some cases, there is even failure to state whether the figure given is GST inclusive or not.

394

Ideally all figures should be on the same basis – so the scheme which apparently costs $34.58 million might in fact equally honestly be described, with GST included, as being a $39.767 million – call it $40 million – scheme. Next is the question of whether spending $40 million in total ($11.332 million (GST inc) of Rotorua ratepayer money) with an ongoing operating cost for Rotorua ratepayers of $1.4 million pa (a subsidy of $1.1 million per annum from ratepayers in the rest of the district to those resident in East Rotoiti/Rotoma), is the most cost effective way to meet district commitments to the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme. (I suspect the answer is no). In terms of making the decision to continue with the scheme – which is Councils preferred option, - how does the cost of the scheme compare to the total costs associated with OSET? What are the expected water quality and health risk differences between OSET and the proposed scheme? How important is the fact that what is being proposed is community-led and (presumably) has community buy in? There needs to be some good reasons provided as to why continuation with the proposed scheme is Council’s preferred option. While not doubting that the proposed scheme is the preferred option put forward by a communityled steering committee (and why wouldn’t they endorse what appears to be a Rolls Royce scheme for which the community will be required to pay only a basic price?) the matters which warrant considering in proceeding with it are surely greater than the list given in the consultation document. That document states other communities have expressed a desire for reticulated sewerage schemes and have community-led steering committees established to consider options and funding sources. Can each of these other communities expect a similar sized subsidy from the rest of Rotorua’s ratepayers ($1,500 per property (in 2017 dollar terms)) towards the capital costs of their schemes? Can they count on an ongoing subsidy, from the rest of the Rotorua ratepayers, towards operating costs of those schemes of $37 per pan (GST incl) per annum? If the answer is yes, what are the potential implications of that answer with respect to overall rates in the longer term? If the answer is no, then why not? What is it about East Rotoiti/Rotoma ratepayers that warrants their potentially being treated differently to others? There is also the matter that the proposed scheme in part uses a Biolytix system - a system which is currently undergoing a trial. What is the basis for determining the success or otherwise of that trial? Should the trial happen (despite expectations) not to be successful what then? What is the alternative (Plan B) and how much might it cost?

395

Conversation #2 – Waste Management: Currently funded 80% through a targeted rate of $144.70 (GST excl.,) on those receiving kerbside services and 20% through general rates – to cover waste minimisation education, general litter collections the monitoring and recovery of illegal dumping etc. At present those in the area with kerbside services who choose not to use the service can opt out and avoid paying the targeted component of the rate. The proposal is to go to 100% targeted funding for the service with the targeted rate of $187.50 (GST excl) applying for all ratepayers where the kerbside service is available regardless of use, (i.e., no opt out). There is also a proposal to extend current kerbside services to areas not currently serviced, and to bring ratepayers in those areas into the targeted rate system. Other options on offer the targeted: general split at 80:20 or alternatively change it to 90:10 split. All options on offer though involve removal of the “opt out” provision - the argument being that this “removes the risk of a funding shortfall and ensures all residents are able to receive the service”. That argument is simply not correct. Removing the right to ‘opt out’ simply confers a monopoly right on the organisation Council selects as its waste management provider. An ‘opt out’ provision helps ensure this provider is both service orientated and efficient. Because if the service provider fails to be both an ‘opt out’ provision allows the clients (ratepayers who want/need kerbside collection) to punish the provider for its failures. By exercising their right and opting out they reclaim the money they’re paying for an inadequate or unwanted service – which they can then use to contract a different provider who will give them a better service. The opt out provision is important because it serves to keep the Council provider both service orientated and cost efficient too. If the Council provider is both there should be no risk of a funding shortfall, because ratepayers will have no reason not to choose to use the Council service provider. Making people pay for a ‘service’ when it is possibly unwanted or is regarded as inadequate is not the right way to go. Given that not all ratepayers have access to kerbside collection but that all benefit from general litter collection and the monitoring, recovery, and prosecution of illegal dumping etc., I believe that some component, and in the absence of good data to support a different figure 20 percent seems quite reasonable, of the waste management services should be funded from the general rate. I see no justification for changing from the current model, i.e., an 80:20 spilt for funding between a targeted and the general rate with the provision for those who don’t wish to use the service on offer to opt out and save the targeted portion of their rate. However, there should be evidence to support the split between the specific user pay (targeted) fraction and general (public good) one. As for extending the services that is, or should be, an economic decision best left to the service provider. The decision to extend kerbside services or not, should depend on the marginal costs of extending being less than the marginal benefit of extending. That marginal benefit, as far as the service provider is concerned, is at present presumably a GST excluded $144.70 per annum per ratepaying household. If the service provider believes service can be extended to properties currently not serviced for this amount or less, or if the service provider can come up with some variant of the service provided to the bulk urban households that costs no more than this and is acceptable to households not currently receiving kerbside services, it should extend its services. Otherwise things should be left as they are.

396

Conversation #3 – Performing Arts Centre. If earthquake strengthening is required then quite clearly that should be carried out. However, the fact that there is an Option 3 presented which is ‘Do nothing’ would seem to indicate that at this point earthquake strengthening may be more ‘nice to have’ rather than an essential matter. If that is the case then this project offers the potential for an immediate $3 million saving – and on its own would appear to negate the need for any rate increase (Page 26 indicated the Council is looking for rate increases of a little over $3 million in total). The other aspect of the work proposed with the Centre seems to hinge on the current low usage of the Centre and the need for a venue for community performing arts groups. Given that some of the feedback about the use (or more accurately the lack of use) of the existing Centre by these groups related to the current pricing structure and the charges for community groups to use the Centre before rushing to spend approximately $3.5 million on undertaking building work to make the Centre more suitable for use by these groups perhaps the focus should go on pricing policies for use of the existing facilities. Getting the usage level up for existing facilities from the current claimed low level would seem to be a me to be of higher priority than spending money on creating more/better facilities, in the hope that these will attract greater usage. Logically because of the money spent in upgrading the facilities, and that they will be better than the existing ones, a person might think that the charges for the use of upgraded facilities will be higher than those for the use of the existing facilities. But, at least for some groups there is apparently already an issue with charges – and higher charges are hardly likely to make that issue disappear. Before any money is spent on facility improvements of this Key Project, Council should endeavour to sign up some cornerstone users for the proposed new facilities - with the sign-up to include both a commitment to a minimum number of hours of usage per annum and the payment to be made for those hours. There’s a need for a proper business case for the proposed upgrade - and without such a case, which would need to be properly peer reviewed, the upgrade should not occur.

397

Conversation #4 – Museum recovery targeted rate. This is an interesting topic. Rates can in one sense be regarded as the wage & salary paid by ratepayers (the employer) to an employee (Council) to provide a variety of services including looking after the employers’ (ratepayers) assets such as the Museum. Currently, I’m not aware of demands by employees in quake hit places such as Christchurch or Kaikoura for salary increases to help defray the costs earthquakes in those places have caused them. Rather workers in Christchurch, Kaikoura and other earthquake affected places are expected to re-prioritise their current expenditure and carry on. In my view, Council should be doing the same here with respect to the Museum - rather than asking for a special ‘salary’ increase. It’s not a question of increasing general rates or putting in place a targeted rate but one of deciding that covering the Museum shortfall is far more important than say funding artwork for the roundabout at the Hemo Gorge city entrance or in deciding to continue to spend $250,000 p.a. on the CCO Terax 2013 Ltd, etc. Of interest though is the question of how Rotorua managed to get through to November 2016 before discovering that the historic portion of the Rotorua Museum was earthquake vulnerable? Over the last 30 years’ large sums have been spent in refurbishing and upgrading the historic original portion of the building and in finishing the building, as originally envisage. Responsible stewardship of the asset would surely have ensured that before embarking on that investment there should be an investigation into the stability and soundness of a structure built on a demanding and high hazard site that was about to have a considerable amount of money spent on it. It almost beggars’ belief that these investigations didn’t reveal a potential problem. Even if earthquake issues weren’t initially considered it seems amazing that nobody in Council (the organisation charged with looking after our asset) considered the issue, particularly post-2010 when, the performance of buildings in the Christchurch, made awareness of the risks posed by past building techniques much greater. Apparently, no investigation ever indicated the earthquake vulnerability of the existing structure. Rather, it took a 2016 earthquake some 500+km distant to Rotorua, an earthquake which, when it happened, either failed to register or barely registered with most Rotorua citizens to reveal the risk. For that to be the truth strains credibility. Has there possibly ben professional negligence or incompetence on the part of one or more of the professionals employed by Council, to examine and comment on the Museum building, during the last 30 years? Alternatively, is it possible that Council has previously been appraised of the potential risk, but chose to ignore that advise - until the risk presented itself in a way that no longer allowed it to be ignored? Is there a case for holding someone, either from Council or from its professional advisers accountable for the costs arising from a failure to do what could/should have been expected? None of that of course fixes the problem but perhaps a bit of transparency over who should, could, ought to have identified problems with the Museum; when they should have done so; and what would have then been the appropriate actions to take might serve to raise awareness of potential of risk factors in general. At the same time by identifying what does seem to be an obvious past failure, the people associated with that failure and where and how they failed the result may be a lessening of the possibility of being caught out in a similar manner again in the future. Certainly, one of my hopes would be that trying to transparently look at accountability for what has happened with the Museum would be a lessening of the possibility of Rotorua being caught out similarly in future with other assets.

398

Conversation #5 – Partnership/Community Board Funding I do not favour updating the funding policy to allow for partnership/community boards to be fully funded through the general rate. Nor do I favour retaining the status quo. Part of the rationale for setting up Partnership/community boards is to provide better representation and input to Council for a specific group or sector of our District. To the extent any Board or Partnership is working on behalf of clearly identifiable groups in our community those groups should fund the Board/Partnership (the user pay principle). That said, with any group there is also likely to be some clear spill-over benefits the wider community too. For example, clearly better infrastructure and services with the lakes has some benefit to the rest of the community too. Ditto for the Rural Community Board and Te Tatau o Te Awara partnership. To the extent that any Board or Partnership’s work benefits the whole community the whole community should pay the cost of that Board or Partnership. I would therefore favour Council on a regular basis, say perhaps every 2nd year, being required to decide on an appropriate split between Specific and General funding for each and every Board or Partnership set up. The specific part of the funding would be funded by a targeted rate on the relevant community of interest while general ratepayer funding would be used for the remainder. For example, if it was judged that at present some 30 percent of the Lakes Community Board’s work benefited the wider community then the current targeted rate of $21.50 on ratepayers who make up this community would be reduced to $15.05. The 30 percent shortfall in the funding of this Board that this would produce (some $6.45 times the number of ratepayers qualifying as part of the Lakes Community) would then come from the general rate. If in two years’ time the split between benefit to the specific or wider community was judged to have shifted to 50:50 or 100:0 or 0:100 the split between targeted and general rate funding of this Board’s activity would then be accordingly modified to reflect this new reality. I believe all Boards and Partnerships should be set up in this manner. Funding for all current Boards/Partnerships, and for any that may be created in the future, should be done on the basis outlined. The split between specific group (targeted rate) funding and general rates funding should be reviewed regularly (every two or three years) and adjusted to reflect the view current at that point as to who is benefiting, and to what degree, from the work of each Board or Partnership.

399

Decisions: I would have thought that that if the 2015 Long-term Plan set a programme to progressively return rating differentials to 1.0 over the first three years of the plant that this decision would have been made following an appropriate rating policy review. If that was indeed the case then there does not not seem to be a good reason to now pause on any shift in differentials. Certainly, the case for delaying until a full review can be undertaken as part of the 2018-28 Long-term Plan does not seem to be compelling. Unless of course it is now being argued that the previous review was/is faulty. And if that is the case perhaps there should be a detailed discussion about why/how it is faulty. Alternatively, if the 2015 decision was made without the benefit of an appropriate rating review perhaps there is a good case for pausing – but there is also an equally compelling case for Council to explain how it came to its previous decision without having the necessary data to make a wellinformed decision. It also needs to outline what it is now doing to ensure that similarly poorly based decisions are not now being made in other areas of Council policy. In a similar vein, I do not support the idea behind a general farming remission. This, like the rating differential, would appear to be another area where policy has possibly been determined on an inadequate basis. Accordingly, I would favour the immediate removal of the farming remission. The argument advanced for this remission is that farmers had big increases in the capital value of their farms but that returns (particularly dairy returns) fell quite considerably. So what? Residential and/or business ratepayers also at times (and possibly in the future too) have seen big increases in their capital values. At the same time, in some cases annual income for these classes of ratepayer has been squeezed by redundancy, illness, accident, downturn in tourist numbers or in spending in business in general or in a particular type of business (for many different reasons), but we don’t suddenly propose and give a generalised remission of business or residential rates. Council needs to be compassionate and it should have an ability to grant a remission to individuals for reasons of hardship. But it should this on a case-by-case basis. Individual ratepayers should need to apply and a remission should not be granted for all ratepayers belonging to a particular category simply because they are classified as belonging in that category. Individual should have to specifically apply for a remission and in applying provide relevant and appropriate evidence to support their specific case for being granted a remission.

400

Your Rates: At the heart of rates affordability is the question of how much people can pay to make Rotorua a better place to live The proposed total increase in rates for the 2018 financial year is 3.8%. This is generated from a small inflation factor and direct funding for increased services. These are listed below: Rate Type

Increase$

Increase as % of Total Rates

Museum Refuse TR 1.5% + move to fully targeted Water TR 1.5% Inc UAGC 1.5% Inc Economic Dev Rate 1.5% inc Other Targeted Rates 1.5% Inc General Rate

400,000 1,160,938 65,000 212,000 112,000 245,000 882,312

0.5% 1.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 1.1%

3,077,250

3.8%

The Long-term Plan anticipated a rate increase of 2.6% Most of this is best described as being disingenuous spin. Indeed, it possibly illustrates one way Council might save a little money – reduce the hiring PR communications people to ‘spin’ stories. The Long-term Plan did not anticipate a rate increase of 2.6% for the 2017/18 year. The Long-term Plan assumed a ‘one-off’ rates increase in 2015/16 followed by rate increases at the rate of inflation. A worked example using the BERL projections, which at that point of time assumed the Local Government Cost Index would increase 2.6% in 2017/18, is the basis for the claim of an anticipated rate increase of 2.6%. I’ve already dealt with BERLs index in some detail so won’t go into it again here but it is disingenuous to suggest the assumption in a worked example is evidence of an anticipated 2.6% rate increase. That the figures Council are now using has a base increase of 1.5% on most items suggests BERL, or someone, has now revised the RLC’s anticipated ‘inflation’ rate down to this level. If that is the case, it would be more accurate to suggest that the Long-term plan anticipated a rate increase of 1.5% (since that is now the BERL or Council estimate of increases in Local Government Costs). It seems likely that the worked example in the Long-term Plan used an ‘inflation’ adjuster for 2017/18 which is 73% higher than the current estimate for the adjuster. If that is the case the proposed rate rise at 3.8% is in fact 253% of the rate rise that ratepayers should have expected following the logic outlined in the Long-term Plan. The wording used by Council in the current Annual Plan Consultative Document seems to be intended to suggest that the proposed rate rise is ‘only’ 46% higher than the increase anticipated some 2~3 years ago. I suspect an intended corollary of mentioning the worked example from the Long-term Plan, but not what it was supposedly portraying, is a hope by Council that ratepayers will think ‘Oh so two years ago everyone expected rates would be going up by 2.6% so going up by 3.8% isn’t really that bad’. If Council really was following the intention outlined in the Long-term Plan of increases at the anticipated rate of inflation the currently proposed increase is 153% higher, or 3.3 time, the rise that ratepayers should have expected. Ratepayers have a right to expect Council to follow through on its Long-term Plan proposals. If one cannot expect Council to honour commitments made in that Plan or be absolutely honest when/if it finds itself having to break those commitments there seems little

401

point in either producing such a plan (other than to avoid breaking a requirement of the Local Government Act) or in people spending time submitting on any Plan which is produced. It is also wrong to suggest that at the heart of rates affordability is the question of how much people can pay to make Rotorua a better place to live. The Council’s job is to do the things that it needs to do to meet its statuary obligations to the people of Rotorua and to do so in a cost-effective manner. It is not Council’s job to determine how much people can pay to make Rotorua a better place to live – and there is also the question of who should decide what constitutes “better” and on what basis. The Consultation Document claims that the proposed rate increase is generated from a small inflation factor and direct funding for increased services. Again, that is not strictly correct. Below is a reworking of the material presented in that document along with data on current rates collection by the Council by the identified rate types. This material clearly shows the claim is not entirely correct. Some 13% of the rate increase is the result of the proposed new Museum recovery rate – something that can hardly be classed as an increased service. Next almost 38% of the increase is due to proposed changes to the funding sources associated with the refuse service. Rate Type

Museum Refuse TR 1.5% inc + move to fully targeted Water TR 1.5% Inc UAGC 1.5% inc Economic Dev Rate 1.5% inc Other Targeted Rates 1.5% inc General Rate TOTALS

Current Rate Collection by Rate Type $1 4,218,000

Proposed Increase $

Increase as % of Proposed Increase

Increase as % of Total Rates

400,000 1,160,938

Increase as % of Current Rate for Rate type ∞ 27.5

13.0 37.7

0.5 1.4

4,333,333 14,306,000 5,686,000

65,000 212,000 112,000

1.5 1.5 2.0

2.1 6.9 3.6

0.1 0.3 0.1

16,933,333

245,000

1.5

8.0

0.3

36,534,000 82,010,000

882,312 3,077250

2.4 3.8

28.7 100.0

1.1 3.8

Again, there’s no increase in refuse services as such, just a change in the source of the funding for some 20 percent of those services. That 20 percent, which is associated with benefits to the wider community including benefits received by those who cannot or do not wish to use the current urban collection system, currently comes from the General Rate. Next year it is proposed that this will come directly from those who have access to the urban collection system. It also appears from the recasting of the data that spending on Economic development is slated for something like a 25% increase over that needed to simply keep real spending in this area at the same level as in the current year. (That is premised on accepting that the inflation rate is 1.5%). Proposed increases for other targeted rates appears to be in line with Council’s apparent inflation forecast. Finally, the proposed increase to the General Rate is nearly a full percentage point greater than the increase required to keep up with inflation. In fact, the effective increase in the General Rate is significantly greater than implied simply because the General Rate currently includes payment for 20 percent of the refuse costs. That 20 percent represents $1,054,500. If one were targeting nothing but a small inflation increase to the General Rate the move to a fully targeted Refuse rate should be accompanied by a reduction in the General 1

See http://www.rotorualakescouncil.nz/our-services/property-and-rates/Rates/Pages/2012-2013-RatingCharges.aspx

402

Rate take exactly equalling this change. Instead, the $1,054,500 of the $36,534,000 of General Rates which is currently used to pay for Refuse services is retained while an extra $1,054,500 is levied of ratepayers as part of the new fully 100% targeted Refuse rate. From the viewpoint of an urban ratepayer what is proposed is an increase in the current urban refuse levy from $144.70 to $180.88 followed by a 1.5% ‘inflation’ indexation to a final per urban household refuse services cost of $183.59. this though is being done with absolutely no increase in the ‘service’. Because of this the real boost to General Rates is effectively the $1,054,500 no longer required to support refuse services plus the $882,312 shown in the Consultation Document as being the General Rates increase. Effectively the proposal being consulted represents a boost the General Rate take by 5.3% or $1,936,812 – effectively an increase that is about 3.5 times the expected increase due to inflation. What we have with the proposed rates increase is a 1.5% increase across the board increase to account for inflation, coupled with a proposed new levy of $400,000 to pay for past failures in Museum management, a $28,000 (approx. 0.5%) increase in the ‘real’ economic development rate and a $1.4 million boost (almost 4 % boost) to the ‘real’ General Rate. That is not an increase generated by a small inflation factor and direct funding for increased services.

Concluding Remarks With the possible impact of the East Rotoiti/Rotoma scheme in mind it is quite easy to see how adding a few more schemes of a similar ilk, a bit of so called inflationary increase to rates that isn’t really inflation at all but in fact a real rate rise, a couple of essential ‘vanity’ projects to make Rotorua a better place to live, more money for economic development and a lot more for infrastructure repairs and maintenance because of the impact more extreme weather events arising from climate change and the rate burden could become intolerable. In the words of the late US Senator J. William Fulbright, one would be talking ‘real money’. That should be a major concern. Now is clearly the time to hold the line in terms of any real rates increase. The focus should be on keeping the real rate increase to zero, on good analysis and defining and concentrating on core Council business, on improving utilisation of existing assets and in cutting areas of expenditure which are not core business. This last point is critical but even more should analysis, rather than hope, raise questions over the likelihood of obtaining proper or adequate risk adjusted returns on moneys spent on projects and businesses which clearly fall into the ‘not core’ category. RLC has several such businesses – and needs to address the issue of stopping investing in these enterprises now.

403

-----Original Message----From: Tim Sent: Friday, 12 May 2017 4:26 p.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: Annual Plan 2017/18

1)

I think the time frame of the Museum recovery targeted rate should not be open-ended. It should be be restricted to a proposed annual plan year with renewal dealt with on a yearly basis. It might be economic to bring forward museum repair if paid for by targeted rate, to earn admission revenue sooner.

2)

I approve of the proposed changes for waste services.

3)

I approve earthquake strengthening of the performing arts centre but I think refurbishment should be postponed in favour of the museum's recovery. (I assume the museum attracts more visitor revenue.)

4)

Private overnight accommodation is offered next to me. Presently I am indifferent; however visitor numbers nationally are increasing rapidly and, particularly, numbers of "independent" travellers. So, it is possible adjacent private residences will become considerably less private. Users of private overnight accommodation do not contribute to council revenue but do utilise council services. (Water usage in Rotorua is not metered for example.) I think RLC should cooperate with other councils to develop a national policy with regard to short-term rentals since enforcement/oversight of any relevant rules would presumably otherwise be difficult.

5)

In comment on the proposed LTP 2015-25, I said I did not want operation of the Atiamuri Rd landfill to pass out of council hands. When there a few weeks ago I noted signage at entry to the effect: 'Out-of-area waste NOT accepted', had the word 'NOT' erased. I am concerned at the prospect of this site being filled up sooner than it might have been. I also noted use of the raised off-loading ramps in the GreenWaste area had been discontinued and the ground in the new off-loading area was very muddy for users.

6)

Finally, I noticed a recent RLC meeting attended by Regional Council staff re the the Rotorua Airshed. My neighbours replaced an open fire with a pellet burner and found it unsatisfactory. They missed the immediate effects of an open fire and found pellets expensive. I think it would be absurd to have to replace an open fire (I have one) with a pellet fire

655

404

while there are very efficient word-burners available. I also think it is absurd the Regional Council permits fires in the open in the Airshed - the fireplaces I have seen sold for this purpose are clearly converted stainless-steel dustbins with feet added and a sheetmetal stovepipe chimney.

Yours faithfully, T S Hughes

655

405

406

407

408

667

Registered Charity CC11386

Mail: PDC Mourea RD4 Rotorua 3074 12 May 2017

Rotorua Lakes Council Private Bag 3029 Rotorua Mail Centre ROTORUA 3046

FEEDBACK SUBMISSION TO RLC ANNUAL PLAN 2017-18 The Lake Rotoiti Community Association (LRCA) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to Rotorua Lakes Council’s 2017-18 Annual Plan Consultation Document. LRCA continues to represent a wide community of interest within the Lake Rotoiti catchment

Conversation #1 – East Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Scheme 1. LRCA strongly supports these schemes to proceed as recommended by the community-led steering committee and endorsed almost unanimously at the most recent community meetings during Easter. Whilst there is emphasis in the document regarding overall capital costs, the indicative shortfall of $9.7 million (after subsidies of $24.7 million) which will result in additional borrowing during the next two financial years is considered to be well justified given the level of community support and environmental outcomes expected to be achieved. 2. The recent community meetings have shown that most are opposed to the intention to commence the targeted capital rate in the 2017-18 year given formal undertakings have yet to be agreed. 3. Whilst accepting that there are disproportionate costs in maintaining smaller outlying schemes, the standing agreement of Council to provide equity in operational costs across all District schemes was an acknowledgement of the contributions made over many years by unconnected properties towards the repayment of the capital loan required to establish the city upgrade from 1991. The inclusion within this policy of those connected to a stand-alone treatment plant is only fair and equitable.

Conversation #2 – Waste Management Services 4. LRCA supports the proposal outlined in Para 1 on Page 9 in its entirety. However, it is our contention that funding Option 2 on Page 10 (90% targeted, 10% general rate) should be implemented to acknowledge the non-individual costs associated with components like education and fly-tipping.

409

Conversation #3 – Performing Arts Centre 5. Whilst LRCA is generally supportive of maintaining and improving public facilities and amenities for social, economic and aesthetic reasons, we believe that there is strong sentiment within our communities at present against lower value and non-essential discretionary spending in order to reduce debt servicing. The proposed $3 million upgrade in addition to earthquake strengthening costs is considered by many to fall within this category and is therefore not supported at this time.

Conversation #4 – Museum Recovery Targeted Rate 6. LRCA acknowledges the unfortunate effect of the Kaikoura earthquake and impact on revenue over a sustained period. We support the proposed targeted rate of $14.20 per year on all rated properties whilst the museum remains closed.

Conversation #5 – Removal of Community Board Targeted Rate 7. LRCA fully supports Council’s proposal to remove the targeted rate for Community Boards in alignment with our submissions since the establishment of the Lakes Community Board. We see this as latent recognition of the significant and increasing role that Community Boards play in promoting engagement between their communities of interest and the resulting benefit to Council and the rest of the District.

Rating Differentials (Pages 17-18) 8. LRCA strongly supports Council’s decision to hold Rural Residential and Business differentials at current levels of 0.93 and 1.70 respectively pending the full rating policy review planned as part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2018-28. LRCA has consistently submitted that any proposed phasing out of differentials must be balanced with a full review of benefits and services received and with appropriate targeted rates being introduced to provide transparency, fairness and equity for all.

Short Term Rental Accommodation (Pages19-21) 9. Short term rental accommodation is an ever increasing trend amongst our lake residential properties, particularly due to the high incidence of absentee ownership which prevails. LRCA remains unaware of significant issues around behavioural problems but has discussed basic concerns relating to rating equity. However, having examined policies of other authorities, particularly Queenstown Lakes DC, it is felt that the matter needs to be debated further within our communities to form an objective opinion. Our intention is to carry out a survey of our members in time for a submission to the next LTP.

Capital Spend and Debt (Pages 22-25) 10. Proposed Capital Spend in this Document exceeds LTP Year 3 projections by some $11 million. Major variations are:   



Information Technology system renewals SHMPAC enhancements Library & Health Hub Transport Network renewals Water Supply renewals

2

$2.12m $3.05m $2.51m $1.71m

$1.64m

410

LRCA is concerned that, other than the SHMPAC, there is no clear explanation to substantiate these significant variations in terms of whether they represent work in arrears or brought forward, or are additional to the LTP. Whilst it is noted that the increase in borrowing for this programme is essentially in line with the LTP, we seek further clarification in support of this expenditure.

Your rates (Pages 26-27) 1. LRCA would support the proposed overall increase of 3.8% in rates for 2017-18. Whilst the size of the increase from the LTP anticipated 2.6% is regrettable, we acknowledge that a substantial proportion of this increase is related to recovery of museum loss of income and transitional costs for the new refuse regime. The reduced average increase for lakes residential properties due partially to the proposed postponement of the differential removal will help to offset the converse result of the past two years. 2.

It should be noted that if Council amends the proposed targeted rate for Refuse to 90%, the resulting increase to the general rate will serve to reduce the impact of the Museum targeted rate on lower value properties across the District.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Prior Chairperson

3

411

Submission on the Annual Plan 2017/2018 Prepared by Te Tatau o Te Arawa 12 May, 2017

people. culture. place.

412

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3 Kōrero #1 – East Rotoiti/Rotomā Sewerage Scheme ................................................ 4 Kōrero #2 – Waste Management Services .............................................................. 7 Kōrero #3 – Performing Arts Centre ........................................................................ 8 Kōrero #4 – Introducing a Museum Recovery Targeted Rate ................................... 9 Kōrero #5 – Proposed Removal of Community Board Targeted Rate ....................... 9 Our Rates .............................................................................................................. 9 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 11 Additional Considerations .................................................................................... 11 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 13

413

INTRODUCTION Te Tatau o Te Arawa (Te Tatau) represents the collective interests of Te Arawa under the Te Arawa Partnership Agreement with the Rotorua Lakes Council. As Rotorua Lakes Council's partner, Te Tatau is grateful for the opportunity to make this submission on the Rotorua Lakes Council Annual Plan Consultation Document (Annual Plan). Again, we commend the Rotorua Lakes Council (RLC) on the quality of the document published on the website. The document provides good coverage of the major points RLC sees as being important for the next financial year. However, we also note within this submission that parts of the document do not set a consistent bar for some major issues that have only cursory coverage with limited rationale.

The Rotorua Way – Vision 2030 In reflecting on a focus for our submission we are conscious of our recent submission to the 2030 Vision refresh. As partners of Council, we feel it is essential that there is consistency around matters of focus and direction as much as possible in a changing world. This enables clarity and development of a depth of understanding between the partners. As a point in passing we note that some of the issues within the Annual Plan do not reflect a level of consistency that is easy for a partner to clearly understand the rationale. We also note that the annual plan consultation document does not provide a clear link to the Rotorua 2030 vision, i.e. how do the proposed projects in the annual plan contribute to the 2030 vision priorities. The points we raised in the 2030 Vision submission were:  Te Arawa culture and values should form a key part of planning, policy and action.  Te Arawa's place in Rotorua needs to be more clearly acknowledged.  RLC needs to improve its understanding and focus on sustainability. Economy is important

but should not be prioritised over environment.  RLC needs to engage with Te Arawa to:  Strong Culture –

a) Inform strategies and projects to strengthen the role, visibility and importance of Te Arawa culture within Rotorua. b) Get a deeper understanding of our culture and the role it plays in the lives of our people. c) Support Te Arawa to pursue our aspirations to strengthen Te Arawa culture in current and future generations.  Easy Lifestyle –

d) Support the development of Papakāinga on Te Arawa land. e) Understand culturally sensitive sites within our natural environments that are not suitable for outdoor recreation.

414

f)

Provide data and information that assists Te Arawa to support Te Arawa people who are most at need.

g) Explore how Te Arawa can assist RLC to strengthen the sense of community amongst Rotorua citizens.  Diverse opportunities –

h) Understand the role of the Te Arawa economy and strengthening the wider Rotorua economy and our economic aspirations. i)

Share economic data and information that will assist Te Arawa to pursue its economic aspirations.

j)

Assist Te Arawa to develop collective economic development strategies that support the goal of diverse opportunities and our economic aspirations.

k) Understand the role and relevant strategies to utilise our young population to address pending workforce shortages.

SUBMISSION POINTS KŌRERO #1: EAST ROTOITI/ROTOMĀ SEWERAGE SCHEME  Points of Support



Te Tatau supports the need for a sewerage reticulation scheme at East Rotoiti and Rotomā in order to protect and improve te mauri o te wai o ngā roto (lake water quality) and te oranga o te tangata (public health)



Many of our Te Arawa iwi and hapū live in lakeside communities and the quality of our waterways are important to Te Tatau and Te Arawa whanau, hapū and iwi.



Te Tatau commends RLC for the approach taken developing this scheme, particularly: o

the establishment of a steering committee with tangata whenua representation;

o

meaningful consideration of the cultural concerns and aspirations of tangata whenua;

o

the consideration and trial of new approaches that provide a more culturally appropriate solution for waste water management, i.e. the Biolytix and the STEP systems; and

o

provision of free connections for Marae within the scheme area. Te Tatau encourages RLC to apply the same approach for marae if new sewerage schemes are implemented in the District. We believe this approach acknowledges the

415

important role marae play as social and community infrastructure that supports the wellbeing of whanau, hapū, iwi and indeed our wider community. 

Te Tatau supports a targeted rate for the scheme, given it benefits specific ratepayers (noting we do not agree with implementing the targeted rate before the scheme is operational).



Te Tatau also supports the potential for the East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme to be developed as a Public Private Partnership Model where the sharing of risk, investment and the development of innovative, long term relationships between the public and private sectors can be explored. Te Tatau in partnership with the Council would be prepared to lead these discussions alongside interested Te Arawa investors.

 Points of Concern



Variances between the LTP provisions for the East Rotoiti/Rotomā sewerage scheme and the Annual Plan. Te Tatau notes the following concerns in this respect: o

In the LTP the Sewage Activity does not have any borrowing contained in the financial information. Therefore, it is not clear why the Council now mentions such extensive borrowing requirements for this scheme?

o

If the borrowing within the LTP is an error/oversight, then the size of the error would surely be significant enough for an LTP amendment.

o

Further, analysis of the LTP activity for Sewage indicates that borrowing is not required within the activity. The activity is reflected as increasing the interest cost with no new borrowing and also transferring money into reserves, which are not specified within the LTP.

o

As a targeted rate it seems that the policy is for the rate to meet the costs of the activity in the long term. This seems to be consistent with the content of the discussion document.

o

However, the financial information contained within the 2 documents is not aligned. The Sewage Activity is currently set to transfer $18m to reserves.

o

If these funds were to be credited to the Activity to repay debt, then the Activity would end the LTP period with an investment fund of about $10 to 15m and have no debt.

o

It seems unnecessary to have a rise by 8% for every pan of this scheme.

o

The sewerage activity seems to be in such a healthy state that Council can and should be showing greater commitment to our lakes by undertaking the rural and lakes schemes with higher levels of subsidy.

416



Introduction of a targeted rate in the 2017/18 financial year: o

Te Tatau has already raised concerns around the provision of debt and debt repayments for this scheme.

o

Te Tatau does not support the introduction of a targeted rate in the 2017/18 financial year. We believe this is unfair for the following reasons: o

Ratepayers will be paying for a service that isn’t operational and therefore no benefit is being received for the additional rate charge.

o

If Rotoiti and Rotomā ratepayers were to pay the current pan charge from 1 July 2017 then they would contribute about $1m to the capital cost of the scheme prior to the scheme commencing.

o

There is a question of consistency with other lakeside scheme improvements over past years, i.e. were other communities charged in advance of receiving an operational scheme? Is it fair to do so for this community?

o

It is Te Tatau’s understanding that the costs for the scheme are yet to be finalised. As such it is unfair to start charging ratepayers when RLC does not have definitive costs.

o

There is a question of whether costs to date for the design and associated consultation for the scheme should be paid by the east Rotoiti and Rotomā communities.

o

There is an argument to suggest that design and consultation for the scheme should be funded by RLC’s general rate take as there is no benefit to these communities until such point as the scheme is operational.

o

If the purpose of the rates charged for these schemes is to repay the cost of the schemes, then there is an inherent assumption that the rates collected would be used to repay debt. As there is no budgeted repayment of debt in either the LTP or Annual Plan then we must ask what is the money from these targeted rates being used for.

o

Based on analysis of the Council public information Council does not need to increase the funding of Sewage outside the amounts currently within the LTP and indeed is in a position to show a much stronger commitment to the environment and health of our waterways and lakes.

o

Some people in these areas have low income and the impost of the high cost of this scheme will create hardship. While it is clearly known that the community will need to make a contribution to the scheme, contributions of the level mentioned are not contained within the 2015-25 Long Term Plan financials.

417



o

It has been in Council’s hands to work with the community to make this scheme achievable and affordable.

o

In not taking that action in 2015 Council has created the perceived need for a higher contribution, and it does not seem entirely reasonable that the small community should pay a penalty for Council’s inaction in regards funding the scheme in this way.

Concerns around the proposed systems outlined in the consultation document. o

Te Tatau understands that the East Rotoiti and Rotomā communities recently endorsed the use of a STEP system for Rotomā households of the proposed scheme.

o

However, the consultation document still refers to ‘low pressure grinder pumps’ (as opposed to the STEP system) being used at Rotomā. Please explain.

o

Te Tatau understands the STEP system was promoted to address cultural concerns.

o

Te Tatau supports the use of the STEP system for Rotomā and supports the position of hapū and iwi with mana whenua on this matter.

KŌRERO #2: WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES  Points of Support



Te Tatau supports the need for effective waste management services in the Rotorua district in order to protect our environment and to mitigate public health and amenity issues.



Te Tatau supports consideration of extending waste management services to rural properties (not currently serviced). This is particularly important given significant natural resources are located in rural communities.

 Points of Concern

The proposed 100% targeted rate raises the following concerns for Te Tatau: 

Te Tatau assumes that the same level of service is provided to both rural and urban households, please clarify.



The document suggests vacant land will receive a partial charge. What is the purpose of a partial charge if the waste management services are not required by the ratepayer? This seems unfair to charge for a service that will not be used.

418



A 100% targeted rate would remove the 20% funding from general rates which is used to cover education, general litter collection and monitoring and recovery of illegal dumping etc. Can RLC confirm that these services will continue under the 100% targeted rate?



The document suggests that a 100% targeted rate will make the service ‘fully cost transparent’. This statement isn’t qualified in the document; i.e. how exactly does it make the service more cost transparent? As an example, how is charging vacant land for a service that isn’t utilised transparent?

The proposed extension of rural waste management service raises the following concerns for Te Tatau: 

Te Tatau supports the extension of rural waste management services, ‘if’, it is desired by those communities and/or it addresses significant environmental pollution or public health issues.



Te Tatau notes there is a significant difference in the targeted rate for the extension to rural waste management versus the 100% targeted rate proposed for other properties, the difference being $187.50 versus $43. Please clarify the reason for the significant difference in cost.



Furthermore, the consultation document notes that collection options (for the extension of rural waste management service) will be designed as appropriate for the local conditions. If the design of these services is unknown, how did RLC come up with a targeted rate of $187.50



Te Tatau is concerned that the revenue policy issue is raised outside an LTP process. As partners with RLC we accept that it is important for services to be funded on a sustainable basis. However, the discussion in the document is not about sustainability of funding but rather on how that sustainability is extracted from the ratepayers.

KŌRERO #3: PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE Te Tatau supports strengthening and enhancing the Performing Arts Centre. However, the priority for this should be reviewed along with other capital projects given the situation with the Museum closure, sewerage and waste management issues and the associated impost of rates increases on our community. Also, it is suggested that the RLC undertakes a cost/benefit and opportunity cost analysis to prioritise capital expenditure investment for all community facilities.

419

KŌRERO #4: INTRODUCING A MUSEUM RECOVERY TARGETED RATE The discussion on the Museum targeted rate is interesting, but of no great significance. It does not fit the Revenue and Financing Policy as the Museum is a General rate funded activity for all other purposes. It seems unusual to impose a targeted rate for not delivering a service. Each of the mechanisms covered for funding are actually part of the General rate mechanism. We wonder why this has been raised outside a Revenue and Financing Policy which will be undertaken for the LTP. We do not support this mechanism as it does not provide for consistency which, as we stated above, is important for us and for the community.

Te Arawa Whare Taonga Te Tatau is keen to engage with RLC on a stand-alone Whare Taonga o Te Arawa. The timing for this to occur seems ideal with the Museum needing what appears to be major capital expenditure on the current facility. This will enable Te Arawa to secure their taonga and to tell their stories within a facility fit for purpose, culturally appropriate and in a manner truly reflective of the past, present and future. It can tell the story of pre and post-colonial contact and the coming together of communities in a manner consistent with our collective history and vision for the future.

KŌRERO #5: PROPOSED REMOVAL OF COMMUNITY BOARD TARGETED RATE Te Tatau supports the removal of the targeted rate for the community board. Analysis of the special character of the Rotorua District would help inform this kōrero.

OUR RATES We note that based on LTP analysis for the whole of New Zealand, Rotorua sits as 4th highest rates per property of major districts within New Zealand. That level of rates and the rates structure has major implication on the lifestyles of many residents of the District. Services need to be funded sustainably and a critical part of this is the prioritisation of work within the plans. Sustainability must also reflect the ability of the various parts of our community to meet the rates impost. The District has much it wishes to achieve and we appreciate the fine balance that is required between momentum for improvement and the financial position. Therefore, we reluctantly understand the need for the rates rises contained in the document with the exception of Sewage charges for the reasons raised above.

420

With the points raised about Sewage rates and Sewage funds, we believe that the General operations are being subsidised by Sewage rates. The trend since the LTP has seen a reduction in Capital spend for Sewage disposal with that spend being substituted with spending from General rates funded activities. We believe that Sewage rates should remain at the current levels to support the sustainability of the environment and the lakes in particular. However, the sustainability of the General rate and General rates funded debt is a major question mark in regard to sustainability. We commend RLC for getting the overall financial position of the organisation into a more sustainable basis. From our analysis, there appears to be potential for risk and problems not immediately apparent due to the fact that RLC does not account well for each of the separate funding sources.

Rating Differentials Further, within the document there is a short statement that the move to phase out differential rates is not proceeding until a review of rating is completed as part of the LTP 2018-28. The reduction of the differentials was set in the previous LTP which examined the rates setting for the following years In terms of future changes to rating differentials, Te Tatau encourages Council to consider the following matters: 

RLC needs to clearly demonstrate that rural communities will receive the same level of service as urban communities. Historically, many rural Māori communities have complained about the level of council services provided in their communities.



Removing the differential between rural and urban communities needs to be clearly justified and acceptable to rural communities.

Farming Remissions 

Te Tatau notes and agrees with the expectation that other industries are treated equally, i.e. that if the same circumstances arise for other industries, RLC would consider appropriate rates remissions.



Te Tatau supports the current policy for rates remissions on Māori land, noting Te Tatau intend to review this policy in greater detail over the next year.

Capital Te Tatau has no issues with the items listed in the Capital work programme with the exception of the general question about prioritisation and sustainability.

421

DISCUSSION: Short-term rentals While Te Tatau considers that this topic does not appear to require input in terms of the Annual Plan, it is acknowledged that this issue has a yet unknown impact on our community cohesion and rating revenue, and has the potential for significant impact on RLC and the Rotorua community. It is important that we look at this as a community and mitigate any ongoing negative impact on our community.

LTP alignment It is important that RLC takes a consistent stance on issues so that we as a partner and the wider community understand what the priorities are and how RLC will fund activities. The document contains a significant number of matters which are not consistent with the LTP. We all know that things change over time but how many of the issues raised within this document are of such a nature that they warrant isolated and uncoordinated change?

ANNUAL PLAN – ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Devolved funding We are very supportive of the introduction of devolved funding, which we understand to be funding to allow the community boards to reflect local priorities. We commend RLC for introducing this. Targeted intervention by those closer to the community will certainly lead to better engagement and better outcomes in those areas. However, we note that there is no recognition of any devolution of funding to Te Tatau. Our submission to Vision 2030 suggested a number of areas where RLC and Te Tatau should be working closely together to enable Te Arawa to assist to improve the District. We believe the Annual Plan should reflect devolved funding for Te Tatau to be able to do this. There are a number of major projects which Te Tatau can and will assist RLC to provide the most workable solution for the community. To achieve these solutions funding will be required to resource the work we will need to do. We request that RLC consider the inclusion of $250k, out of capital expenditure to allow this work to be undertaken. We would suggest that this be included as $200k from the Sewage Activity, and $50k from Roads and Footpaths Activity. We suggest these activities, as they can be achieved from operations which have a lower impact on the funding sustainability of RLC. These are areas which traditionally require reasonable amounts of Iwi engagement.

422

Te Arawa Vision Te Tatau has signalled it will be developing a collective Te Arawa vision for the future. Te Tatau recommend RLC engage with Te Tatau to understand the vision development process and how RLC can support the process and delivery of the final vision document.

Environmental Sustainability Strategy Te Tatau supports the need for environmental sustainability and notes an increasing focus from RLC on sustainability. Te Tatau recommends RLC engage with Te Tatau to clarify the RLC’s role and strategy in terms of environmental sustainability and consider how Te Arawa (and Te Tatau) can support the sustainability efforts of RLC.

Data Sharing Protocols and Strategy Te Tatau has signalled the desire to access and share quality data and information that assists Te Tatau and Te Arawa with research and implementation of various strategies. Te Tatau recommend RLC engage with Te Tatau to develop a data sharing protocol and strategy for the capture and sharing of quality data.

Bilingual District Te Tatau recognises the importance of Te Reo Māori to Te Arawa and the Rotorua community. Aligned with a strong culture is the recognition of Te Reo Māori as a constitutionally recognised language alongside the English language. Te Tatau recommends that RLC develops a strategy to establish Rotorua as a bilingual district and notes that Te Tatau is willing to lead this strategy alongside RLC and Te Arawa stakeholders.

Papakāinga Policy and Strategy Te Tatau supports greater development of Papakāinga to support the provision of affordable housing for Māori whanau. Te Tatau recommends that RLC develops a Papakāinga Policy and Strategy to promote and support the development of Papakāinga within the District and notes that Te Tatau is willing to lead the development of this policy and strategy with resource support from RLC.

Maori Economic Development Strategy Te Tatau notes that RLC does not have a strategy to support the growth of the Māori economy in the District, despite the significant contribution Māori make to the Rotorua economy. Te Tatau recommends RLC engage with Te Tatau and commercial Te Arawa entities to develop a Māori Economic Development Strategy for the Rotorua District.

423

RMA – Te Mana Whakahono agreements Te Tatau would also remind the RLC of the requirements of the enhanced iwi participation with the recent changes to the RMA and the role that Te Tatau might play. In particular, we believe that RLC needs to understand the implications of the recent RMA changes and dedicate some resource to the development of mana whakahono agreements with iwi, should they be desired. Te Tatau recommends RLC engage with Te Tatau and Te Arawa stakeholders to understand iwi aspirations to establish such agreements.

Te Arawa Partnership Policy Te Tatau supports the development of a Te Arawa Partnership Policy that would guide the RLC on the implementation of the Te Arawa Partnership Agreement.

CONCLUSION Finally, Council we thank you for the opportunity to engage. We commend you for the efforts you are making to engage, and also to improve the District. These matters require a fine balance. We continue to stand in support of Council, and urge you to have a consistency of policy view as this makes it much easier for us all to get a deeper commitment to the agreed progress path for our community.

424

ROTORUA LAKES COMMUNITY BOARD Submission to Rotorua Lakes Council Annual Plan 2017

Established in 2007 under the Local Government Act, the Rotorua Lakes Community Board has four elected members and one Rotorua Lakes Council-appointed councillor. The board advocates on behalf of residents and ratepayers of Lakes Rotoma, Rotoehu, Rotoiti, Okareka, Tarawera, Okatina and their surrounds, and the community of Hamurana on Lake Rotorua. The Rotorua Lakes Community Board (RLCB) would like to thank the Rotorua Lakes Council for the opportunity to submit on the 2017 RLC Annual Plan.

2016 saw a major change in the nature of Annual Plan consultation process with the Rotorua community, a direct follow-on from central government's changes to how Long Term Plans and Annual Plans are now addressed. One unintended effect of the changes to the LTP process was that communities were unaware of the changes in the consultative process for annual plans, and an amount of confusion ensued. The 2017 Consultation Document both acknowledges the changes to the Annual Plan consultation process and the need for flexibility in allowing community input, and we congratulate Council on recognising the need to provide people with a diverse range of methods to submit or provide feedback.

The Rotorua Lakes Community Board would like to comment on each of the Conversations and Discussion points within the 2017 Annual Plan: Conversation 1- East Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Scheme: 1. The Rotorua Lakes Community Board fully supports the implementation of the East Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Scheme. RLCB also fully supports the Scheme’s Steering Committee in its recommendation to use Biolytix or similar, subject to trial, at Rotoiti and just recently its recommendation to Council to use a STEP system for Rotoma in response to concerns raised in the Resource Consent process. We are confident that these recommendations are an accurate reflection of the scheme’s communities, and we report to Council the overwhelming support we hear within the scheme area, and the refrain “Just get on with it!” The 2013-2016 Council ambitiously started moving from a ‘Public Consultation’ model to an ‘Empowerment’ model in engaging with Rotorua’s communities. The Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Scheme is an example of this, as is the partnership with Te Tautau O Te Arawa

425

where Te Arawa developed the plan for partnership rather than Council imposing something on them. This Council has continued to embrace the concept of Empowerment, including its two Community Boards on Standing Committees with speaking and voting rights. RLCB recognises that as we approach the point of starting physical work on the Sewerage Scheme and the need to set rates and their implementation date, that some nervousness around the level of commitment to the scheme has crept in without the traditional ‘Inform’ model of Council consultation. We ask Council to have faith in the model of engagement you implemented for the scheme. The Steering Committee has stayed close to Community while developing the scheme, and the Community is behind it. Believe in the people making decisions for themselves and you will be rewarded. 2. The Rotorua Lakes Community Board supports the introduction of a targeted rate to fund the East Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Scheme, but submit that rating should start in the 2018 year, rather than 2017. The level of consultation in recent months (including in this Annual Plan, although the scheme was fully consulted on in the last LTP), and rumours in the area have perversely had the effect of making many nervous that the scheme will not go ahead. Therefore, many want to wait until the resource consent is granted and ‘work’ commenced before being rated. We support our community in this wish.

Conversation 2- Waste Management Services: 3. RLCB generally supports Councils plans to extend the waste management service, and to remove the ‘opt-out’ option for urban areas. However, we are aware that few if any properties within the Lakes Community Board area are affected by this proposed change and that most of those affected fall within the Rural Boards area. We understand that the Rural Board is currently holding a series of meetings with support from the Waste Services team to gauge public support for the changes, and that there may be some changes to the proposal. 4. RLCB will support the Rotorua Rural Community Board’s considered position on the extension of service to rural communities, and the level of charges for areas receiving different levels of service. 5. The Rotorua Lakes Community Board supports Option 2 for a targeted rate – 90% targeted and 10% from general rates. We acknowledge the arguments for increasing the targeted rate but wish to see 10% left in general rates as recognition of public collections from parks and reserves, and that tourists and people outside of Rotorua also contribute to the volumes of waste collected. We also note that a 100% targeted rate would also see Rural Residential properties yet again face rate increases of over 5%.

426

Conversation 3- Performing Arts Centre: 6. RLCB supports Council’s desire to strengthen Cultural and Performing Arts in Rotorua and recognise the importance of the Sir Howard Morrison Performing Arts Centre as a venue. We fully support the earthquake strengthening of the building. However, Council has other equally deserving facilities in need of improvement. There is a proposal to ‘teach every child in Rotorua to swim’ – an extremely important aspiration. The aquatic centre is need of work to help accomplish this and we wonder if that upgrade should come first. Council also is faced with uncertainty over costs associated with the Museum, and we feel it may be prudent to delay the second stage of redeveloping the Performing Arts Centre until more is known of those costs. 7. The Rotorua Lakes Community Board supports Option 2 – Undertake the earthquake strengthening. We note that Option 1 states the full spend of $6.5million would be over two years, so perhaps the strengthening work can be undertaken 2017 and Council could revisit the proposal next Annual Plan.

Conversation 4- Museum Recovery Targeted Rate:

8. RLCB fully supports the introduction of a targeted rate, and expects there will be a review of this rate next Annual Plan based on forthcoming information around Museum repairs. This is an iconic building, not only for Rotorua but also New Zealand, and the Museum contained within it is also a vital part of our district. We must protect both the physical items owned by the museum, and the wealth of knowledge held by staff until we are once again in a position to reopen this building.

Conversation 5- Removal of Community Board Targeted Rate:

9. The Rotorua Lakes Community Board fully supports the removal of the Lakes Community Board Targeted Rate. The removal of this targeted rate has long been sought by the communities within the Board’s catchment, and its removal will also give consistency of funding across both Boards and Te Tautau O Te Arawa. 10. RLCB supports Option 1 – Update Funding Policy.

427

Discussion – Short Term Rental Accomodation:

11. This is a complex issue for the Lakes areas. RLCB feels that there is a different dynamic around short term rentals in the lakes area compared to the problems being suggested in urban areas. Many of the people who would be affected by a change to current policy are holiday owners, and typically are unaware of Annual Plan proposals. We feel there needs to be a discussion within our communities, which the Board is keen to facilitate over the coming months, before a policy is developed within the next LTP review or at the next Annual Plan. 12. The Rotorua Lakes Community Board supports Option 3 – Consider something different, after consultation with our communities.

Decisions – Underpining the Annual Plan 2017-18 13. Rating Differentials: RLCB endorses Council’s decision to hold Rural Residential and Business differentials at current levels of 0.93 and 1.70 respectively, pending the full rating policy review planned as part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2018-28. The Rotorua Lakes Community Board has consistently submitted that any proposed phasing out of differentials must be balanced with a full review of benefits and services received and with appropriate targeted rates being introduced to provide transparency, fairness and equity for all. 14. Capital Spend: The proposed Capital Spend in this Document exceeds LTP Year 3 projections by some $11 million. Major variations are: Information Technology system renewals $2.12m  SHMPAC enhancements $3.05m  Library & Health Hub $2.51m  Transport Network renewals $1.71m  Water Supply renewals $1.64m RLCB views this large disparity between LTP Year 3 projections and proposed spending in this Consultation Document with some disquiet. Whilst SHMPAC expenditure is clearly signalled, there is less clarity around the remainder of the programmed items and further explanation as to whether these represent work in arrears or brought forward, or additional to the LTP, would assist in alleviating ratepayer concerns. 15. Your rates: The Rotorua Lakes Community Board would support the proposed overall increase of 3.8% in rates for 2017-18. Whilst the size of the increase from the LTP anticipated 2.6% is regrettable, we acknowledge that a substantial proportion of this increase is related to recovery of the museum’s loss of income and transitional costs for the new refuse regime. The reduced average increase for lakes residential properties due

428

partially to the proposed postponement of the differential removal will help to offset the converse result of the past two years. It should be noted that if Council amends the proposed targeted rate for Refuse to 90%, the resulting increase to the general rate will serve to reduce the impact of the Museum targeted rate on lower value properties across the District.

Phill Thomass, Chairperson On behalf of The Rotorua Lakes Community Board

429

670

-----Original Message----From: sarah bray Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2017 5:12 p.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: Rates increase proposal Hi I just wanted to voice my opinion on the increase of rates with taking into consideration with everything the council hopes to achieve. However our household isn't supportive of the increase we currently juggling rates and increase with mortgage interest rates. I think some of the things would be great but is it so important to be done right now? I think the green corridor was a waste of money. Some Protects should of been prioritised. I appreciate the chance to voice our thoughts Thanks Sarah bray Sent from my iPhone

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

452

Rotorua Lakes Council 11 May 2017 Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Annual Plan 2017-2018, Consultation Document. I write with specific reference to “Discussion – Short Term Rental Accommodation”. As a resident of Lake Okareka I am aware that many ratepayers rent their homes or individual rooms to visiting tourists. As outlined in your document, this practice occurs across the wider Rotorua city area and indeed throughout New Zealand (and the world). These rentals provide an alternative accommodation choice and contribute hugely to Rotorua Tourism. A high standard of presentation is the norm which further promotes the “look” of the city. One family home cannot be compared to a commercial purpose built facility with multiple, diverse guests and staff providing ongoing service. The rentals are constructed as homes and with the owners not fully occupying them it makes good sense to use the space rather than leave it empty. Many provide this service for the simple pleasure, for others the rent received assists to pay the high rate costs and in some cases helps people to enter the property market. There are many homes and residential dwellings that are used, either partially or fully, for a variety of business purposes. These include business operations such as legal services, accounting, drafting, beauty therapy, hairdressing, joinery…the list goes on. It would be unjust to penalize one sector of the community for renting out their residential homes and not add a tariff to other home owners who utilize their residences for regular business purposes, in competition with other businesses paying commercial rates on their premises. In terms of “use” of residential dwellings there is no difference whether the rental be short or long term. Both can give rise to issues such as noise, parking, behavior and over-crowding. The short-term renters possibly add more in terms of revenue to the city than those long-term tenants. I have used accommodation websites overseas rather than hotels or motels for a different “local”, personalised experience and know that their premises are not rated differently to other residences. They rent purely the residential space with no additional service (unless voluntarily provided). It would be grossly unfair to penalize home owners by increasing their rates. Furthermore, and as you admit, it would be extremely difficult and costly to implement a fair system. Owners would no doubt have to increase their rental rates to cover any additional outgoings which would in turn affect the visitors and make Rotorua increasingly expensive as a destination. In essence, the difficulties and disadvantages outweigh any perceived benefits. I do not believe the Council should pursue regulation. The Council may be better occupied in overseeing the issues of overcrowding, noise, and below standard habitation which are often associated with long term tenancies. Additionally, a level of management on “freedom camping” would bring in additional revenue as has been recognized in the two managed camps at Lake Okareka. 1

453

Feedback on “Conversations” Conversation #1 – Support the preferred option Conversation #2 – No comment Conversation #3 – Support the preferred option Conversation #4 – Support the preferred option Conversation #5 – Support the preferred option

Thank you for receiving my submission Yours sincerely

E Harding

2

454

-----Original Message----From: "Viviane Rosa" Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2017 7:34 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Cc: "Mike Woolford" Subject: Annual Plan discussion point – Holiday Rental Accommodation - Feedback Hi there, Please see attached our letter with our feedback about the Holiday Rental Accommodation in the residential areas of Rotorua. There are two letters, being one to support the letter written by other residents and one retelling the details of our situation that regardless of lodging a complaint with the council nothing has been done to date almost 4 months from the complaint. Regards Viviane & Michael Woolford

455

9 May 2017 Rotorua Lakes Council – Annual Plan 2017/18 Discussion Document Feedback – Short-term rental accommodation We are writing to provide feedback for the proposed discussion on short-term holiday rentals in Rotorua. We ask that Council pursue regulation of short-term holiday rental businesses via the District Plan and through the rating framework. As residents and ratepayers our primary concern is the establishment of commercial ventures in Residential 1 zoned areas and the impact that these short-term rentals properties have on our community. We ask that the Council meet with and talk to neighbours of short-term holiday rentals before making decisions that the community will be bound by for many years to come. We agree that in fairness to moteliers and hoteliers throughout the city, property investors who are using residential homes for commercial gain should contribute accordingly for the services they use through their rates. We do not agree with the introduction of such policy alone. First and foremost these properties need to be regulated via District Plan. When considering this item you need to put yourselves in the shoes of those currently affected by these short-term rental properties. Residents who are not currently impacted by such a situation are less likely to feel the need to submit feedback on this matter. In recent times our City has seen an explosion of short-term holiday rentals and Air BnB's, providing inexpensive accommodation options, for large groups of both international and domestic visitors. These rentals are popping up in neighbourhoods throughout our City, changing the character of neighbourhoods, and causing grave concerns to long term residents. We understand Council's desire to accommodate the ever-increasing number of visitors to the city but surely this cannot be to the detriment of the Rotorua Lakes Council's community and ratepayers. Commercial accommodation providers are not going to invest in Rotorua when there is such great competition from the short-term rental market. Council is aware of the issues relating short-term rentals, which have been the subject of numerous complaints due to overcrowding, noise, alcohol, traffic, and aggressive and undesirable behaviour. These are the issues that need to be considered when allowing these short-term holiday rentals to be set up in our communities i.e. the impact that it has on everyday people and the safety of our children. We believe that this accommodation sector needs to be regulated in order for short term holiday rentals to coexist with residents of its community i.e. blend with that community rather than change the values of it.

456

We would like to see a consent process established for these rentals particularly where the owner is not present i.e. full house rentals. True bed & breakfast or Air BnB situations where owners reside within the property with low guest numbers are not considered to be detrimental to community values and are excluded from this proposal. In issuing consent consideration should be given to the following; -

restrict number of consents issued in total with the aim of alleviating supply issues of long-term rental homes in the city, and to promote growth in the commercial accommodation sector thus providing more employment opportunities. We understand there is still a huge shortage of long-term rentals in Queenstown for workers despite their policies implemented for short-term rentals.

-

no short term holiday rental to be situated within 500 meters of another so as to minimise impact on neighbouring homeowners.

-

limitations placed on the number of guest allowed to stay e.g. 3 bedroom house 4-6 max, 4 bedroom or more 6-8 max with the higher number requiring consent from neighbours. This would provide for small family groups, with less likely hood of disruptive behaviour and less vehicles.

-

limitations on noise, alcohol, and social gatherings.

-

vehicles must be parked within property boundaries.

-

health and safety and fire risk assessments required.

-

a complaints process required to monitor and resolve breaches. Where three breaches occur, consent withdrawn or withdrawn at least for a period of twelve months. -

a compliance officer to be funded through additional levies on these properties and the cost of call outs for noise etc be passed on to property owner.

In summary short term rentals provide people with a less expensive accommodation option often catering to large numbers. We believe they are important to our city but not at the cost of our residents and ratepayers. Residential zone areas should be exactly that, and should not be impacted at all by commercial operations. Restrictions on the numbers of guests and proximity of these properties to other short-term rentals would go a long way to reducing the issues that high occupancy rentals bring to our neighbourhoods. We do not believe that imposing commercial rates alone will resolve the issues for neighbouring home owners, rather there needs to be some stringent control over activities occurring at these properties. PS: This letter has been written by residents of Tihiotonga and we Michael & Viviane Woolford support this letter also but due to weather conditions have not been able to contact the neighbours to sing it on time. Regards, Viviane & Michael Woolford

457

Rotorua, 11th May 2017 To whom it may concern, SHORT-TERM HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF ROTORUA We, Viviane and Michael Woolford, would like to share with the Council our view about residential properties in residential areas used as short-term holiday accommodation. We have been battling with the council for over a year, and have formally sent a complaint on the 13 January 2017. In our complaint we have identified this activity as irregular, as it goes against multiple policies and rules within the District Plan. th

We have had an issue on Christmas and Boxing day in which one guest of one of the five holiday homes, made life threatening threats, the police were involved, the offender fled, the other guests refused to cooperate with police in identifying the guests, the landlord, who doesn’t live in town couldn’t be bothered coming around and allowed the guests to stay in the property another four or five days. To this date no one is held accountable and we still fear retaliation but there is nothing we can do. We have, when analysing the situation, identified that the problem is the lack of policies, management, and ownership on the issue by both council and landlords. After sending our letter, our community neighbours have also sent a formal complaint to the Council. Both our personal and our community complaint have gone unanswered by the council to date, these were sent 4 months ago. Factual information was provided and the council has put nothing in place to remedy the situation and the risks that these activities are imposing on our community. We would like to ask the council that when considering the legislation it be fair to all, to other residents, to the hoteliers/moteliers, to the guests, and to the landlords of these properties. Most importantly to be fair to all other rate payers of our council that are having to fund this type of activity, being that the structural and services used as well as, services such as noise control, sewerage, roads, etc. not to mention council time. We have lived in the same address for about 10 years. Tihiotonga is a beautiful area of Rotorua, nice, quiet, and private and with no shops or commercial establishment in it. The peace and the security have been majorly affected by this type of activity. We now have five properties that are used as holiday accommodation around us and our lives have become unbearable, unsafe and disruptive by the guests of these properties.

458

See below a picture of our situation:

 



44 Sloane Ave: Were we are living. 42 Sloane Ave: It used to be owned by one old lady who sadly passed away, has been bought by a builder, who split the land and built a property in the front. Their family lived there for few years, but they have moved out of town late December and it has been converted as full time book a bach. At the time of our complaint in January it was advertised for 12 guests. 42A Sloane Ave: Built late last year, has never been used as place of residence, and has been converted into book a bach around November last year. At the time of our complaint in January it was advertised for 14 guests.

459



 

40 Sloane Ave: This house used to be owned by one old lady, who sadly passed away, was purchased by a property investor who converted it into a high number cheap rental accommodation allowing for more than 20 people with more beds on request. 13 French Place: Situated directly behind our house, it used to be owned by one person who passed away and has been sold and converted as a book a bach allowing for 13 guests. 9 French Place: This property has been used as holiday accommodation for few years, at the time of our complaint it was advertised as Wedding venue and to high number of guests in two different setups, allowing for about 30 people.

Tihiotonga is a residential 1 area, which means, low noise, low density. We feel that: 1. There is no fair competition to people trying to rent a house long term. 2. There is no fair competition to people trying to buy properties as with the profits they can make it makes it easier to pay more for a property to be used by this type of activity. 3. It is not fair on the neighbours to be too often disrupted by this type of activity, being it a commercial sale of services that not provided any service. 4. It is not fair on the hoteliers that have all sorts of regulation and costs implications that these property investors do not. Having been affected by these types of properties for few years we can clearly mention the biggest issues we have with these properties: 1. The number of guests: a. This should be limited for the number of members of ordinary family, yet most families are smaller than that in our area, 6 people per property would reduce the number of parties and disruption.. 1. The number of vehicles: a. Sometimes there are 8 -12 vehicles per property. This clutters our street making it unsafe for our kids to cross the road and provides limited space for the City ride bus route 2. The proximity of one another: a. There should be a limitation of at least 500 metres radius between them 3. The parties: a. It doesn’t matter what day of the week it is, there is always a party. b. Ensure guests are not allowed to have a party and not allow extra guests for social gatherings being the landlord the responsible to ensure this doesn’t happen. 4. The lack of management a. We feel that the management of these properties has been left to the neighbours; we should not have to be monitoring these properties, if they are to be permitted a demonstration of effective management must to be required by the council. b. Many of the landlords label themselves as good managers, yet they may be good neighbours they may not be effective managers as otherwise it would not be frequently causing issues to us neighbours. 5. The proximity for the playground park reserve. a. Our kids are too often exposed to excessive alcohol consumption in these properties when using the park. Especially 9 French Place and 40 Sloane ave, which are visible within the park. 6. The character of some guests. a. The landlords mostly don’t even meet the people that go into their properties, some properties are fitted with key pad lock and they only handle the pin code to get through the door by the internet.

460

7.

8.

9. 10. 11.

12.

13.

b. There is no even a list with the identity of all the guests for the property booking, so when issues arise someone can be held accountable for. The rotation of guests a. Because they are booked for a lot of people and change hands too often, there are far too many people coming and going and we feel like our security has been completely gone away from our hands. Noise control a. Noise control is ineffective, they only care if there are extremely loud parties, and even knowing loud shouting and yelling are disruptive they are not considered an offense. They may be loud enough to disrupt our sleep but they may not be as loud as a noise offense. b. We have had retaliation from ringing noise control and are all too scared to ring most of the time. c. Ensure that there is a way to contact the guests when noise control is rang, we have to allow noise control to come through our property when there is a party at number 40 Sloane ave as there is no means people can be reached within the property. No respect for the neighbours The lack of ownership on the issues a. When something happens no one is held accountable. The possibility that this properties are used to manufacture methamphetamine a. With this becoming a popular road way to the manufacture of this drug and with the residue that it can leave in the properties and the effect it can have on the guests lives, the risk of fire, every property should be tested for contamination between each rental or at least in monthly basis. The privacy of the neighbours. a. Some of this houses are very invasive to us and other neighbours, we feel like they could be watching our movements, our belongings to come back for a burglary. The lack of accountability a. There must to be accountability, the landlord should be held accountable for any issues their guest creates to the neighbours. It should at least have a resource consent that could be withdrawn when there are ongoing issues in the properties.

What we would like to see as regulation for the use of holiday accommodation: 1. A resource consent in which will be withdrawn when there is ongoing issues, i.e. in case of three breaches. 2. Resource consents should be sought by any neighbour living with 200 metres radius from the property, as they are very likely to be highly affected by this type of activity. 3. Thirty days per year policy to be considered commercial and so required resource consent. 4. A control of the number of resource consents issued based on house supply being that for rental or sale of houses. 5. The landlord to be accountable for any breach. 6. A maximum of one property per 500 metre radius, at least for residential 1, other residential areas could have this number reduced. 7. No party all the time policy. 8. Maximum of 6 guests per property 9. Maximum of 2 vehicles per property 10. All vehicles must to be parked inside the property they rent. 11. Zero noise tolerance. The sheer number of people alone creates a noise nuisance never mind the social events.

461

12. Guest identity requirement. For the control of the identity of all guests by the landlord/manager. As guests are left to their own devices then when issues arise it should be the landlord responsibility to provide police with the full list of guests in their properties. 13. Full health & safety checks. Ensuring the landlords/managers is the PCBU. 14. Fire safety. 15. Conditional to effective management. 16. At least monthly tests for contamination of methamphetamine. 17. Require all landlords/managers to do daily check visits to their properties that are rented. 18. Ensure all the neighbours affected have a channel to make complaints that are heard and dealt by the council. 19. Quality service and buildings. Ensure the bedrooms are dry and have basic needed infrastructure, like working bathroom. 20. A decent form of management and monitoring of these properties when they are rented. 21. Rates can be that of residential but the tourist industry levies charge to hoteliers should be applied to these properties. 22. Noise control and parking officer calls to be financially charged to the landlords. 23. A big fat fine in case of parties, no management or other issues. I hope you can hear our voice and consider our situation when making the legislation, your residents are also important to the economy of this town, we pay our rates and contribute to the local economy also; it is not only tourists that should be prioritised when considering legislation. We value a safe place to live, a good night’s sleep so we can wake up in the morning and go to work to run industries like manufacturing, services, education, health, and tourism in our town. That’s all we are asking. Personally, we think holiday accommodation should be limited to hoteliers and moteliers and the houses should be used as a place of residence and not as a cheap motel without management. We need houses to live, we need to be able to afford to buy houses, we need to be able to go to work in the morning after a good night sleep, we should not be so negatively affected by commercial operations running in residential areas. Yours sincerely, Michael & Viviane Woolford

462

685

Rick Todd

9 May 2017 Rotorua Lakes Council – Annual Plan 2017/18 Discussion Document Feedback – Short-term rental accommodation We are writing to provide feedback for the proposed discussion on short-term holiday rentals in Rotorua. We ask that Council pursue regulation of short-term holiday rental businesses via the District Plan and through the rating framework. As residents and ratepayers our primary concern is the establishment of commercial ventures in Residential 1 zoned areas and the impact that these short-term rentals properties have on our community. We ask that the Council meet with and talk to neighbours of short-term holiday rentals before making decisions that the community will be bound by for many years to come. We agree that in fairness to moteliers and hoteliers throughout the city, property investors who are using residential homes for commercial gain should contribute accordingly for the services they use through their rates. We do not agree with the introduction of such policy alone. First and foremost these properties need to be regulated via District Plan. When considering this item you need to put yourselves in the shoes of those currently affected by these short-term rental properties. Residents who are not currently impacted by such a situation are less likely to feel the need to submit feedback on this matter. In recent times our City has seen an explosion of short-term holiday rentals and Air BnB's, providing inexpensive accommodation options, for large groups of both international and domestic visitors. These rentals are popping up in neighbourhoods throughout our City, changing the character of neighbourhoods, and causing grave concerns to long term residents. We understand Council's desire to accommodate the ever-increasing number of visitors to the city but surely this cannot be to the detriment of the Rotorua Lakes Council's community and ratepayers. Commercial accommodation providers are not going to invest in Rotorua when there is such great competition from the short-term rental market. Council is well aware of the issues relating short-term rentals, which have been the subject of numerous complaints due to overcrowding, partying, noise, high alcohol consumption, congestion and traffic, and aggressive and undesirable behaviour including foul language and subject matter. These are the issues that need to be considered when allowing these shortterm holiday rentals to be set up in our communities, the impact that they are having on every day people. We have grave concern for the physical and emotional safety of our children being exposed to this undesirable behaviour.

463

685

We believe that this accommodation sector needs to be regulated in order for short term holiday rentals to coexist with residents of its community i.e. blend with that community rather than change the values of it. We would like to see a consent process established for these rentals particularly where the owner is not present i.e. full house rentals. True bed & breakfast or Air BnB situations where owners reside within the property with low guest numbers are not considered to be detrimental to community values and are excluded from this proposal. In issuing consent consideration should be given to the following; -

restrict number of consents issued in total with the aim of alleviating supply issues of long-term rental homes in the city, and to promote growth in the commercial accommodation sector thus providing more employment opportunities. We understand there is still a huge shortage of long-term rentals in Queenstown for workers despite their policies implemented for short-term rentals.

-

no short term holiday rental to be situated within 500 meters of another so as to minimise impact on neighbouring homeowners.

-

limitations placed on the number of guest allowed to stay e.g. 3 bedroom house 4-6 max, 4 bedroom or more 6-8 max with the higher number requiring consent from neighbours. This would provide for small family groups, with less likely hood of disruptive behaviour and less vehicles.

-

limitations on noise, alcohol, and social gatherings.

-

vehicles must be parked within property boundaries.

-

health and safety and fire risk assessments required.

-

a complaints process required to monitor and resolve breaches. Where three breaches occur, consent withdrawn or withdrawn at least for a period of twelve months. -

a compliance officer to be funded through additional levies on these properties and the cost of call outs for noise etc be passed on to property owner.

In summary short term rentals provide people with a less expensive accommodation option often catering to large numbers. We believe they are important to our city but not at the cost of our residents and ratepayers. Residential zone areas should be exactly that, and should not be impacted at all by commercial operations. Restrictions on the numbers of guests and proximity of these properties to other short-term rentals would go a long way to reducing the issues that high occupancy rentals bring to our neighbourhoods. We do not believe that imposing commercial rates alone will resolve the issues for neighbouring home owners, rather there needs to be some stringent control over activities occurring at these properties.

464

686

From: Murray&Masina Blennerhassett Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2017 8:08 p.m. To: Lets Talk Subject: 'Annual Plan'

4 May 2017 Short-term Rentals (eg those advertised on sites such as Book a Bach and AirBnB): For employment reasons we are currently living in the Opotiki District and our house situated on Lake Road, Rotorua, is available on Book a Bach for short-term rental. We pay a manager to oversee the bookings and customer service. He also ensures that the cleaner is paid to keep the place sparkling. We also pay commercial insurance rates and are obliged because of that to provide extra hazard and security systems (eg fire extinguishers and a burglar alarm system.) The tax department is well aware of our income from the house and we pay an accountant to keep the books. Short-term rental properties are not a "get rich quick" option. We personally are pleased to get bookings for nine days a month which helps to pay the rates along with small repairs, maintenance and the mortgage. Through the summer months, bookings are naturally somewhat more than nine days a month, but for much of the year the reality is we are lucky to get nine days and often don't. As the house is not being used all the time there is less demand on infrastructure services such as sewage, water and rubbish collection. The rubbish is collected privately as guests stay on random dates and cannot be expected to meet the requirements of the rubbish collection regime. Guests have been extremely complimentary but have had to put up with the neighbours partying and other small annoyances. Guests are given information about how to telephone noise control, and conversely our neighbours can do the same if the guests are throwing parties. The choice to go with the short-term rental option was partly because of our experiences as long-term landlords. We were fair landlords who would bend over backwards to ensure our homes were dry, warm and comfortable. We also operated on the premise that 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' i.e. if we had a good tenant who paid their rent regularly and looked after the place the rent was never raised. Unfortunately, we consistently found that tenants left the property in disarray and in need of repair, often with rubbish to dispose of and major cleaning to do. In the end, we got really tired of tenants who had no respect for the roof over their heads and certainly had no concept of what a good landlord looks like. It is also true that even the best of tenants are hard on a house. Our little house in Rotorua is special to us and we didn't want people to trash it. When there are no bookings, we can visit and stay in our lovely little home and enjoy what Rotorua has to offer as well as catch up with family.

465

686

Maybe the Hotel and Motel industries and some locals are under the impression that shortterm rental properties are operating without restraint and under a sort of "cash-y" system. Although this may be the case with some, many have taken care to be properly insured and meet commercial insurance standards, as well as taking pains to supply a quality product to guests. We are reminded that some in the Hotel and Motel industry (and other tourist ventures) were loud in their support of the airport extension and much lauded international airport which left us all seriously in debt with nowhere to go. Those of us who stood against the blatantly stupid plans were characterised as anti-progress or NIMBYs. The rampant use of the media to push the international airport "vision" was unparalleled, as was the repeated assurance by Council that "no Rotorua rate payer will pay a cent for the airport upgrade." Yeah. Right. We suggest there are some whose observations and agitations for what is good for the town might be best ignored as they have proven in the past they lack insight and imagination. You know, we have been ear-bashed for years with the saying 'competition is good', on that basis alone we can argue that short-term rental properties are a bona fide addition to the visitor market in Rotorua and elsewhere. Furthermore, Book a Bach, AirBnB ecetera have complaints procedures in order to protect their brands and guests are encouraged to give online feedback. If a property consistently receives negative feedback, it will not be booked. Cowboys and bad operators won't last long. Good operators contribute to the economy as guests spend their money at all the usual attractions and eateries throughout the city and the region. We are well aware of and deplore the lack of long-term housing for growing numbers of the desperate and homeless, but this is a matter to be taken up with central government along with local councils who should be working hard to devise solutions that are real and sustainable. It is not for people who choose to list their properties with Book a Bach or AirBnB to address the growing inequality in our society and the lack of affordable housing nor is it their concern if hotels and motels are finding it hard to compete. The writing has been on the wall for a long time and this current government has ignored the inevitable result of their abysmal fiscal policies. In closing, we believe short-term rentals are good for Rotorua and are an internationally accepted form of tourist accommodation. It can only be hoped that Councils and councillors will recognise that international and New Zealand based travellers obviously want different types of accommodation available to choose from. Thank you. From Murray and Masina Blennerhassett

466

-----Original Message----From: "Geoffrey Ogilvie" Sent: Sunday, 30 April 2017 1:10 p.m. To: "[email protected]" Subject: Annual Plan-Book a Bach, AirBnB, et al Kia ora koutou, I think, a long with many others that it's none of Lakes Council or any other Council or Central Government's business what we residents do with the spare capacity (rooms) of our home. Why? 1. What's the difference between a sister, uncle, aunt, brother, mother, friend, etc, etc using a spare room in my home for a fee or for free and a tourist, visitor, student or overseas work permit person using my unused room(s)? 2. Who would police any regulations that Lakes Council might introduce? A new army of inspectors (jobs)? Or would neighborhood watch turn into neighborhood pimps? 3. Instead of supporting business building new Hotels, Motels, Lodges, holiday rentals etc to accommodate expected tourist numbers with the adverse effects on the Rotorua Lakes District environment, Lakes Council should be encouraging the sustainable use of existing accommodation. 4. Think it through Council. What if the expected tourists numbers do not eventuate? Business supported by Todd Mclay and your business minded councilors will have raped local resources to produce empty rooms. 5. If the tourist/visitor numbers do eventuate as predicted and the existing homes are been used efficiently by Book a Bach, AirBnB and others and all Hotels, Motels, Lodges and other Holiday accommodation rooms are fully booked, then and only then could we have a discussion about some form regulation. Nga Mihi Nui, Geoff Ogilvie

687

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

689 Alan Armstrong – The 1 Minute Submission Form Q1: What is your first name? Alan

Q2: What is your last name? Armstrong

 

Q4: What is your location? Suburb Fenton Park City Rotorua

Q5: The things I would like to see Rotorua Lakes Council focus on in the 2017/2018 Annual Plan are: More of the same - performance in last year has been good

Q6: Additionally, I support:    

The establishment of a stand-alone Te Arawa Whare Toanga – given the current circumstances surrounding the Museum The removal of the targeted rate for the community board Devolved funding to the community boards enabling the boards to reflect local priorities Devolved funding to Te Tatau o Te Arawa to enable iwi engagement on major projects

Q7: Additionally, I think Rotorua Lakes Council needs to:      

Provide greater clarity on how the rates are applied Not give priority to the economy over the environment Ensure that Te Arawa culture and values form a key part of planning, policy and action Improve Council’s understanding and focus on sustainability Support the development of Papakāinga on Te Arawa land Keep me informed of the enhanced iwi participation with the recent changes to the Resource Management Act

475

690

Tania Kiel – The 1 Minute Submission Form Q1: What is your first name? Tania

Q2: What is your last name? Kiel

Q4: What is your location?  

Suburb Ohinemutu City Rotorua

Q5: The things I would like to see Rotorua Lakes Council focus on in the 2017/2018 Annual Plan are: More focus on the environment and betting collaboration with mana whenua

Q6: Additionally, I support:(Tick all that apply)    

The establishment of a stand-alone Te Arawa Whare Toanga – given the current circumstances surrounding the Museum The removal of the targeted rate for the community board Devolved funding to the community boards enabling the boards to reflect local priorities Devolved funding to Te Tatau o Te Arawa to enable iwi engagement on major projects

Q7: Additionally, I think Rotorua Lakes Council needs to:(Tick all that apply)      

Provide greater clarity on how the rates are applied Not give priority to the economy over the environment Ensure that Te Arawa culture and values form a key part of planning, policy and action Improve Council’s understanding and focus on sustainability Support the development of Papakāinga on Te Arawa land Keep me informed of the enhanced iwi participation with the recent changes to the Resource Management Act

476

691 Watu Mihinui – The 1 Minute Submission Form Q1: What is your first name? Watu

Q2: What is your last name? Mihinui

 

Q4: What is your location? Suburb Whakarewarewa City Rotorua

Q5: The things I would like to see Rotorua Lakes Council focus on in the 2017/2018 Annual Plan are: Toilet Pan taxes reduced for marae

Q6: Additionally, I support:  

The establishment of a stand-alone Te Arawa Whare Toanga – given the current circumstances surrounding the Museum Devolved funding to Te Tatau o Te Arawa to enable iwi engagement on major projects

Q7: Additionally, I think Rotorua Lakes Council needs to:   

Ensure that Te Arawa culture and values form a key part of planning, policy and action Support the development of Papakāinga on Te Arawa land Keep me informed of the enhanced iwi participation with the recent changes to the Resource Management Act

477

692 Leilani Ngawhika – The 1 Minute Submission Form Q1: What is your first name? Leilani

Q2: What is your last name? Ngawhika

 

Q4: What is your location? Suburb Owhata City Rotorua

Q5: The things I would like to see Rotorua Lakes Council focus on in the 2017/2018 Annual Plan are: 1) Improving flow of traffic on Te Ngae Road 2) Improved consultation with Ngati Hurungaterangi regarding the proposed upgrade of the waste water treatment plant & proposed direct output into Lake Rotorua 3) Improvement of consultation with all Te Arawa iwi 4) Opportunities to work with Te Arawa on building homes on papakainga land especially considering the high number of homeless working families

Q6: Additionally, I support:(Tick all that apply)  

The establishment of a stand-alone Te Arawa Whare Toanga – given the current circumstances surrounding the Museum Devolved funding to Te Tatau o Te Arawa to enable iwi engagement on major projects

Q7: Additionally, I think Rotorua Lakes Council needs to:(Tick all that apply)      

Provide greater clarity on how the rates are applied Not give priority to the economy over the environment Ensure that Te Arawa culture and values form a key part of planning, policy and action Improve Council’s understanding and focus on sustainability Support the development of Papakāinga on Te Arawa land Keep me informed of the enhanced iwi participation with the recent changes to the Resource Management Act

478

693

TE KARAKA 1A&1B2B2 LAND TRUST – The 1 Minute Submission Form Q1: What is your first name? Te Karaka 1A & 1B2B2

Q2: What is your last name? Land Trust

Q4: What is your location?  

Suburb Otaramarae City Rotorua

Q5: The things I would like to see Rotorua Lakes Council focus on in the 2017/2018 Annual Plan are: assist those Maori land trust/s with developing multiple owned land for occupation/rent/leasing etc.

Q6: Additionally, I support: 

The establishment of a stand-alone Te Arawa Whare Toanga – given the current circumstances surrounding the Museum

Q7: Additionally, I think Rotorua Lakes Council needs to:  

Ensure that Te Arawa culture and values form a key part of planning, policy and action Support the development of Papakāinga on Te Arawa land

479

694

From: Potaua Biasiny-Tule Sent: Tuesday, 16 May 2017 11:56 p.m. To: Carol Peden Subject: Re: Annual plan submission

"Could the Rotorua Lakes Council please consider and support the kaupapa of Marae Hubs that are able to operate maara, job training, drivers license prep, kaumatua services, papakainga support and hapu administration. These moveable HQ's will be locally sourced, using local timber, sustainable energy connections, wifi enabled and safe. The triple purpose of these Hubs are to centralise hapu & marae records, to create a local job hub and to provide an IT training suite. We will work with local artists to design and decorate the Marae Hubs. We are developing 3 Marae-based pilots and invite the council to korero on these kaupapa in time. We hope these beacons of productivity and self sufficiency enhance our community by bringing businesses and hapu together and allow our whanau to be able to work, live and play in our respective neighbourhoods. Thank you." Irihapeti Wineera.

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Peter

Q4. Family name

Mickleson

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

+61 407824360

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

92 Okareka Loop Road

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered

Yes

575

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: Rural residential and commercial should pay less as they generally receive less services Q23.My feedback is: Agree Q24.My feedback is: Agree. Need to catch up for years of under rating. Q25.My feedback is: I do not support short term rentals in residential areas. Any short term rental of more than 30 days per annum should require the property to be rated as if it were commercial. Part of this revenue to fund staff to monitor websites to identify qualifying properties. Also support greater regulation by way of requiring a noise and parking management plan for short term rentals and a contact person who is available 24/7 to whom complaints and issues can be referred. Such a contact person must be available within 1 hour to attend the property. Q26.My feedback is: Keep up the good work!

576

Q1. Title

Other

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Luis

Q4. Family name

Gea

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

3457253

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

44 Tumene Drie

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: this is a hard pill to swallow but the quality of the water in our lakes is deteriorating too fast Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: 100% targetted rate is acceptable however this is not a conversation neither a consultation, what you are looking at is like a ratification. There is no opportunity (further than the one in this box that nobody reads) to contribute to ideas and opinions. What about adding two days of the year for general rubbish disposal, what about banning the use of plastic bags and until then they are accepted in the bin for recycle (same for the awfull meat trays). What about banning the use of detergents with high potassium?

577

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: This is not a priority, it is a nice to have and for instance Council should proceed with a more appropriate way forward and divide the wish list in smaller bits to be achieve year by year without adding a massive cost to the ratepayer Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: Agree with the condition that the money is not diverted elsewhere and that a proper accountability is publicly detailed through the media and audited separately. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: Again this conversation is a ratification or nothing. What about making both Boards been payed via a targetted rate? Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: Yes, eliminate with urgency and not in the next long term plan. This is a really bad precedent. What will happen if the tourism sector goes on a blink? are they going to have a remission? what about the forestry industry? Q24.My feedback is: increase it only as per inflation, and that will be more than my salary anyway. Prioritise on spenditure and give us a break ! not all of us are lucky enough to work at the Council Q25.My feedback is: do nothing until the government decides to regulate the industry otherwise you will be challenge in court and we will be paying consultants and lawyers Q26.My feedback is: Can you please add more info regarding $300K towards city gateways? definetely not a priority either. what about tourism lakes pressure? what are we getting for $265K ?? What about the sporting facility funding? why to do them all at once, prioritise based on the use of the facilities

578

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Mike

Q4. Family name

Bodie

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

027 6880655

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

5B Operiana Street, Ngongotaha

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

No

579

Q17.My feedback is: Not clear how this facility interrelates with Energy Events Centre and whether both facilities are needed for national and international performances. Better rationale needed before expenditure is committed. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: This decision should not be made until the insurance cover situation is determined. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: Agree Q23.My feedback is: Agree Q24.My feedback is: Disagree Q25.My feedback is: Disagree Q26.My feedback is: Council needs to deal urgently with the following matters: 1. New recycling system does not extend to plastic bags, meaning over the year a million or more plastic bags enter the Rotorua landfill. There is a growing move to make Rotorua plastic bag free, but the lack of recycling for the community is totally unsatisfactory and needs rectification 2. Create a freedom camping bylaw urgently 3. Create a bylaw to prohibit street window washing of cars from the District. Currently window washing is only prohibited if it is a "nuisance", making the current bylaw unenforceable. Window washers detract from our community, are intimidating, and is not a good look for visitors to our District.

580

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Claire

Q4. Family name

Cornwell

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Rocking Horse Therapy

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0211320422

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

RD1, Ngakuru

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: I have not read the whole plan, this lets talk service is not really working is it! Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

581

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: this process is lengthy, clunky and ineffective. I am trying to provide feedback relating to the letter I received yesterday Doc no: RDC-715984. Its not giving much notice to the planned meeting, since its tonight, What is the point of putting a map of the collection points, when it doesn't state where they are, no rd names etc.

582

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Brian

Q4. Family name

Pickering

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

self

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0273020057

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: There is a lot of fly tipping in the area (a national problem, I know). Waste management needs to be a public good, not a profit making business. Reduce or eliminate the charges at the dump. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

No

583

Q17.My feedback is: The Sir Howard Morrison Performing Arts Centre has been upgraded relatively recently so why the need for another upgrade aleady?? The Annual Plan info in the Rotorua Review states that it is "under-utilised as many events and conferences are now held at the Rotorua Energy Events Centre". Are both needed? Many events miss Rotorua e.g. Judith Collins and John Denver shows both in Tauranga, not Rotorua. Don't upgrade the Sir Howard Morrison Performing Arts Centre unless there is a cast iron guarantee that such events will in future come to Rotorua and there is a valid reason that they can't be held at the Rotorua Energy Events Centre. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: The museum is essentially a tourist attraction. Tourist businesses should pay, maybe by a targetted rate specific to them. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: I hav ticked "Yes" as there is no option for "no comment" Q22.My feedback is: No comment Q23.My feedback is: No comment Q24.My feedback is: Live within the current rates. Only increase to be in line with inflation and reduce debt. No other increase. Q25.My feedback is: No comment. Q26.My feedback is: I enjoy living in Rotorua because it is a small city. I don't want ongoing growth. If I wanted a big city life I would be in Auckland. One specific mentioned in the Rotorua Review is "Enhancement of parks ... e.g.Long Mile Road". What is wrong with Long Mile Road exactly as it is? I go there most days. No further develop please.

584

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Jo

Q4. Family name

Rogers

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

073666365

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

RD3

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

Yes

585

Q15.My Feedback is: I would agree with the 100%targeted rate if we actually got a service. I have approached the council with the feelings of Waimangu and Okaro roads and they have been ignored. We do not want to take our waste to a collection point. I do not see how it is a service to put a collection point just out of town when there is one in town. Once the stinking rubbish is in the car it isnt any harder to go to town. What we wanted is a kerbside service. We will pay for that. Im not happy about paying the same as a kerbside service when there is no service. I have been told Rose would keep in touch with me but I have never heard from her except when I have called myself. The meeting we were going to have was cancelled. We havent heard when it would be rescheduled. Im very angry that getting such a simple service is such a performance and fight. Ive said we want to work with you people and have got nothing. Ive offered my house to hold a meeting for our roads and nothing. I do not want to pay for nothing. Our road had our rubbish collected for well over 10years as it made logical sense to pick it up as the trucks drive past to Rere. Now apparently, despite well over 50% of the road wanting the service to continue we get nothing. We had it for free and now, despite being willing to pay we are not on the list. We also pay rates for town services, waste water, sewage and other things in our rates we dont use at all. If we get no waste service I dont see why we should pay for the town services we dont use. If 16km out of town makes us too rural to care about then we should be exempt from town only services. I would like to talk to someone about this and have tried to arrange meetings since November with no luck but I work Tuesdays and Wednesdays so it would need to be at a time more convenient. Jo Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: Im tired of all these things costing millions when we are so in debt! Its bloody ridiculous. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: The council should be in better financial status to pay for it. The stupid statue on the roundbout at Hemo Gorge could be canned to pay for the museum. The rest of us have to reorganise our budgets when upset happens. Im sure residents of Edgecumbe arent busy paying for elaborate oversees holidays now they have to redo their houses. The council should have to do the same. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: Differentials need to go. I do not understand how rural residents use more than people living in town. If we have more for some part of the rates then we shouldnt pay for sewage etc that we barely if at all use. Q23.My feedback is: If you are removing it no matter what then yes a slight chance to adapt would be handy. I stil think rural rates are absolutely massive and do not represent what those individuals cost thrle council

586

Q24.My feedback is: I do not see why the rate payer should cover the cost of the museum. That should be factored into your budgets. Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: I want kerbside rubbish collection as I have had since I moved here. Its a tourist road. It will ead to more burning and burying of rubbish in this 'clean green' country!

587

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Rachael

Q4. Family name

Crothers

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0220411920

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

12 Pioneer Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

No

588

Q17.My feedback is: Do you get multiple quotes for these as it seems like anyone can put in an over inflated tender because you will just pay it. Surely your engineers can organise things to get fixed cheaper..... Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: If a business closed for unforeseen circumstances we would have to have had insurance to cover 'short falls in income' so why should it be up to the Rate Payer to pay for this loss when you should have had insurance for this situation. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: I don't get a pay rise each year that will cover your increase so myself like most other people with have to miraculously find these funds because even though these are a proposal it is practically in black and white, your decision is made and if I want to own a house I have to lump it. How about you curb a little spending and think about the impact that you are putting on the Rate Payers.! Q25.My feedback is: Why do you think you need to clip the ticket on this one too? Q26.My feedback is: Before you spend money like it is water - could you spare a thought for those you get these funds from and where we are likely find extra money. Could you perhaps set your budgets as if it was your own money and see if you would spend it the same way because I think it would be a very different story! Just because I own a home does not put me on the Rich List!

589

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Robert

Q4. Family name

White

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

N/A

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 3620051

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

2264 SH30 RD 4 Rotorua 3074

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: I attended both meetings the first at the Rotoma town hall then at the Rotoiti sports club on Easter Monday , the cost of the scheme is not clearly defined and and we were asked to make submissions on wether we should starting paying the capital cost in July , I strongly oppose paying for a system that is not in place yet with no actually fixed cost. secondly I cannot afford a 100% rates increase , my wife and I can bearly keep up with our rates obligations as it is and if you look at our fill you'll see that we have had to make payments plans to cover what is owed at the moment , quite simply a vast majority of rate payers in this community will have no choice but the default on payments if this huge cost is forced on them. I asked questions at both meetings on this and other topics and failed to get a straight answer just a generic side step and let's move on response. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

not answered

590

Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: Rate payers were asked to make submissions in regards to making capital cost payments in July 2017 for the Rotoma/Rotoiti sewerage scheme . I do not want to start paying for a system that is not in place with a cost that is yet to be confirmed. For the record I don't think the council is acting ethically and object to the way the community meeting are being conducted. No one actually listens and none of my question were answered. People are confused.

591

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Jo

Q4. Family name

Liddell

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

+64212548434

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

PM - Wednesday 24th May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

No

592

Q15.My Feedback is: Waste should be a creater pays. I would like to know the percentage of our recycling that is soft drink bottles and alcohol. I choose not to drink these but must pay to recycle them. I am subsiding billion dollar international corporations like Coca cola, Pepsi co and Mitsubishi (alcohol) to clean up their mess. These products also add no value to our society, only health and social costs. Either tax at point of sale or supplier level. Coke distributes 100000 bottles a year in Rotorua - tax $0.1 =X that etc, easy. I am happy to use a glass, drink bottle and tap. Milk was sold in a bottle - but why would they pay to reuse when the council will cover disposal - great outsourcing! Coke is in reused bottles in Mexico - why? local authorities cant afford to pay for disposal - we should we pay? This could also go further - I use shampoo soap bars with no waste but must pay for other brands recycling. Most products sold in a bottle contain mostly water which the council already provides to homes -there is too much waste and recycling creation that needs to change not be encouraged by the council. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered

Yes

593

Q25.My feedback is: I find the way topic is worded as very negative, dramatic and not professional with "proliferation" "rigorous regulation" "grappling". It is hard to comment without actual facts and numbers. How many are actually just a room in someones house, a long term Bach now just being more utilized. There is also clearly a need or we would not have them, so often Fenton street is completely in "no Vacancy mode". The solution could be more motels, or less advertising of Rotorua - what is the point of advertising if there is no where for guests to stay? I understand their is a rouge one in Tihiotonga - is 'rigorous regulation' for everyone going to fix this one? We live next door to two that have always been holiday accommodation and have never had a problem. They were last known as the 'last drop in' - they would have only recently gone on bookabach to allow them to be better utilized, these sites just make smaller units more efficient. We also placed our house on bookabach when we had a long term medical stay in Christchurch to help pay our accommodation down there. Bookabach occupancy will be much less than a motel or a residential house so the council is benefiting by getting rates as per a permanently occupied house. This type of accommodation is also needed for families like ours - families that would not have previously traveled. We have five young children - in a motel we would need two units and would need to split our family, this has safety concerns and separates us. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

594

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Ryan

Q4. Family name

Gray

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0211457403

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

57c Ward Road, Hamurana, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit)

Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

AM - Tuesday 23rd May PM - Wednesday 24th May

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: This work has been on the cards for over a decade, with the council almost losing government funding, all while the lakes water quality has been left as is. The sooner Rotorua gets on with this work, the sooner the lakes water can start to increase. $37 per year is a small price to pay to ensure that both ourselves and future generations can continue to enjoy our outdoor playground. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: Regarding rubbish for 1,400 rural properties, so long as the community wants the service, then I believe it should be made available, so long as no opt-out option is available to ensure the service is utilised and cost effective.

595

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: I would prefer the council go with Option 2, for now. All though the idea of attracting more arts and events to Rotorua is an attractive one, there does not appear to be a strong business case showing this is likely to happen as a result of an upgrade. I would prefer the council seek out a Private Public Partnership to complete the enhancement works, this would both benefit the public via having an enhanced civic center, and reducing the burden on ratepayers. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: Option Two would be my preferred option. This would more fairly distribute the funding shortfall across all ratepayers by not adding additional burden to those in lower capital value homes compared to those in higher value homes. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: The targeted rate should be removed from the Lakes Community Board area, and funds raised via this method to date should be ring-fenced for use in the areas who have paid the rate. If the rate is not removed, then the same targeted rate should apply to the new Rural Community Board area. Q22.My feedback is: I see no strong case for a pause, this should progress as planned. Q23.My feedback is: Yes, this should be reduced now. All though it was very kind of the council to subsidise farmers due the the volatility of the Global Milk Price, as prices are stabilising, the remission should now be removed. Q24.My feedback is: Let's face it, no body wants a rates increase. But if Rotorua wants to continue to be a great place to work and play, then it must keep up with the play, both by ensuring infrastructure keeps up with demand and by enhancing public spaces. After years of underdevelopment, it's time we caught up.

596

Q25.My feedback is: In my view, it's not that more rigorous regulation is required, it is that more rigorous enforcement of current regulations are required. The current regulation of 100 days per year should be enforced. If the property owners wants to stay longer than this, then they must apply for consent and then pay the additional rates and taxes associated. AIRBNB has been cooperative with other cities around the world by introducing a cap which is automatically enforced by their software, so I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same in Rotorua. If people flaunt the rules, they should be fined. There should not be a limit on people renting out private rooms while the host is staying at the same property. In my view, this falls outside the standard holiday home definition. I base my thinking from a social view, there is currently a rental and housing shortage in Rotorua, so for every house that is only offered as a short term rental, that is another house which is not available for long term rent, further decreasing the sense of community and reducing supply which in turn increases rental pricing. If the current trend continues of more landlords offering homes for short term rental, instead of long term, then this problem will only get worse. Until the housing supply is brought into line with demand, there should be no encouragement to take more houses off the long term market. Enforcing current regulations and working with short term rental booking sites could go some way in achieving this Q26.My feedback is: The Rotorua Central Skatepark should be upgraded to a standard determined by a community of those who use the Skatepark. It has not had an upgrade for over a decade and has now had it's day. It is used by many people both locally and by visitors to Rotorua. I believe Cr Charles Sturt's great idea of offering naming rights could go some way to help with funding for the upgrade. If it was upgraded to a suitable standard, then I believe it would be more likely to be used by regular National competitions, bringing visitors and additional revenue to Rotorua. The Skatepark provides an unique environment where people from different backgrounds and cultures interact with each other, furthering our sense of community, if it was enhanced, then I see this would only be to the betterment of our great city.

597

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Frances

Q4. Family name

Louis

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Te Ropu AWANGAWANGA

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

02248846

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

42a Puriri Cres

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

AM - Tuesday 23rd May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: Increase in Rates means Council cant do the Job they were put there to do and thats to help the People. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: Expensive and disempowerment of Locals Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: Pull the Building down

No

598

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: Pull this Building down as well Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: Expensive leave Locals alone Q22.My feedback is: No to Councils Decision to put up Costs and make Locals Suffer Q23.My feedback is: Council should have no Say in any Farming Schemes Q24.My feedback is: Dont Increase Rates, you will destroy Lives. Q25.My feedback is: Leave this alone too. Q26.My feedback is: Stop Building the Library CHILDHUB. Dont let the Bottle Store go up at Marguerita Street. Dont put the Rates up. Dont Let Regional Council have a Say about what we do here in Rotorua. Stop Borrowing Money as this is what gives BOP Regional Council the Right to take over Rotorua Lakes Council.

599

Q1. Title

Ms

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Dale

Q4. Family name

Morrow

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0210287730

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

31 Moncur Drive Springfield

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: Are these homes residential ? Or are they just tenanted in the short term,?? In light of the recent flooding in Rotorua, better stormwater drainage is required .,,, the two run hand in hand Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

not answered

600

Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: Yes. Q24.My feedback is: I do not consider funding for the Howard Morrison Centre critical. I do support the restoration of the museum with it's historical significance. The issues of flooding in Rotorua and it's surrounds, damage to homes, should take higher priority than an Arts venue Q25.My feedback is: No.If the owners are paying rates in the district then Council needs to stay focused on its core business such as dealing with those who are suffering from the effects of the flooding and devastation of their homes. Lack of adequate drainage, poor site planning , appalling records of site plans . THIS is what council should be addressing! Q26.My feedback is: not answered

601

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

James

Q4. Family name

Manley

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Land owners

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 3487941

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

2 Tokoihi St

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: A yes if vacant property are also supply with the bins Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered

Yes

602

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: Only a collection once and remove of the rates following year don,t leave it on like petrol taxes Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

603

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Stephanie

Q4. Family name

Carroll

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0272916064

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

430 Te Kopia Road, RD1, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

No

604

Q15.My Feedback is: I believe that the option of opting out must remain. This should be allowed to be done by proof of contract with another service that may be available in the area. ( being mindful that service does exist and doing this may put people out of business) These services have come about due to the lack of options under Council to date. For example in Waikite Valley we have a drum contractor that some residents use for on property collection and for on farm, Waste Management offer bins that are collected that allow us to have household rubbish and farm rubbish collected. The proposed option you wish to charge us for on our farm property does not cater for our needs and will require multiple facilities when we have services which run well today. Please keep the opt out option open for those who can provide proof of use of a reputable service that caters for rural needs. And those with no proof of contract with a service will then be charged what you are recommending. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: We get nothing for our rates now. No water, sewage, rubbish, pathing, road clean ups are extremely slow. Keeping verges sprayed so water can get away. So for rural out our way and farming we pay huge rates for no services. No is my answer and farming in rural areas is still struggling and now you rare looking at restricted land use and possible changes that may destroy peoples businesses and family lives. Q24.My feedback is: Stop borrowing money. Learn to live within your means. Charge tourists to cover expansion in these areas somehow. With regard to Museum you should have had income protection if you rely on that revenue so much (like the rest of us in business need to plan for for unexpected events). We don't have pocket fulls of money. Stop unnecessary glorified projects.

605

Q25.My feedback is: This is ridiculous. If you charge these people who will help with shortfalls in accommodation if tourism numbers increase. You will stop them doing such a thing. You will also have to charge people who rent out properties who are making financial gains higher than they ever have with the rental rates being charge. Some exceeding those achieve by short-term rental arrangements as occupancy is not guaranteed on short-term rentals. If you want to charge then you charge on all profit making rental properties in the Rotorua District - short and long-term. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

606

Q1. Title

Ms

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

fiona

Q4. Family name

cameron

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

none

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0226012479

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

29a Carnot st

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered

Yes

607

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: i think it does not need regulation. good way for locals to benefit from tourism Q26.My feedback is: we need more investment in roller skating. a rink and park for locals,

608

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Niall

Q4. Family name

Dinning

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

n/a

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0274303014

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

621 Te Weta Rd, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

PM - Tuesday 23rd May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: The notion of a targeted rate and the resulting proposed model of implementation for rural properties is lacking sufficient rigor to warrant its implementation at this time. There is a significant gap in the consultation process; from community feedback that 'an alternative to the current waste management system should be explored’ to the proposed solution of a ‘targeted rate’. There is no path of logic between the survey results and the proposals (1 and 2) on page 10 of the Annual Plan consultation. The process is less than transparent and leads to some questions: 1. Is the targeted rate in the best interests of the rural community or does it serve a need to streamline the administration of waste management for the Council? 2. Why have other options not been presented with an indicative costing e.g. an additional rural transfer station, 24hr access to an urban-based transfer station? Issues that affect the viability for rate payers of the proposed solution: 1.

609

Not a complete waste management solution • Since the proposal only covers household rubbish it is inconsistent with the custom and practice of managing rural waste. • Most rural businesses generate waste of one form or another that requires transfer to a disposal site. They use a range means to do this including delivering it themselves to using a ‘skip bin’ of some description. In this situation they tend to manage their household waste using the same process. They are unlikely to see any value in an additional service with less access and an extra cost. • There is also the flow-on effect to the small/medium businesses that currently provide rural waste management solutions. 2. Not the same service • As stated above there are two types of rate payers for the purposes of this proposal: domestic and commercial. Most commercial rate payers have a current “on farm” solution while domestic ratepayers use a range of current options including self funded bins, drop off at urban sites and a combination of recycling and incineration. • Most options require travel. • The proposed option in the annual plan also requires travel: for many rate payers the travel to a collection point is about the same as one of their current travel-based options, especially where it is combined with the use of other facilities e.g. shopping in the city. • The targeted rate across all properties in the district does not then provide the same service. There is no comparison between the resources required for an urban resident to travel 20m to place a bin at the side of the road and a rural resident travelling 20km to get the same outcome. Rural Kerbside Collection The economic argument against kerbside collection in most rural areas is clear to most people and not, I believe, an option considered viable by the vast majority of rural rate payers. Why then would rural rate payers feel valued when charged for a service that be not used by them because it is either: 1. Additional to a solution they already have that works, 2. Uneconomic compared to their current solution, or 3. Equally convenient/inconvenient to their current solution? Waste Profile for Rural areas What is the volume of waste being managed in the rural setting? It is possible to make predictions based on known occupants etc but this doesn’t consider lifestyle issues. I suggest that very little food waste is transported off rural properties regardless of the current waste management solutions in place. This is especially true for non-commercial rural rate payers. Combined with recycling this changes the dynamic of the type and movement of waste and therefore the types of facilities required to handle that waste. Collection points: size v location Based on the information provided in consultation materials and public meetings • Given a figure of 1900 wheelie bins over 4 or 5 collection points. • 400-500 bins per site translates to 144 – 180m2 at an absolute minimum. That does not include space for infrastructure such as fencing, access ways, signage, water run-off and waste containment. • The “artist’s impression” of what a collection point could look like (10 – 12m2) is then highly misleading. It is so misleading compared to the described potential implementation that it could be construed as deceptive in the context of an open and transparent consultation. Environmental Concerns • Arguments about vast amounts of rural waste being burnt or buried are spurious. • There is little evidence that this is a problem and most rural businesses manage their waste responsibly. • Even if the issue were a live one the Option proposed only targets household waste and so has less connection to the issue or impact on the environment. If recyclable materials and waste food are removed the resulting material, if properly incinerated, has no more environmental impact than decomposition over time in a land fill. Managing exceptions to the target rate • It was suggested a public meeting that those rural ratepayers could “opt out” of the fee in favour of their current waste management practice. • I disagree with this notion on the basis that the compliance costs would remove any possible administrative benefit from a uniform application of the rate. • Allowing an exception to the Option 1 would also mean that the rate payer was not contributing toward such things as litter removal and management of the landfill. To counter this yet another rating formula would need to be applied for those rate payers. My preferred option is option 3, the status quo: • The “20% portion” as a part of general rates, covering litter, landfill management etc, is appropriate since in covers the whole district and doesn’t discriminate against any part of the community. It is clearly a service of benefit to the whole community regardless of location and a part of Council’s responsibility on behalf of all residents. • It seems that in all likelihood any one solution will fit very few people in rural communities so the present ‘self funded’ model should be maintained until such time as a set of costed pragmatic options are placed before the members of the rural community. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered

Yes

610

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: Agree Q23.My feedback is: Agree Q24.My feedback is: Agree Q25.My feedback is: These businesses should be treated as such by the council in terms of rating. At worst the likely revenue generated should largely offset the cost of compliance. Recommend that a lower per night threshold is set and that all accommodation providers are accounted for and rated accordingly. Perhaps consider incentivising voluntary registrations and provide small-business workshops for these accommodation providers to help them minimise the impact on their business. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

611

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Brad

Q4. Family name

Hohneck

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0275582200

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

797 Kapukapu Rd, R.D.6, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: Leave the opt-out option available, so we don't have to give council more money for nothing. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

612

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: charge a user pays Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: If you stopped spending then there would be no general rate increase required Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

613

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Sheila

Q4. Family name

Julian

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Honeydew Farms Ltd.

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0276715609

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

Scally Road, Whataroa

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: Our farm is located in Rerewhakaaitu, with 3 houses on it, one of which is predominantly vacant. There doesn't seem to be any confirmation that we would receive kerbside service even though we would be paying a significant amount for this. There isn't enough information on what we, in the rural sector, will receive in order to agree to any changes. If changes are inevitable then I would support Option 2 (90% targeted). Also, there is no comparison given for larger the single house values. Need more information.

614

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: This seems unfair as rural residences do not share the same service allocations as do urban residences. Therefore, it should be kept where it is. Q23.My feedback is: The farming community is only just getting back on its feet and it seems unfair to remove any slight advantage that they may have due to a higher pay out by increasing their rates. The remission should remain where it is and be revisited in the coming years. Q24.My feedback is: I don't agree with any rates increases for the moment. Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: As a rural farm owner with more than one house, I feel that I will be disadvantaged by the proposed targeted rate for waste management without any guarantee that my farm will be able to utilize the service. I also feel that rating my farm 3 times is absurd, especially as one of the house does not have a permanent resident. Once again, it seems as if rural NZ is footing the bill for the urbanites. Shameful

615

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Lynda

Q4. Family name

Pacey

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Tulachard Ltd

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

+6473666846

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

RD3

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: I would like to see kerbside recycling and rubbish collection in all areas as I believe better recycling will occur with this system. What I can't understand is how you think you can charge everyone the same for different services. Why should people who still have to take their refuse to a collection point pay the same as someone with kerbside collection. You are saying that the levy will be per dwelling but you are still going to charge nearly half of the levy to a property without a dwelling. If you must charge then why should it be more than 27% which is what you are charging everyone over and above the kerbside collection fee stated in your pie diagram.

616

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

No

617

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Rosemarie

Q4. Family name

LYON

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 3666656

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

106 Waimangu Road RD3

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: After attending the community meeting last evening at Rerewhakaitu I would like to confirm my personal support for the proposal submitted at the meeting : ie The wider rural area Rere/Waimanmgu would like to see a rubbish collection per household gate implemented . It was requested that a cost analysis/comparison be done for both bins or bags. It is does not sit well that the rural sector must pay the council suggested $187 annual household rubbish fee when they do not get the full service. i.e. to travel to a collection point or waste station.

618

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: I wish only to enter a submission of preference regards the rural rubbish collection plans. Having attended the community meeting last evening I endorse the preference for a rural household kerbside collection (bags or bins). It is not fair and equitable to pay the council imposed annual $187 fee and not get the same service as those in town.

619

Q1. Title

Other

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Other

Q3. First name

Martin

Q4. Family name

Althuizen

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Rotorua Assocation of Motels

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 3486000

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

PO Box 131 Rotorua 3040

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

PM - Tuesday 23rd May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: On behalf of the Association members we think that we should have the option to be exempt to the proposals being put forward as many of us have our own Waste Disposal arrangements. One reason being the Council do not not provide bins and service to meet our needs. Secondly having the once only a week collection could become a health and order hazard to our guests re: smell & attraction of Vermin. Thirdly many of us would be paying an extra cost for a service that we wouldn't use. We are however happy to pay a minimum fee to cover the cost of Waste for City Services. ie: Recycle Centre , Public Litter services etc. .

620

Q15.My Feedback is: Once again. Council missuses our ratepayers money and then takes from us again. This is poor form. Stop spending our rates on ridiculous projects and plan and budget for projects like this. If I want to make an improvement to my house, I don't charge my tenants for the work! I plan and budget for it. It seems our council has poor money management skills. When will this end. Instead of planning and budgeting they will just keep hiking rates every time something needs doing. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: Once again. This is your responsibility to maintain. You have taken our money to manage this facility. What are you doing with our money? Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: Stop taking more of our money to do what you are already mandated to do! We already pay you to maintain and keep our community assets. Hells bells what do you use our rates for? Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: I do not trust a council who use current rates on meaningless items and fail to serve the community by planning and budgeting for up and coming costs. At the same time you withdraw support for community projects and organisations (In particular your complete neglect of youth). instead you fund green corridors and children hubs that your community clearly said 'no' to. You hike rates, miss-manage our funds and then hike the rates again. This is appalling and you can not be trusted. Q25.My feedback is: I own a property. I pay a huge mortgage and ridiculous rates which force me to look at all kinds of ways of recovering this. It is my property, I own it! I should be entitled to rent it out in any way I see fit. The issue here is community poverty. We need fairer wages, more programs that help people in to employment. Put your weight in to Forcing things you can make a difference in. But if you are going to start telling me how I should rent my house, then allow me to tell you how you should manage your properties. The rates you should be charging for community use of our community venues is appalling.

621

Q26.My feedback is: I encourage council to be good managers of our rate payers money. It seems to all who I speak to that you miss spend and then penalize us.

622

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

John

Q4. Family name

Haszard

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

021725712

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

193 State Highway 30 Lake Rotoma

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: I cannot possibly agree with the council's preferred option on pg 8 as it is totally at odds with the council's presentations at the Easter Monday community meetings at Rotoma and Rotoiti. It was presented that council did not wish to have yet another defeat in the environment court so the proposed solution to an objection was to replace grinder pumps with STEP at an increased cost. Because of this and that the Biolitix trial has not yet been completed we do not know what the likely extra cost to my rates will be. It is extraordinary that council does not have this project entirely under its control. Furthermore it is repugnant that ratepayers should be expected to fund a scheme which is not properly costed, not properly designed and not even certain to proceed. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered

Yes

623

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: I oppose this increase as it is unjust that existing ratepayers should be funding growth. Growth should correctly fund itself with the ability to lessen the burden on current rates, otherwise there is no purpose for growth. Q25.My feedback is: There are more important things the council should be concerned with. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

624

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

John

Q4. Family name

Pakes

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 3575344

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

13b Ranginui Street, Ngongotaha

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit)

AM - Tuesday 23rd May PM - Tuesday 23rd May AM - Wednesday 24th May PM - Wednesday 24th May

Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: As the concern for our environment grows, the cost of waste management is certain to rise. The idea of having just what these costs are in a single rate adds transparency to the actual cost of waste managent for discussion on future years. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

Yes

625

Q17.My feedback is: It would be a very barren city that had no centre such as this. If it must be repaired, then it must be repaired. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: It does appear to be the most economical option for the ratepayers. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: We invited them to the table, we need their input, the costs of their input to us should not be an impost on them. Q22.My feedback is: A pause and a period of further discussion should be implemented. Business has a tax advantage that residence does not. I think that the community needs to understand aspects such as this a bit more clearly. Q23.My feedback is: A farm is a business, and should be treated as such. Q24.My feedback is: Annual increases such as this will not be sustainable for ever. A new system possibly such as Municipal Bonds should be being looked at by local and central govenment. Central Government cannot keep passing responsibilities and their related costs on to Local Bodies. Q25.My feedback is: Council needs to be very careful to not introduce rules that may hinder or restrict the number of beds that are available for our tourist industry. I would like to present my thoughts in detail to Council. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

626

Q1. Title

Miss

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Victoria

Q4. Family name

Holmes

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0273101632

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

23 Exeter Place, Tihiotonga

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: This seems like a very large cost for just benefiting 770 properties however if the long term environmental impacts are lessened, then I am on board with the cost. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

No

627

Q17.My feedback is: Earthquake strengthening is important so I agree with that. Rotorua is very good at paying for events so companies don't want to come here. It isn't a lack of a good venue, it just is a community of people who don't want to pay to go to events. I worked in national touring - Rotorua never worked. People never came. We priced accordingly and it made no difference. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: I think you should look to cut in other areas to focus on Council's core services. Q25.My feedback is: I think the IRD need to make sure the people running these businesses are paying taxes. I don't think this is a council issue. Q26.My feedback is: You need to focus on what you're employed to do! Your building teams need to be pulled into line so we can get more houses built here. Otherwise I think Stevie you are doing a great job - keep it up!

628

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Ursula

Q4. Family name

Buckingham

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Hancock Forest Management NZ Ltd

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

09 4701325

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

PO Box 1860, Whangarei

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: Agree with user pays system with the district contributing to ongoing maintenance. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: Forestry land has no services to the land and no dwellings on the land. Therefore charging vacant land a partial charge until such time as a building is constructed is unfair and unreasonable. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

not answered

629

Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: The consultation document states that every household would be charged (page 15) which implies properties with houses. This on line submission says every rateable property will be charged. Clarification is needed on what council are proposing. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: HFM supports the user paid initiatives.

not answered

630

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

not answered

Q3. First name

Richard

Q4. Family name

Prebble

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 3620731

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

45 S/H 30 Rotoma

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 8 of the Annual Plan?

No

631

Q12.My Feedback is: There is a village in Fiji that decided after many village meetings to build a church. The village decided the church would have stain glass windows, the best in Fiji. Then one villager said "We have the naughtiest children. They will break the windows". The village had a meeting to determine what to do. It was decided to give all the children a good beating to make sure they never broke any windows. The story is true. I have met some of the children. They are my age. You could say it worked because no church window was every broken but that is because no church was ever built. The Council plan to rate for a sewage scheme it has no Resource Consent to build is as silly as that Fiji village.. Over the years I have attended "community consultation" meetings where we were assured the Rotoma sewage scheme was to start within 12 months. What is so special about this year's promises? Ratepayers will have to elect to make a single payment in two months time or pay over 25 years for a scheme whose cost is just a guess. The bland assurances that if the levy is too high the extra will be returned is not assuring. Some ratepayers who may have elected for the capital sum will be put off by the setting of a figure that is too high. An official boasted at the last meeting that all Rotorua sewage schemes cost less than the estimate. This means we ratepayers will almost certainly paying too high a capital figure. A real burden for many. If an Auckland property developer where to sell property without a Resource Consent he would be charged with fraud. If he then charged more than he knew it was going to cost he would also be sued. Just because the Council has the legal power to do an act is not a reason to do so. It is of course too late to point out that Rotoma ratepayers were told to support amalgamation with Rotorua because when sewage did come the cost of the protection of the lake would not be levied on 700 mainly low income ratepayers but be shared across the city. I realise we are powerless but this latest proposal is an outrage. Let us at least wait until we know the costs before setting a rate. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

632

Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

633

Q1. Title

Other

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Robyn

Q4. Family name

Manuel

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07-281-9587

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

1504 State Highway 30, Rotoiti Forest, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit)

Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 8 of the Annual Plan?

AM - Tuesday 23rd May AM - Wednesday 24th May

No

634

Q12.My Feedback is: Two community hui held on Easter Monday (17 April 2017) with Council representatives clearly opposed the use of low pressure grinder pumps for the Rotom? community. STEP was considered the better system on offer. It must be noted though that there were people at the Rotoma meeting who wanted to opt-out completely and install an OSET system that complies with BOP Regional Council rules. STEP is a poor substitute for Biolytix and my preference is that Rotom? goes on Biolytix with Rotoiti. I live in Rotoiti but have spent the last 10 years living on Waiheke Island where most of the 8500 residents have an OSET system. Our home on Waiheke was built in 2011; we use a Biolytix onsite sewage treatment system. We have had absolutely no problems with it in that time. I understand that the Biolytix effluent contains too high a concentration of Total Nitrogen (for the Rotorua Lakes catchments) and this is part of the rationale to pipe Rotoiti's Biolytix treated effluent away for further treatment. As the Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) and Total suspended solids (TSS) maximum concentrations found in the Biolytix effluent are well below those given by BOP Regional Council (OSET National Testing Programme, 2015), I recommend the following: 1. Rotoiti AND Rotoma communities use a Biolytix OSET system. This will reduce the need for the MBR treatment plant being proposed at Haumingi 9B3B and should significantly reduce the overall project cost. 2. Effluent from each community is piped to 2 much smaller, not the very expensive MBR, treatment facilities (1 in Rotoiti and 1 in Rotom?) that reduce the Total Nitrogen concentrations before dispersal to land. Having a treatment 'hub' in each community is much more culturally acceptable as it avoids transferring paru from one watershed to another. Furthermore, Rotoiti and Rotoma have different demographics. Why is Council proposing to transport untreated (LPGP) or semi-treated (STEP) sewage from a community with a higher proportion of Pakeh? to a community that has a high proportion of M?ori? Each community should deal with their own faeces and urine! This is not a new practice by Councils and in the event that this bias is 'unconscious', I draw this to your attention. 3) The costings for this project seem outrageous. Our Biolytix system on Waiheke Island was no more than $15K in total. The per household cost pre-subsidy is $52K. This is simply too high and implies that approximately $37K per household, more than double the cost of the OSET unit, goes towards a treatment plant (MBR) that is not needed or wanted by our community. 4) Staying with the costings - many households will find it difficult to pay the lump sum of $14-15K and so are stuck with the 25 year payment plan of approximately $1000 per year. How can Council justify these households paying almost double ($25K) over that period? Again, this cost is not necessary if both communities use Biolytix and the treatment plant/s focus on reducing Total N only (since cBOD5 and TSS are already well below the levels required for dispersal). 5) It looks like you/Council are determined to build an over the top treatment facility at Haumingi 9B3B. Is this to facilitate further housing development particularly in Rotom?? And I'll state it again, why is the treatment plant being located in the community that is very much a M?ori community. It happened at Okahu Bay (Auckland) and Mangere (Auckland). There is learning there. 6) There should be the option for those who are well distanced from the Lake to opt-out. 7) I am not interested in paying an upfront payment in the 2017/18 year when Rotoiti does not get added to the scheme until August 2019. I suspect many of our community will feel the same. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: I prefer Option 2 - just do the work that needs to be done. Council needs to reduce its debt.

635

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: I prefer Option 2 where the amount each household contributes is based on the capital value of the property. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: I agree that consistency is funding the partnership/community boards is needed. Q22.My feedback is: Good. I think that the differentials are needed for fairness. As a rural resident, we do not have some of the comforts of urban residents e.g. good, safe footpaths; a library; children's playgrounds; bus service; cycle lanes removed from the road. Q23.My feedback is: I support this. Q24.My feedback is: This increase can be reduced if some sensible planning was done with the Rotoiti/Rotom? sewerage scheme. It really is a shambles. I was in the Environment Court in 2011 and I can't believe that Council representatives are still bumbling along forcing communities to reticulate with dumb solutions. Is it time for you to get rid of certain staff? They're a huge cost to us, the rate payers. Q25.My feedback is: No. There's quite a difference between a hotel and a private home offering lodging occasionally to visitors. The differential factor cannot be justified in my opinion. Q26.My feedback is: I have moved from a very 'dog friendly' community to a considerably less friendly city. Please consider allowing dogs (on lead) in the city. Please also provide dog poo bags at every park, beach etc where dogs are allowed. This is vital anywhere near the Lakes to encourage dog owners to clean up and to reduce the likelihood of faeces entering the Lakes. Our side of the road (even numbers on State Highway 30, Rotoiti Forest) needs a good footpath well removed from the road. It is very dangerous walking anywhere there. Debt: Council should not borrow any more than is absolutely required and should be focused on reducing debt. Council could save $9.8M if Rotoiti/Rotom? were to go OSET only - and comply with BOP Regional Council.

636

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Stuart

Q4. Family name

Burns

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

021972535

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

33A Iles Road, Lynmore, Rotorua 3010

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: Ratepayers should be required to install an OSET system that meets the Bay of Plenty Regional Council rules at their own cost. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

No

637

Q17.My feedback is: I agree that council needs to undertake strengthening work and this should be undertaken to ensure the ongoing use of the facility. While the additional upgrading is a good idea it failed to gain support previously from funders such as RECT. In the current economic climate council should not go it alone on this project and definitely should not be borrowing money to enable it to occur. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: I am in favour of Option 2 – Fund the shortfall through an increase in the general rate. The museum operation is a normal part of this council's operations. In the past surpluses have factored into general rates so it is fair that where their is a loss then the same rules should apply. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: I am in favour of retaining the Status Quo Q22.My feedback is: I agree with this process. Q23.My feedback is: I agree with this process as farming incomes have become more stable and this will be reflected in the next valuation round. Q24.My feedback is: I believe that the increase is excessive especially when one considers the low inflationary environment that New Zealand has had, the fact that we have a community that has a high number of low income earners and beneficiaries and the fact that we should be limiting capex and reducing borrowings Q25.My feedback is: Properties that undertake this operation should be rated 33.3% business rate and 66.6% residential. Hotels, motels and other accommodation providers currently pay a full business rate so it is only fair that these other providers pay their fair share of the rates burden. Q26.My feedback is: Towards the end of last year i highlighted that inflation would be moving towards 2.2% within the next 24 months and interest rates would also be rising. These factors will impact heavily on council spending. Now is the time for council to limit capex spending to what is necessary and REDUCE debt. Failure to do so will will yet again mean that our ratepayers will have to dig deep to finance the mistakes made.

638

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Mark

Q4. Family name

Oliver

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 3486613

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

378 Sunset Rd Westbrook 3015, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: This is an essential development for the well being of the local freshwater environment. Apart from important cultural and natural heritage values we must realise that the Lakes are of huge value for increasing tourism income. The repayment schemes that are outlined offer a reasonable solution to the directly affected ratepayers in the new sewerage scheme area and also a reasonable investment in the city's future for the rest of us. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: Waste management must be performed responsibly and therefore must be directed by the executive management of the elected council. The amount of illegal dumping of rubbish and other unwanted goods convinces me that a minority of residents in the region can't be trusted to manage waste in an environmentally sound manner. I would argue that the council also needs to develop better policing of illegal waste dumping and cost recover some of this cost with infringement fines.

639

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: I cannot support the current proposal because there is no business plan presented that allows me to judge whether there will be an ongoing reliance of ratepayer subsidy for increased operation, if it happens at all. A sound business plan needs to submitted including full risk analysis. If this goes ahead the whole community needs to understand the full responsibility they are signing up to. I would like to know what income the council expect from this upgrade and if there is any, will it be used to mitigate further rate hikes for locals? In the light of the loss of Museum income due to earthquake damage, how do the council plan to insure any income? Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: Not unless the Council and it's executive acknowledge that they need to have a better plan to insure income from the Museum operation rather than just asking for a handout from the rate paying public. The council needs to understand wage and salary income has not increased by the percentage as the rate increase they are proposing. Interest rates and cost of living are very likely to increase over the next year and into the future.The proposed increase in rates (and therefore rent) is hard enough for those on middle to higher income but must be devastating to the average resident on a low median household income. Rotorua is living beyond it's means. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: This is more transparent. Q22.My feedback is: The pause is a good idea while a revue is performed. I hope a long period of submissions is planned for the review, perhaps on a step wise basis as the review progresses. Q23.My feedback is: This is one practical way to manage the issue, are there others that could be considered to prevent the sea sawing of remissions? For example a scheme farmers could buy into in profitable times that offsets less profitable phases. Hopefully, if payouts stay high and farmers develop an excess they could trade that for offsetting rates in a given year, or perhaps trade the "credits". Q24.My feedback is: I do not think the ratepayers and rent payers can sustain this increase without hardship. In earlier sections I have outlined some expenditure that needs re-evaluation. No point in repeating myself here. I do wonder whether more income could be gained through levies on tourism operators, particularly those foreign owned operations in Rotorua. This may need to be considered in concert with central government. Q25.My feedback is: A level playing field is essential for those in the accommodation business. This issue must be pursued.

640

Q26.My feedback is: Thanks very much for the opportunity and the effort to make democracy run outside the normal electoral period. Technology helps and well done to the feedback site architects.

641

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Lea

Q4. Family name

Snowdon

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

3666854

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

312 Republican Road Rerewhakaaitu

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: Stick to core budget, undertake earthquake strengthening only

642

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: Who was silly enough to not have Business Interruption Insurance to cover theses situations, our business does and if we didn't would the rate payers foot the bill. NO So you need to think SMARTER Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: Keep it the same t as the previous year Q23.My feedback is: Remove it all together, as there is no urban remission!!!! Q24.My feedback is: remove the shortfall, that was your business decision not to cover it by insurance, so you wear it Q25.My feedback is: option one Q26.My feedback is: Stick to a budget, that is not all about wanting and the ratepayers can simply pick up the costs. Set goals of achievement yes, but finish projects completely, so they do not need to be revisited for many many years, tackle goals within the year, using funding and rates, Do not incur more debt. Getting your new sewage system, sorted one that is environmentally sound, you expect the community to do the right thing, but you are still spilling treated sewage onto the forest which is so............ past saturation point, and seeps into the lake, make this a priority.

643

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Andrew

Q4. Family name

Gilbert

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

3332079

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

509 Hossack Road

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: A kerbside collection to rural properties is warranted and the charge is acceptable. The alternative of random collection/transfer points is less desirable as the location of these points, for local convenience, is a greater variable and open to random 'flytipping' by undesirables who are not as concerned with the concept of 'local rural pride'. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

Yes

644

Q17.My feedback is: Cost recovery for this option is preferred to be through a recovery targetted rate Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: Agreed Q24.My feedback is: Still an excessive rate increase. Q25.My feedback is: Definitely and a more stringent application of income tax on the received revenue Q26.My feedback is: There is still a general feeling that the council is resorting too quickly to borrowing. A stronger review of possible income streams should be initiated.

645

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Briony

Q4. Family name

Hawke

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0273525594

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

115 poutakataka Rd ngakuru

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: We desperately need rubbish collection in rural areas. It is a struggle trying to organise other alternatives for getting rid of waste. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

not answered

646

Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

647

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

daniel

Q4. Family name

wickliffe

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

02102926232

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

25 settlers road, reporoa

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered

Yes

648

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

Yes

649

Q1. Title

Other

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Other

Q3. First name

Kepa

Q4. Family name

Morgan

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Haumingi 10a2b Trust

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

022-4362324

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

1504 State Highway 30, Rotoiti Forest, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit)

Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 8 of the Annual Plan?

AM - Tuesday 23rd May AM - Wednesday 24th May

No

650

Q12.My Feedback is: Two community hui held on Easter Monday (17 April 2017) with Council representatives clearly opposed the use of low pressure grinder pumps for the Rotom? community. STEP was considered the better system on offer. There were people at the Rotoma meeting who wanted to opt-out completely and install an OSET system that complies with BOP Regional Council rules. STEP is a poor substitute for Biolytix and our preference is that the Rotom? community also uses a Biolytix pod along with Rotoiti. We are aware that the Biolytix effluent contains too high a concentration of Total Nitrogen (for the Rotorua Lakes catchments) and this is part of the rationale to pipe Rotoiti's Biolytix treated effluent away for further treatment. As the Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) and Total suspended solids (TSS) maximum concentrations found in the Biolytix effluent are well below those given by BOP Regional Council (OSET National Testing Programme, 2015), we recommend the following: 1. Rotoiti AND Rotoma communities use a Biolytix OSET system. This will reduce the need for the MBR treatment plant being proposed at Haumingi 9B3B and will significantly reduce the overall project cost. 2. Effluent from each community is piped to 2 much smaller, not the very expensive MBR, treatment facilities (1 in Rotoiti and 1 in Rotom?) that reduce the Total Nitrogen concentrations before dispersal to land. Alternatively, the excess N is used for crop development in the dispersal field. Having a treatment 'hub' in each community is much more culturally acceptable as it avoids transferring paru from one watershed to another. Furthermore, Rotoiti and Rotoma have different demographics. Why is Council proposing to transport untreated (LPGP) or semi-treated (STEP) sewage from a community with a higher proportion of Pakeh? to a community that has a high proportion of M?ori? Each community should deal with their own faeces and urine! This is not a new practice by Councils and in the event that this bias is 'unconscious', we draw this to your attention. 3) The costings for this project seem outrageous. The Rotoiti and Rotom? communities need to see the full costings for this project as we are having to pay for it. We understand the the per pod cost of the Biolytix system is approximately $7.5K. How can Council then justify the per household cost pre-subsidy of $52K? This is simply too high and implies that approximately $44K per household goes towards a treatment plant (MBR) that is not needed or wanted by our community. 4) Staying with the costings - many households will find it difficult to pay the lump sum of $14-15K and so are stuck with the 25 year payment plan of approximately $1000 per year. How can Council justify these households paying almost double ($25K) over that period? Again, this cost is not necessary if both communities use Biolytix and the treatment plant/s focus on reducing Total N only (since cBOD5 and TSS are already well below the levels required for dispersal). 5) It looks like you/Council are determined to build an over the top treatment facility at Haumingi 9B3B. Is this to facilitate further housing development? Why is the treatment plant being located in the community that is very much a M?ori community. It happened at Okahu Bay (Auckland) and Mangere (Auckland). There is learning there. 6) There should be the option for those who are well distanced from the Lake to opt-out. 7) We are not interested in paying an upfront payment in the 2017/18 year when Rotoiti does not get added to the scheme until August 2019. I suspect many of our community will feel the same. 8) How are Maori going to be involved in the review of these submissions? Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: We prefer Option 2 - just do the work that needs to be done.

651

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: Fund the short-fall through rates charged based on the CV of rateable properties. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: Consistency is required. Q22.My feedback is: Differentials should remain for fairness. As rural residents, we do not have the comforts of urban residents e.g. good, safe footpaths; a library; children's playgrounds; bus service; cycle lanes removed from the road, a satellite council building. Q23.My feedback is: We support this and the complete removal of the remission because dairy farming has an adverse effect on the environment - in particular, surface and groundwater. Q24.My feedback is: This increase can be reduced if some sensible planning was done with the Rotoiti/Rotom? sewerage scheme. It is taking far too long and many residents in Rotoiti and Rotom? are still confused as to why reticulation is needed (for everyone rather than those who septic tanks are failing) and the difference between LPGP, STEP, OSET and Biolytix. We were in the Environment Court in 2011 and are concerned that Council staff are still bumbling along forcing communities to reticulate with sub-standard, expensive solutions. Is it time for you to get rid of certain staff? They're a huge cost to us, the rate payers. Q25.My feedback is: No. There's quite a difference between a hotel and a private home offering lodging occasionally to visitors. The differential factor cannot be justified in our opinion. Q26.My feedback is: Our side of the road (even numbers on State Highway 30, Rotoiti Forest) needs a good footpath well removed from the road. It is very dangerous walking anywhere there. Debt: Council should not borrow any more than is absolutely required and should be focused on reducing debt. Council could save $9.8M if Rotoiti/Rotom? were to downgrade the proposed treatment plant at Rotoiti. An MBR is not required if the effluent is highly treated at source ie use Biolytix in both Rotoiti and Rotom?. We reiterate that: a satellite council office at Rotoiti would be appreciated (perhaps once a week and rotate between all our marae?); Maori need to be involved in reviewing the submissions.

652

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

David

Q4. Family name

McGibbon

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 349 7720 ext 755

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

1835 Waikite Valley Road, RD1, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: This $187.50 will simply be an extra charge for me to carry waste in my car to an undesignated rural transfer station at my cost and inconvenience. I do not want or wish to pay for this 'supposed service'. Have used a dial a drum service for over 10 years at personal cost. I am happy to continue with this clean and sanitary service where my household and green waste is collected monthly from my property. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

not answered

653

Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

654

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Alan

Q4. Family name

Wills

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Representing the Wills Family

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0272818626

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

928 Forest Road; RD2 Reporoa

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

PM - Wednesday 24th May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: With so much uncertainty around waste collection services, and in an effort to do the right thing have contracted Waste Management to provide an on farm collection service. We have one skip bin here servicing 2 farms and 5 houses. It is working well but does come at a cost. The recycling materials are taken to the Reporoa Transfer station on a 2 weekly basis. A number of farming business including our direct neighbours are operating this system. The opt out provision needs to be maintained providing the rate payer can show that there is a responsible waste management plan in place. We would object to have to pay twice. Also, there should not be a charge on properties where there is no accommodation provided.

655

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: Funding of these boards needs to be done via a targeted rate of the communities that they represent. That would then ensure transparency and provide a clear understanding of where for each community their targeted rate is being spent. Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: The rural area would cope with that providing it was across the board. There is an understanding that there could be as much as $K800 in rate concessions across the full rate payer base. Lets un bundle it all. Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: My general comment as a rural person is that your allocation of funding for new seal is completely inadequate. There is a huge rate take for very little services in the rural area so the rate of new sealing needs to improved so that all roads are sealed say within 10 years

656

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Barbara

Q4. Family name

Allen

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0272244956

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

65Rotomahana Rd, RD3, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: I would like the Rerewhakaaitu,Rotomahana,Okaro & Waimungu District receive kerbside and recycle collection for each dwelling but I would like a delay in implementation of full rural Refuse collection for 1 year so that all kerbside collection options can be costed as to what is most cost effective price. I oppose the extension of refuse targeted rating for rural bare land. It is people who generate rubbish not bare land. Why should we pay extra for something that MIGHT happen. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

No

657

Q17.My feedback is: I support Option 2 - Earthquake strengthen. Due to increase costs incurred due to adverse events, capital expenditure should be revisited and put on hold. Most businesses affected by adverse events re budget and defer capital expenditure until such times they have recovered financially from the adverse event. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: I would like to see RLC future proofs by 'Business Interruption Insurance' so as to reduce the dollar loss with advese events Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: I support Option 2/ Status Quo. I feel Community Boards should have targeted rates for transparency and accountability. Q22.My feedback is: In rural districts eg Rerewhakaaitu standalone fully self-serevicing rural households are disadvantaged by RLC rating system. I request a more equitable rate differential of .75/100 Q23.My feedback is: I support $$ remission is reduced by 50% for 2017/8 year Q24.My feedback is: RLC LTP anticipated a rate increase of 2.6%. I do not support the now 3.8% 2017/18 increase request. Like everyone else RLC needs to revisit its budget and defer capital projects when adverse events occur. Q25.My feedback is: I would like to see that these businesses form an industry group and liaise with Council going foreword to resolve this issue so as to avoid a heavy handed emotional response. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

658

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Sylke

Q4. Family name

Campion

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 3493655

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

89 B Te Manu Rd RD2 Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: If the users in the area already have to pay $12900 towards the scheme and the rest of Rotorua has to pay for the rest, then it possibly would be cheaper for them to pay their own way to comply with the OSET system. This would then not incur these extra costs to everybody Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: As a rural property I would like to opt out of the scheme and not get charged for something that I'm not using. I will get charged at the dump when I finally go there so why should there be an extra cost in our case of nearly $800 for a service I would not use. I just found out that this year the costs are already going up nearly 10% to last year and knowing you it will go up like that forever and that is just an enormous cost each year for something that a lot of rural people do not or would not use

659

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: If it needs strengthening then this needs to get done, but spending nearly twice the amount to make it look pretty is just too much over the top. Council should stick to necessary essentials like roading and waste and the likes and not to make things pretty just for the sake of it. Things like that can get done when there is extra money in the coffers and not borrowing to get it done Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: This is putting an extra strain on the low income households, but the museum is an iconic building and worse while saving Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: It's not clear what the targeted rate is at the moment. Is it higher or lower then the proposed $21.50? If it is lower why change it. It's like Peter paying Paul. It all comes out of the same pot. If we have to pay for something like this then make it the cheapest option. Stop spending money that you haven't got Q22.My feedback is: Most rural people do not use most of the services our rates go towards. With this in mind the differential should be as low as possible. Our road has potholes in it. Get repaired to the worst standards as possible. We do not have streetlights and a paper road that doesn't get maintained at all. And not you want me to pay even more towards services for the urban people? No I do not agree with this. Q23.My feedback is: That is possibly a step in the right directions if it really only affects the big dairy farms and not a lot of smaller places or lifestyle blocks. This is a possible huge increase in rates Q24.My feedback is: I do not agree to fund the "nice things to have" with asking for even more money from the average ratepayer. Just yesterday in the paper it says the library/ childrens hub is running on time and budget but a lot of unexpected items came up that could cost a bit more but are so nice to have!! Stop spending our money on things that we do not need. Concentrate on the core services councils should be doing. If we are so pumping then surely there must be more money coming in and that can help pay for the nice things?! Or we could even get a rate reduction because of all the new people arriving and living here. Something like that would be nice. Our rates over the years have doubled and my wages have not. This can't go on forever.

660

Q25.My feedback is: Let people be able to earn a bit more to make paying the rates a bit easier. As soon as something like this pops up the NIMBY factor comes in. Treat them all like a bed and breakfast and have a portion of there rates a bit higher. The cost of monitoring eg employing who knows how many people, is possibly higher then the actual gain in extra income. Then the 'Big brother is watching you" comes in as well. As soon as you want to do something you get a new roadblock. The people coming here and using the private houses to stay, still end up spening money in the town and get the ball rolling there. An overall $1/ guest / night to pay for the extra wastewater usage would go a long way to pay for that expensive service the council has to provide for. Q26.My feedback is: I don't mind having some of my money I have to pay to go towards the update of the skateboard park, even that sounding a bit high with the estimate, or on the cycle way. It is important to get the kids of the road, but updating the performing art centre or Kuirau Park or a statue in the middle of the expensive roundabout, for tourists to have a look at, I do not agree. If we haven't got spare money than we stick to the basics till we can afford it. That is normally what is done in a normal household. You can't keep on spending more then what comes in. Be a bit more careful with other peoples hard earned money. please. If somethings costs more then absolutely necessary then don't do it Thanks Kind Regards Sylke Campion

661

Q1. Title

Other

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Other

Q3. First name

BC440715

Q4. Family name

Royal Court Apartments

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Body Corporate 440715

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 3460525

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

PO Box 1624, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: It would be beneficial to the body corporate to have the RLC dispose of rubbish generated at the Royal Court Apartments. Currently the body corporate have opted out of the rubbish disposal system and pays approx. $7000 + GST per annum to a private waste company to dispose of rubbish and recycling generated on site. We have been advised by Tim at RLC that this is approx. the same increase to rates across all unit owners if RLC increase the refuse disposal cost to rate payers who opted out.

662

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

663

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Neil

Q4. Family name

Heather

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07/3572142

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

945 Paradise Valley Road RD2 Rotorua 3072

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

PM - Tuesday 23rd May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: To ask all rural properties to not been able to opt out is counter-intuitive of minimising waste There is a number of rural properties that make their own arrangements for minimising waste and disposing of it People should have choices as to how they manage refuse There should be no charge on bare land titles in rural areas I already pay for refuse disposal on two houses and you want to charge on bare land title with no house on it which is part of the one farm Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

Yes

664

Q17.My feedback is: Depends I don't see a funding impact statement to show how the forecast costs will be funded over time Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: Depends on if the charge is per title or per household if its per household then happy with the targeted rate if its per SUIP then I'm against it Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: As a farmer I like to see targeted rates and believe that the community boards should be funded this way not from the general rate Q22.My feedback is: I believe there should be differentials for framing rural residential and business I understand farming is paying 22% of the total rates when 5 years ago we were paying 17% when we are 6% of the population I would like to see if it costs 22% to maintain the rural area Q23.My feedback is: I do accept that the farming remission was temporary in nature I emphasise that part of the reason was the considerable wind back on the UAGC, increase in valuation and the removal of the rural differentials Q24.My feedback is: You talk about a 3,8% rate increase but when I go on line it looks like I'm up for a 4.8% increase once again farming has the biggest increase which is unfair Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

665

Q1. Title

Ms

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Wilhelmina

Q4. Family name

Mohi

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 362 0001

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

RD4, Rotoma

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

PM - Tuesday 23rd May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: Firstly, You are aware that public meetings were held at both Rotoma and East Rotoiti to discuss the proposal to move from a Grinder Pump system to a STEP system at Rotoma, it was deemed by the chair the majority of the meeting voted for a STEP system. Pg 8 of your annual plan confirms the Grinder pump system is the prefered option... secondly, I am not confident that your "estimated" project costs and subsidy are accurate. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not relevant to my values or interest Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

No

666

Q17.My feedback is: not relevant to my values or interest Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not relevant to my interest Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not relevant to my values or interest Q23.My feedback is: not relevant to my value or interest Q24.My feedback is: not relevant to my values or interest Q25.My feedback is: not relevant to my values or interest Q26.My feedback is: I wish to be heard

No

667

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Rick

Q4. Family name

Todd

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

N/A

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0211901671

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

19 Sloane Avenue, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

668

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

669

Q25.My feedback is: I support the following. 9 May 2017 Rotorua Lakes Council – Annual Plan 2017/18 Discussion Document Feedback – Shortterm rental accommodation We are writing to provide feedback for the proposed discussion on short-term holiday rentals in Rotorua. We ask that Council pursue regulation of short-term holiday rental businesses via the District Plan and through the rating framework. As residents and ratepayers our primary concern is the establishment of commercial ventures in Residential 1 zoned areas and the impact that these short-term rentals properties have on our community. We ask that the Council meet with and talk to neighbours of short-term holiday rentals before making decisions that the community will be bound by for many years to come. We agree that in fairness to moteliers and hoteliers throughout the city, property investors who are using residential homes for commercial gain should contribute accordingly for the services they use through their rates. We do not agree with the introduction of such policy alone. First and foremost these properties need to be regulated via District Plan. When considering this item you need to put yourselves in the shoes of those currently affected by these short-term rental properties. Residents who are not currently impacted by such a situation are less likely to feel the need to submit feedback on this matter. In recent times our City has seen an explosion of short-term holiday rentals and Air BnB's, providing inexpensive accommodation options, for large groups of both international and domestic visitors. These rentals are popping up in neighbourhoods throughout our City, changing the character of neighbourhoods, and causing grave concerns to long term residents. We understand Council's desire to accommodate the ever-increasing number of visitors to the city but surely this cannot be to the detriment of the Rotorua Lakes Council's community and ratepayers. Commercial accommodation providers are not going to invest in Rotorua when there is such great competition from the short-term rental market. Council is well aware of the issues relating short-term rentals, which have been the subject of numerous complaints due to overcrowding, partying, noise, high alcohol consumption, congestion and traffic, and aggressive and undesirable behaviour including foul language and subject matter. These are the issues that need to be considered when allowing these short-term holiday rentals to be set up in our communities, the impact that they are having on every day people. We have grave concern for the physical and emotional safety of our children being exposed to this undesirable behaviour. We believe that this accommodation sector needs to be regulated in order for short term holiday rentals to coexist with residents of its community i.e. blend with that community rather than change the values of it. We would like to see a consent process established for these rentals particularly where the owner is not present i.e. full house rentals. True bed & breakfast or Air BnB situations where owners reside within the property with low guest numbers are not considered to be detrimental to community values and are excluded from this proposal. In issuing consent consideration should be given to the following; - ?restrict number of consents issued in total with the aim of alleviating supply issues of long-term rental homes in the city, and to promote growth in the commercial accommodation sector thus providing more employment opportunities. We understand there is still a huge shortage of long-term rentals in Queenstown for workers despite their policies implemented for short-term rentals. - ?no short term holiday rental to be situated within 500 meters of another so as to minimise impact on neighbouring homeowners. -? limitations placed on the number of guest allowed to stay e.g. 3 bedroom house 4-6 max, 4 bedroom or more 6-8 max with the higher number requiring consent from neighbours. This would provide for small family groups, with less likely hood of disruptive behaviour and less vehicles. - ?limitations on noise, alcohol, and social gatherings. - ?vehicles must be parked within property boundaries. - ?health and safety and fire risk assessments required. - ?a complaints process required to monitor and resolve breaches. Where three breaches occur, consent withdrawn or withdrawn at least for a period of twelve months. - a compliance officer to be funded through additional levies on these properties and the cost of call outs for noise etc be passed on to property owner. In summary short term rentals provide people with a less expensive accommodation option often catering to large numbers. We believe they are important to our city but not at the cost of our residents and ratepayers. Residential zone areas should be exactly that, and should not be impacted at all by commercial operations. Restrictions on the numbers of guests and proximity of these properties to other short-term rentals would go a long way to reducing the issues that high occupancy rentals bring to our neighbourhoods. We do not believe that imposing commercial rates alone will resolve the issues for neighbouring home owners, rather there needs to be some stringent control over activities occurring at these properties. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

670

Q1. Title

Ms

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Heather

Q4. Family name

McAllister

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

079218569

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

1835 Waikite Valley Road, Ngakuru, rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: I have been using the Dial a drum service which collects household and green waste from my property for 10 years. It has proven to be a clean, value for money and convenient service. Personally, the Council's preferred option does not offer our household any additional benefits. It is an additional charge with the inconvenience of having to fill my car with waste and driving as yet an undetermined number of kilometers to dispose of it. I attended a recent local Council meeting regarding waste disposal. Many farmers and lifestyle block owners seemed very happy with the business, household and green waste collection services currently offered by Waste Management and Dial a Drum.

671

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

672

Q1. Title

Miss

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Carolyn

Q4. Family name

Wait

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0274630470

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

P O BOX 41 Greytown

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

PM - Tuesday 23rd May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 8 of the Annual Plan?

No

673

Q12.My Feedback is: I want Rotorua Lakes Council to ensure that the whole of Lake Rotoehu is included in the Proposed East Rotoiti/ Rotoma sewerage scheme. After the Environment Court decision 2013, Environment Bay of Plenty told Rotorua Lakes Council to go back and consult with ALL the stakeholders. We are stakeholders and we have actively lobbied for the whole of Lake Rotoehu to be included in the proposed sewage scheme since 2013. Since 2013 we have encountered great opposition to Lake Rotoehu participating in the consultation process, from the Community Board, the RRSSC and even our own Rotoehu/Rotoma Ratepayers Association. None of these parties have acted in good faith. We encountered, misinformation, bullying, bias and discrimination. We were constantly told that we are not wanted in the proposed scheme. We were invited to form our own group in October 2014 by the RRSSC. However, not much has changed, we have encountered misinformation, bullying, bias and discrimination. Our members, being ordinary citizens, are repeatedly asked to provide expert reports and identify funding sources if we wished to be included in the proposed sewage scheme. They have done this at their own expense. The process lacks good faith and could be best described as high handed and would certainly deter most people from participating Lake Rotoehu is one of the four critical lakes, that funding from Ministry for the Environment was granted in 2008, when Helen Clarke was Prime Minister. We question why only part of this lake is included within the proposed sewage scheme. Why is the whole of Lake Rotoehu not a priority, when Lake Rotoma is included within this scheme, when it is not one of the four critical lakes? It is irrational to exclude Lake Rotoehu properties from the scheme. Particularly when you consider the size of the community, 77 properties and laying pipes a mere 4.2kilometers. Which is the distance from the Main Road to the end of Tombleson Road at Otautu Bay. The Council is responsible for Best Financial Practice, the Rotorua Lakes Council would be fiscally irresponsible to excludes Lake Rotoehu from the scheme. It makes financial sense to have one contract to install the whole sewage scheme at one time. By adding all properties at Lake Rotoehu effectively cuts treatment capital costs to other participants: ie more involved in capital costs of treatment plant equals less capital repayment costs to individuals The RLC Misson Statement, tatou tatou. We Together, Tatou Tatou One Community One Team and yet the scheme as it stands effectively divides the Lake Rotoehu community, favouring some and discriminating against others. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

674

Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: I oppose rigorous regulation in respect of short term rentals. I understand that most properties are mainly rented at peak times, when the commercial rental market is at capacity. Those peak times include statutory holidays and events. The average number of rental nights is around 37 pa. Further, the short term rental market attracts different people in to the area and is made up of people who would not usually book commercial accomodation. Such as groups of people participating in sporting events, families with children who are more comfortable in accomodation where children can play outside. Many people come to Rotorua to enjoy the outdoors, fishing, tramping, cycling and short term rentals are often the only accommodation that can meet this market. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

675

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Roger

Q4. Family name

Foote

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

063047011

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

Property concerning 173 Pongakawa Valley Road

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: 1. Recognising the mission of the Council “Tatou Tatou – One community one team”. I believe that RLC has a responsibility to fully support the provision of a reticulated system for all communities in the Lake Rotoehu catchment as an important piece of infrastructure, by joining all of the Lake Rotoehu communities to a reticulated system scheme. 2. I wish for RLC to demonstrate the values of council (Innovative, inspiring, Engaging, Helpful, Respectful ) by approaching the Partnership Steering Group of Te Arawa Lakes Programme for funding assurance to enable reticulated sewerage for ALL of Lake Rotoehu on the basis that the Rotoehu community is entitled to its fair share of available funds within the $72.1M MfE funding held by Te Arawa Lakes Programme for restoration of the four critical lakes. 3. I believe the entire community of Lake Rotoehu is entitled to an appropriate share of the $4M additional funding provided by BoPRC for the East Rotoiti/Rotoma Sewerage Scheme and urge Rotorua Lakes Council to ensure this money is kept available as subsidy for the entire Lake Rotoehu community. 4. I request that RLC also makes provision in its Annual Plan for the $1500 per household funding for the whole Lake Rotoehu community. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

Yes

676

Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: No, average length stays of short term rentals are around 31 days per year maximum. This would be a silly exercise to conduct as these are not full time businesses. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

677

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Jamie

Q4. Family name

Paterson

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

J & C PATERSON TRUST

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0274942220

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

Kaharoa

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: Concern at the fact that you propose imposing on going running costs to all rate payers. We support targeted rates to consumers of services. We were required by council to install an oset system at our own cost, unsubsidised ($20,000) and fund the ongoing annual running costs ourselves which add up to $600 per annum. Biannual service fees from the plumber and monthly electrical charges for pumps & aerators. Why should Rotorua ratepayers pay for someone elses system while paying for their own as well. We own property in Ngongotaha. Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

No

678

Q15.My Feedback is: Opt out option must be retained as an incentive to people to take responsibility for their own waste. Council Policy supports waste minimisation. Council must continue to provide first rate recycling facilities to entire community. Supports on going education policy as well. The people of Rotorua were proud of & extensively used the previous recycling facilities. I took overseas guests there to show it off, and they were impressed at the extent and use of it. Definitely don't support any additional tax on vacant land, it is people that create waste not land. It is bad enough that we have to pay Business and economic development rates on vacant land. This tax is not fair nor equitable as it targets the rural sector yet again. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: Our concern is the cost of hiring the facilities for use by local not for profit groups. Use of this and other Council facilities are well outside the budgets of small local charities that would like to use them. Again we are paying for something that is targeted towards people from outside of this community. We accept we need a theatre and that it must be safe for use, we even accept that a degree of maintenance is necessary but it must be affordable for the citizens of Rotorua to use. The total cost must be budgeted within the existing capital spend and not added on top. Repayment will need to be spread over a longer time frame other wise. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: Support repairing the building but not covering the shortfall in income. There is not enough information about this in your plan. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: As a rural resident we fully support targeted rates for consumers of services. To this end we are happy to pay for the governance expenses of the board while they are representing rural views to Council. We would object to the deferring of costs to board budgets incurred by board members while carrying out Council core business. Q22.My feedback is: agree. Rural residential rate payers are mum and dads working in town but choosing to live on a larger section than provided for in the urban setting. They therefore pay for that priviledge in capital value but they for the most part do not have 'the ability to pay' high rate takes. They consume the same services provided by Council as urban residential but are required to pay substantially more for them. Removal creates a disincentive to growing the city footprint. Q23.My feedback is: object. The remissions were put in place because the shift to capital rating showed up some very inequitable increases in single rating unit rate takes. Increases as high as 60%. This has not changed. Council chose to remiss rather that recalculate, so the original increases on the properties are still in place and will be added to with this years rate increases.

679

Q24.My feedback is: Council promised after the last huge rate rise of 9% average (some of us paid 20% compounding) that they would keep rate rises to the level of inflation. Long term plan states 2.6% increase. Better budgeting is required and review of services offered. Some projects while worthwhile will have to be deferred until there are cash surpluses. Council cannot keep increasing rates at this level. Our incomes are capped. Q25.My feedback is: No. You promote Rotorua as the best tourist experience. You need to encourage a variety of accommodation options and experiences. Ratepayers have become creative in finding a means to pay their annual rates and insurances. The ventures are carried out within an existing dwelling that pays its dues to Council. No different to having family or friends coming to stay from overseas or someone house sitting while you are away from home for a period of time. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

680

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Graeme

Q4. Family name

Carson

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

073337470

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

56 Tutukau Road Mihi Reporoa

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: pg 10: I prefer option 2 Education and litter Collection should stay in general rates as this encompasses not only the residents but also the many visitors to the District who use the parks, reserves, shopping centres, attractions etc pg 11: The preferred option does not provide a fair and equal service for the same cost. Some will have a full collection service. Others a partial service (60L bag and collection but will still have to travel to collection point or transfer station to recycle) and some a 60L bag only and also will have to travel to collection point/recycle centre weekly to have their rubbish collected from there. Also many of the larger farms already have their rubbish collected and removed in a skip bin which they pay for already and shouldn't have to contribute to this scheme unless they choose to join it

681

Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: Earthquake strengthening must be done. The costs of enhancements done should be contributed to by the events that are held there as they will provide a better experience for all involved Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: Council should have a more rigorous regulation of this type of accommodation Q26.My feedback is: not answered

682

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Liz

Q4. Family name

Carrington

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Rotorua Little Theatre

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0272921190

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

9 Castor Place Westbrook Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

No

683

Q17.My feedback is: In part I agree that there needs to be an upgrade. However I believe that the two existing societies need to retain their own identities. I am requesting on behalf of Rotorua Little Theatre that a 30 year lease be considered please Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: As per previous feedback I would like to request that Rotorua Little Theatre is granted a 30 year lease period to enable potential funders to support ongoing upgrades to the building

684

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

not answered

Q3. First name

Stewart

Q4. Family name

Wallace

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

073323989

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

437 Kapukapu Road Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

No

685

Q15.My Feedback is: I oppose a serviceability rate being charged for vacant properties. This is a blatant money grabbing exercise to subsidise the waste collection service. I can appreciate that a charge for water availability is made on properties that do not take water or similarly an availability charge by a power company where both of these have capital infrastructure "at the gate". However Council do not provide infrastructure for waste services in rural areas apart from a truck which would pass vacant properties anyway. The cost of a rubbish collection/recycling truck passing my vacant property should be borne by the users of that service in the area ( I support USERS paying 100% of the cost). I have 2 vacant properties and 1 occupied where I pay for waste collection. The 2 vacant properties do not produce waste because no one lives there therefore why should I pay for a service that I do not use. If these properties become occupied then they will pay for the service that they start using. In the meantime Council does not have to maintain capital infrastructure at these properties. As far as Waste/Recycling education etc that the Council pays for, I think this should be funded by general rates because it is for the benefit of all community members not just ratepayers. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

686

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Sandra

Q4. Family name

Velarde

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

02104540440

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

16 Augustus Earle place.

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: Agree that all should be paying rate, but the rate needs to be in line with the number of bins processed or further, the number of people living in a dwelling. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

Yes

687

Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: But i insist that the whole of New Zealand should invest in the quick restoration or fixing this historical building, otherwise the rate charged is not sustainable. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: Agreed. Moreover, rural areas are being transformed into urban areas, so a thorough review is due. Q23.My feedback is: Agree. Council can go even further to reflect the true cost of dairy farming to society. If a farming business is not profitable, because of rates that fluctuate according to capital values (based on their own sector speculations), then why the public need to buffer their losses? The removal of the remission is an imperative in any long term plan. Q24.My feedback is: Disagree. Various projects are non-sensical, for example: do we really need MORE rugby fields? 95% of the times I pass next to a park or oval is empty, same comment for the skate park. Honestly, how many skates are there in Rotorua? Projects like the Sunday farmers' market bring so much more to the city's soul and sense of community. Continue with the Thursday's market too. We need more areas where the community can come together, RAIN or SHINE, and don't close on weekends. Rotorua is dead without the Sunday farmers' market. The soundshell market on the other hand should be a monthly event, the quality of most items sold is really poor and lots of plastic imported from China. I would rather see my money in more education for reducing waste, composting and recycling at home, coordination to provide decent public housing, plan for vertical growth of the city and increase its density, open up more public areas accesible to dogs (on leash) and supporting more our crafts and arts. Become a true tourism destination. Q25.My feedback is: You can't classify all AirBnB accommodation under the same label. There are three main types on my view, a) rooms in houses, b) individual houses and apartments, c) hotels and established businesses publicising their rooms in AirBnB. Be very careful with blanket regulations that can directly affect home owners who want to make ends meet versus businesses profiting from AirBnB. I would not like the group under "c" to be in AirBnB. Monitor the issue but don't listen just to the hotel industry, but groups "a" and "b" as well.

688

Q26.My feedback is: Let me reiterate my comments on the positives of Rotorua and what can be improved: Positive: - Sunday farmers' market and Thursdays' market. - Support of the arts Can improve: - The soundshell market. Have minimum requirements of quality, most of what they sell is cheap Chinese imports. - Need to grow vertically to secure density for the use of other services. - Open up more public areas to dogs (on leash) - Need coordination to provide decent public housing, put pressure on central government or whoever is the authority in this respect. - Increase education in reducing waste, composting and recycling at home.

689

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Lesley

Q4. Family name

Handcock

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

07 377 4065

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

9 Belvedere Grove, Taupo 3330

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

PM - Tuesday 23rd May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

No

690

Q15.My Feedback is: 12 May 2017 File Ref: 55 27 01014 Doc No: RDC-716330 Valuation No: 07030*053*03* and 07030*036*00 Re: Annual Plan Consultation – Proposed changes to Waste and Recycling services To Whom it may concern Please make allowances for those vacant properties which are non-residential and receive no income. We own two adjacent native forest titles in the Paeroa Range at Reporoa. On one of these titles there is a Conservation Covenant with Rotorua District Council and Department of Conservation. The Wharepapa Spring, source of the Reporoa Water Supply, is on this property. The second title is protected with Waikato Regional Council. We have a hut on one title. This is used occasionally by family and friends for hunting, hiking and other low impact recreational activities. Any waste and recycles created are taken home to be disposed of in exactly the same way as if we had been at home all the time. As a family we are already paying Rubbish and Recycle rates to both the Rotorua and Taupo District Councils and are therefore already paying for the cost of education, illegal dumping, landfill stations, etc. Stavros Michael says “The aim is to give every property in the district access to an appropriate level of rubbish and recycle service.” We have never asked for this service and we have no need for it. We therefore request that our two properties be exempt from whatever rating requirement may be introduced. Many thanks Lesley Handcock Trustee Wharepaina Family Trust Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

691

Q26.My feedback is: not answered

692

Q1. Title

Ms

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Iranui

Q4. Family name

Te Kani

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

Rotorua Touch Association and Bay of Plenty Touch Association

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

0276474699

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

7 Larcy Road, Lynmore, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

PM - Wednesday 24th May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

693

Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: Improving Sport & Recreational Facilities On behalf of Rotorua Touch Association & BOP Touch Association, as joint holders of 2 major tournaments at Puarenga Park in December and January, we are asking for increased numbers of toilet facilities at this park, and a power box situated on the park. The power box could be located on a pole near Whakarewarewa Rugby Club, so we have easy access for our sound system. The January tournament is the biggest touch tournament in NZ, catering for age group from U10 to U14, with 94 teams attending in 2017. This meant we needed to hire 2 toilet trucks, as well as using portaloos because the block of toilets situated on this park are just too small. We have a recent Economic Impact Report that we would like to speak to, to support an upgrade of these facilities. We certainly appreciate the assistance that Rotorua Council have given to us over the past 6 years, as this tournament has benefitted our sport, and our children, as well as the accommodation, food and tourism sectors of our city. Nga mihi - Ira Te Kani

694

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Hunt

Q4. Family name

Rosalind

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

021522508

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

15 Hapi St, Pomare, Rotorua 3015

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit)

AM - Tuesday 23rd May PM - Tuesday 23rd May AM - Wednesday 24th May PM - Wednesday 24th May

Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 11 of the Annual Plan? Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 13 of the Annual Plan?

not answered

695

Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: I let out my house on Airbnb on a seasonal basis. For a number of reasons, I do not think it is appropriate or beneficial to charge additional rates for usage of private homes in this way. This is for several reasons. 1. Occupancy rates and income Most hosts (like me) are usually letting out either a room or their own home for part of the year, not operating commercial purpose-built accommodation premises. The income from this is not comparable with that of motels/hotels. As we do all the cleaning and preparation of our home for Airbnb guests, we require a minimum of one day free on either side of dates occupied. This means we never have 100% occupancy, even at the peak of the tourist season. Thus, our income is lower than it would be if every night was occupied (compared with the situation for hotels or motels with daily cleaning services as part of their operations). In addition, bookings in the off-season are much lower than during the tourist season (summer months). This means that for much of the time (especially in winter), the house will not be occupied by Airbnb guests, but by me. It would therefore be unfair to charge higher rates for my home as it is only used for Airbnb for part of the year. Due to the time needed to refurbish, clean and tidy for the next guest and the seasonal nature of tourism, income from Airbnb is always likely to be seasonal and part-time. 2. Flow on benefits for tourism operators and Rotorua economy I have been able to direct a lot of additional business to many Rotorua attractions during the times I have hosted Airbnb guests. Most of our guests are tourists from overseas, ranging from France, the U.K. and the United States, to Australia (although we do also host New Zealanders, particularly during the Christmas/New Year holiday period. We also host New Zealanders coming home from Australia to visit whanau, and to attend special events e.g. Lions Tour.) We answer many inquiries from guests about activities they are interested in, even before they arrive, to help them with planning their visits to local attractions. I meet guests when they check in as often as possible. My primary reason for doing this is to provide guests with information and advice about activities they may wish to do during their stay in Rotorua. This has resulted in additional business for local attractions in nearly all of the occasions I have met our visitors. In particular, I have directed many guests towards Rainbow Springs, Te Puia, Polynesian Spa, Whakarewarewa Maori village, the Buried Village, Tamaki Tours, Mitai Tours and Waiotapu. I have also directed people towards local bike hire businesses, the night market, Kuirau Park market,

696

bakeries, cafes, supermarkets, local buses and taxis. I estimate that this has generated several thousand additional dollars for these businesses, which they would not have received otherwise. If this is multiplied across the Rotorua economy, the benefits to Rotorua from letting houses on Airbnb are substantial. I understand that there is a shortage of tourist accommodation in Rotorua, particularly during special events and peaks of the tourist season (e.g. Crankworks, as mentioned in recent articles in the Daily Post and Rotorua Review.) This means that we are often hosting tourists who would otherwise not be able to stay here, thereby generating additional tourist dollars for Rotorua's economy. This means that there are a greater number of visitors and additional nights spent in Rotorua, benefiting all sectors of our tourism and hospitality businesses. Airbnb also offers scope for additional work for local cleaners and builders/tradespeople. The standard of cleanliness required by Airbnb is very high, and we have recently begun to pay for a cleaner as required. This means additional income for our cleaner, and multiplying this across the number of Airbnb hosts in Rotorua, shows that Airbnb has the potential to provide extra jobs in Rotorua. Local retailers are also benefiting from our increased spending on linen, domestic appliances, general groceries and cleaning supplies. As this is all of considerable benefit to Rotorua’s economy, we think the benefits of maintaining the current rating and regulatory framework more than offset any possible gains Council may derive from additional rating. 3. Reducing housing shortages in Rotorua Letting homes on Airbnb also helps people in difficult economic circumstances to keep their homes (and pay their rates!). This has greatly helped my family. My daughter has been unwell for many years, and unable to own a home as she could not get a mortgage due to lack of income (although she had sufficient funds for a deposit, from proceeds of a house sale prior to her becoming unwell). So she has been living with me for over five years. As house prices continued to rise, home ownership became further out of her reach. We decided to buy a house together, using her deposit and my income. Letting my own home on Airbnb has been a considerable help with paying my portion of the mortgage. In conclusion, if Airbnb is regulated by the Council, or locally taxed (rates increased), people will lose the incentive to list their homes with Airbnb. Hosts earning income from Airbnb pay tax like everyone else. If they are also required to pay additional rates, the benefits from hosting on Airbnb will be even smaller. Ultimately this will mean losses to Rotorua’s economy. I can only see that Airbnb is of benefit to the Rotorua economy. I believe it is a win-win situation for Rotorua residents, businesses and Rotorua Lakes Council. I propose that the council does not seek to extract additional revenue from Airbnb hosts by imposing additional rating or requiring legal/regulatory registering. It will only discourage people from listing with Airbnb, encourage them not to declare their income from any listing, or discontinue hosting with Airbnb altogether. Q26.My feedback is: not answered

697

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Ranui

Q4. Family name

Ryan

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

3627851

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

1504 State Highway 30, Rotoiti Forest, Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: *Community hui at Rotom? and Rotoiti on Easter Monday (17 April 2017) overwhelmingly supported STEP rather than LPGPs for Rotom? *Councils MBR treatment plant is beyond what our communities now need and appears to be Councils solution for communities using LPGPs. The plan to build an MBR treatment plan needs to be scrapped and replaced by a plant or some other solution to reduce the concentration of N in the Biolytix effluent *Biolytix for Rotoiti and Rotom? produces a 'cleaner' effluent - lower TSS and cBOD - and therefore requires less treatment than if STEP were to be used for one or both communities. *Rotoiti definitely does not want STEP *Project costs are extra high and should be audited *The total capital cost of $23,294M is almost $47K per household in Rotoiti. With the Biolytix pod costing approximately $7.5K per household, how can Council justify the almost $40K per household for pipes and a treatment plant? *Why did Council spend money preparing detailed plans for the treatment plant BEFORE consulting with the communities as to our preference? This is un-necessary spending that WE have to pay for. *Given that Council seems biased against Biolytix (statements were made at both the Rotom? and Rotoiti meetings by your representative, Ian Maclean) Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

Yes

698

Q15.My Feedback is: not answered Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: Reduce Council debt and only do the work that needs to be done. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: Rural residents should pay a lower differential that urban residents. We have less services here. It is unfair that we pay the same as the urban residents. Q23.My feedback is: The remission should be completely removed as soon as possible. Dairy farming has significant negative effects on the environment and we all lose while their business flourishes. Q24.My feedback is: Reduce debt by not taking on more. The Rotoiti/Rotom? reticulation scheme is costing $9.8M more than the subsidies being received. Council should be looking for a solution that fits the budget - that being the amount being received from external agents (MoH, MfE and BOP Regional Council) Q25.My feedback is: No. Q26.My feedback is: The high lake levels are impacting negatively on our wellbeing. We used to have beaches (Rotoiti) around the Lake. Since the levels have been manipulated, we have lost our beaches, peoples homes are damp (those close to the water), the water table is high (causing problems with sewage seepage and requiring solutions to get effluent away from the lake quickly so as to reduce mixing of ground water with eflluent). Lower the lakes. We need good quality footpaths well removed from the highway on the even numbered side of the road at Rotoiti. We would like a Council hub at Rotoiti once a week for our residents, especially kaum?tua like myself, to visit instead of going in to town. Please scrap the plan to build an MBR plant at Rotoiti. This is not required. Save us all some money. Thank you

699

Q1. Title

Mrs

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Female

Q3. First name

Samantha

Q4. Family name

White

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

5624427

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

1470 Hamurana Rd, Mourea, Rotorua, 3074

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

Yes

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all

PM - Tuesday 23rd May

days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: Did all ratepayers have an increase as a result of other schemes which were undertaken in communities previously, if not I'm not sure why the ongoing costs of the scheme are only approx.1/4 recoverable by the end user? Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

Yes

700

Q15.My Feedback is: Pg 10 the preferred option appears to mean lower rated properties would be paying proportionately more than the higher rated properties. If the 3rd option was taken with the opt out clause removed, how does this leave the risk of shortfall? the document doesn't give this detail. However option 3 seems far more socially just than the first 2 options if we look at rates being proportionate to property value. I would prefer to see option 3. Pg11 With increased knowledge of leaching etc into soil, and the inability of inorganic waste to break down it doesn't make sense to allow unregulated burying of rubbish. Where it talks about urban and rural will pay the same, it doesn't say how this will affect either urban or rural, how will it be structured, who will see an increase, who will see a decrease? What are the benefits for those who will see an increase? Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

Yes

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: It is important that Rotorua has a facility that can be used by a variety of users, international, national and local. The pricing structure must allow local use if we want Rotorua to have a vibrant performing arts scene. Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: In times where housing costs are fast outpacing income rises, I believe it is grossly unfair to say all households should pay the same, this hits lower income households harder than higher income households. Pg15 unfortunately doesn't give examples of what the second option would look like for each rate category range in terms of $ value but I believe this is the fairer way of covering this need. Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: I am undecided as I don't feel enough information was provided. What is Council's target with revenue collection for this by the proposed move to general rate? same, less, more? If is there an increase of overall revenue collection happening without rate payers being informed? In which case No I don't support. When Council have suggested other things need to be in targeted for transparency I would have expected to have seen more detail in this proposal if transparency is what the Council hopes to achieve in decisions. However if the intention is still to collect the same amount but via general, then Yes I support as it will mean it becomes more proportionate and that is a fairer approach. Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: Yes, Farmers are businesses and times are tough for many businesses whatever their sector. Individuals can fall on hard times and have to be on a very low income before a very small remission is possible. The district is having to work hard at improving water quality and a contributing factor is down to the number of farms in the catchment area of the lakes.

701

Q24.My feedback is: I am shocked that the Governance of Council is costing more than Waste Management, or the same as Waste Management AND Community Safety! Half of all the District's Community Facilities' costs. I would like to see Council taking stock of how efficient Governance is, around things such as catering costs occurred etc, office layout changes etc Q25.My feedback is: There are more resources being used by the short term rentals, however the document talks about additional resources being required and without knowing cost v revenue it is difficult to say whether it is in the benefit of ratepayers overall to see this type of accommodation targeted for a higher rates bills in a way different to now. Whether or not this should be at the same differential as a multi room business such as a motel is another matter. It would perhaps be fairer for there to be another category which is in between. But again cost v revenue of collecting the revenue is key and comparing this to the cost on the district's infrastructure if revenue is not collected. Q26.My feedback is: I would like to see the Council bringing in a bylaw about plastic bags. This might be more of a long term plan but am putting it out there now as we have the new refuse collection and they cannot collect bags whether or not they have a recycle symbol on them because it is not cost effective (as I was told by customer service). This made me think if its not cost effective then we need to reduce their use, a bylaw would do this. If the Council are to drive the bilingual kaupapa for Rotorua then I am of the belief translating M?ori place names is not the way to go. English is the dominant language, to be bilingual we need to increase the amount of te reo M?ori, as translating te reo M?ori place names will just encourage non speakers of Maori to believe it was okay not to use the M?ori name. Suggestions of a web based resource to explain M?ori names is far more culturally responsive. I would also like to see staff in both public and private sector who are bilingual in our national language being identifiable so customers and clients know te reo Maori speaking staff are valued and they are welcome to korero m?ori with them. This is a way to make the city bilingual, and normalise the reo alongside the dominant language of English. Please do not allow a keenness to see this happen become tokenism, and 200 years has seen the English language dominant, as an English speaker, I believe it can take a step back and not lose itself whilst allowing te reo M?ori to rise up to sit alongside in true partnership, but let's do this sensibly and not lose the mana of te reo as being indigenous; the beauty the language holds with its deep connection to this whenua.

702

Q1. Title

Mr

Q2. How do you identify? (Will remain confidential)

Male

Q3. First name

Craig

Q4. Family name

Ormrod

Q5. Name of organisation (if you are representing

not answered

an organisation) Q6. Phone (Will remain confidential)

021526635

Q7. Email Address (Will remain confidential)

[email protected]

Q8. Address (Will remain confidential)

PO Box 7322 Te Ngae Rotorua

Q9. I wish to talk about my feedback to the mayor

No

and councillors during Annual Plan Hearings Q10.If yes my preferred day/s would be: (check all days/times that suit) Q11.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 8 of the Annual Plan? Q12.My Feedback is: not answered Q13.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

No

pg 10 of the Annual Plan? Q14.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 11 of the Annual Plan?

No

703

Q15.My Feedback is: I live on a lifestyle block and spend the majority of my time away from home with my employment. Currently I opt out of the waste and recycling service, yet still pay for 50% of this cost. IF I believed this was a fair and equatable system I might not have an opinion. However the proposed changes that force me to pay 100% for a service I use 0% of is nothing more than another way for council to gather income. I currently use the recycling center and any other refuse is disposed of through commercially paid means. IF there is a cost involved in recycling, make it user pays, and I would happily pay that. But do not force a tax upon me for a service I have no use of, or desire to have. To me the key is user pays. If there are less people willing to have a refuse collection (maybe because there is a commercial alternative) then those using the service pay whatever it costs. The proposal effectively blocks any competitive service as we the suckers HAVE to pay for an unused service, regardless. This proposal smacks of pandering to the assigned contractor and assuring them of an uncontested market for years to come. Come on RDC and lets not get conned. Q16.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 13 of the Annual Plan? Q17.My feedback is: not answered Q18.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on

not answered

pg 15 of the Annual Plan? Q19.My feedback is: not answered Q20.Do you agree with Councils preferred option on pg 16 of the Annual Plan? Q21.My feedback is: not answered Q22.My feedback is: not answered Q23.My feedback is: not answered Q24.My feedback is: not answered Q25.My feedback is: not answered Q26.My feedback is: not answered

not answered

704

705

-----Original Message----From: "Paul East" Sent: Wednesday, 17 May 2017 2:34 p.m. To: "'[email protected]'" Subject: waste services charges. I would prefer to continue to opt out of the waste services charges as the new regime will penalise those bach owners and their families who only visit their properties intermittently. This will be particularly onerous for those bach owners who have two inhabitable properties on their section. Furthermore my place at lake Rotoiti is located at the end of farm road and I receive no services from the council so it is a bit tough to impose the waste charge over two properties. I would be grateful if you would acknowledge my submission in due course. Paul East.

_____________________________________________________ This email, including attachments, may contain information which is confidential or subject to legal privilege or copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and then delete this email from your system. Email communications are not secure and are not guaranteed by Bell Gully to be free of unauthorised interference, error or virus. Anyone who communicates with us by email is taken to accept this risk. Anything in this email which does not relate to the official business of Bell Gully is neither given nor endorsed by Bell Gully. Please refer to www.bellgully.com for more information or to view our standard terms of engagement.