Minutes of an extraordinary meeting of the Gore District ... · Minutes of an extraordinary meeting...

1 ExtCncl\LTPhrg\26.05.15

Minutes of an extraordinary meeting of the Gore District Council, held in the Council Chambers, 29 Civic Avenue, Gore, on Tuesday 26 May 2015, at 8.50am. Present His Worship the Mayor (Tracy Hicks, JP), Crs Bolger (from

9.09am), Beale, Byars, Davis, Dixon, Gover, D Grant, P Grant, Highsted, Page and Sharp.

In Attendance The Chief Executive (Mr Stephen Parry), General Manager

District Assets (Mr Paul Withers), 3 Chief Financial Officer (Mr Luke Blackbeard), HR/Administration Manager (Susan Jones, until 3.55pm), Corporate Support Officer (Juliane Merz, from 4.00pm), Communications Manager (Sonia Gerken) and two members of the public in the gallery.

1. PARTICIPATION OF COUNCILLOR SHARP IN LTP DELIBERATION – LEGAL OPINION

(SC1160/SC0153)

A memo had been received from the Chief Executive following discussion at the 28 April Council meeting about whether Cr Sharp was able to participate in the Long Term Plan consultation and deliberation process in respect of the proposal to freeze the level of the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC), in light of statements made to the public. The statements had been contained within a letter or ‘flyer’ sent to ratepayers in the Kaiwera-Waimumu ward.

A copy of a legal opinion obtained from Anderson Lloyd had been circulated with the agenda. Cr P Grant asked if Cr Sharp took part, could the process be open to a legal challenge by a member of the public at a later date. The Chief Executive said potentially yes. Cr Sharp referred to point four of the legal opinion. He changed his mind all the time. His Worship said the issue was the particular question about the comments Cr Sharp had made about the UAGC. As long as Cr Sharp had an open mind about the issue compared to the comments he had raised, then he could take part. He asked if he had the ability to take on other points of view.


Cr Sharp said he certainly did and he had ploughed through the submissions in an effort to understand everything. RESOLVED on the motion of Cr Davis, seconded by Cr Gover, THAT the legal opinion be received and noted.

2015/31

Cr Page clarified the meeting was just to hear those submitters who wished to be heard, not make any decisions. His Worship confirmed that was correct. The hearing was about listening and questioning any submitter to ensure there was good clear understanding. There was to be no debate. There were a couple of submitters who were unable to attend.

2. SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED TO THE 2015-2025 LONG TERM PLAN CONSULTATION

A memo had been received from the Chief Executive advising that submissions closed on 11 May with a total of 214 received. Of the 214 submitters, 40 had indicated they wished to be heard. A copy of the submissions had been circulated, together with a timetable for the hearing.

Submission number 2015/132 – Hugh Gardyne

Mr Gardyne presented his submission and read additional comments, a copy of which are attached and form part of these minutes. He said he was alerted to the massive change proposed to the UAGC following receipt of the circular sent out by Cr Sharp. His Worship referred to rural roads and reduction of funding and was Mr Gardyne suggesting the Council revert back to non-subsidised roading.

Cr Bolger attended the hearing from 9.09am

Mr Gardyne said there was a finite sealing programme but that had been negated by a vote of urban Councillors. Rural people were still grizzly about that.

Cr P Grant asked what had changed Mr Gardyne’s view on the Mataura pool. He had campaigned to close the pool some years ago.

Mr Gardyne said he had not changed his view.

In response to Cr Beale, Mr Gardyne said Gore was driven by the viability of the farming sector. It showed the attitude of the rural people. Gore business owners would not object to anything that happened at the Council. Rural people could express their view without fear or favour.


Cr Beale asked if people who wanted the UAGC raised to 30% some years ago were farmers.

Mr Gardyne said the Council had crossed the line with this proposal.

Submission number 2015/119 – Hayden McIntyre – non attendance. Submission number 2015/185 – Hannah Rawiri – non attendance. Submission number 2015/60 – Des Pringle Mr Pringle presented his submission about the proposed closure of the Mataura swimming pool. Cr Sharp thought improving signage for the pool would be helpful. Mr Pringle thought the Community Board did not realise the swell of support for the pool. None of the members had ever made direct contact with him. Cr Davis asked why it was the people of Mataura were not using the pool. The numbers the Council had seen for many years indicated patronage was in significant decline despite efforts being made. Mr Pringle said he would be happy to sit on a sub-committee if there was one established and do work on keeping the pool open. He did not know the answer. Cr Sharp said the Edendale and Wyndham pools were successful. Mr Pringle said they had a sponsor – Fonterra. His Worship said he was aware of the sponsorship from Fonterra for the Edendale pool, but was not aware of any for the Wyndham pool. Cr Davis added both pools were school facilities, not public ones. Submission number 2015/51 and 2015/179 – Mataura Community Board Mr Alan Taylor and Mr Geoff Colvin presented the submission about the proposal for recreational opportunities in Mataura. Cr Sharp had trouble with the proposal of another new playground in Mataura. There was already one at Queen’s Park. Mr Taylor said when the consultation process was started there had been some ideas put forward and a playground was a conversation starter. People got the idea of building another children’s playground but in reality the intention was far bigger than that. He thought the submission from Sport Southland was useful. He added


when the grandstand was relocated from Glendhu Road, there was an intention to build a bike park, but it was a dangerous intersection. Tulloch Park was viewed as being able to be developed and be more of a hub. The comments made earlier suggested there was a misunderstanding about what could be done. It would not just be a playground, but more of a hub. Mr Pringle had made a good point and there were a number of people who were misinformed about what could be done. His Worship said the question was should the funding currently applied to the pool be applied to a declinational recreational facility. What that may look like was anyone’s guess. Cr Sharp said it seemed like a trade-off to him. Cr Highsted asked where the cost redirection would start. Mr Taylor said until such time as an overall plan was developed, there would be no change. It was important that an alternative plan be developed so it was clear to the community. The bottom line for him personally was if the community accepted the status quo then it was doing a disservice by not investigating other opportunities. He also thought the Council would not be doing its duty by not asking the question. Mr Colvin spoke to the Community Board’s other submission about planned debt and the ability of ratepayers to pay. His Worship assured Mr Colvin that Councillors had spent a lot of time deciding what should go into the LTP. He added that Councillors were also ratepayers and were concerned about the cost of rates as well. Cr Davis was interested to hear the submission because an earlier submitter said the farming sector was concerned about the UAGC being frozen. If the Council did do that, then it would help the people Mr Colvin was referring to. Submission number 2015/06 – Laurel Turnbull

The submission was presented by Mrs Turnbull and read additional comments, a copy of which are attached and form part of these minutes His Worship said the learnings from the Horowhenua District Council and its water supply issues had not been lost on the Gore District Council. The rating units in Gore and Mataura were treated exactly the same. Cr Sharp asked how much the water slide Mrs Turnbull referred to would cost. Mrs Turnbull said it was an open slide with water running down it. She was unable to find a cost, but it would be cheaper than a full hydroslide. There was a hydroslide from the Timaru pool for sale.


Cr Davis referred to her comment that a group had been formed. Mrs Turnbull said there had been a group hurriedly put together and she thought there would be more people interested in helping keep the pool operational. Cr Davis said as a Council facility, swimming pools did not always qualify for grants. Did she have a view or thoughts on what should happen? Mrs Turnbull had thought about forming a trust. Cr Gover said Tapanui used to have a school operated pool, but it was now run by a community trust. His Worship said there were a number of pools around Southland that were run by community trusts but it was very challenging. Submission number 2015/55 – Andrea Russell

Ms Russell presented her submission about the proposed change to recreational opportunities in Mataura and the swimming pool. She tabled a copy of her additional comments which are attached, and form part of these minutes. His Worship acknowledged the points raised by Ms Russell. He did not think the pool had been in better condition than it was now, and it was well run. The question was why it was not used more than it was. Cr Sharp referred to a letter from Mr Elmer Curry and asked if it should be addressed. His Worship said the matter was not part of the hearing process. The letter had been referred to a local newspaper and he had provided a response.

The hearing adjourned at 10.04am and resumed at 10.12am Submission number 2015/103 – Andrea Ormerod Miss Ormerod presented her submission and felt the consultation document was excessive. She referred to the proposed heritage preservation fund and proposed recreational facilities in Mataura. She favoured closing the pool, even for six months of the year. Miss Ormerod questioned who had measured the 3,000 tonnes of sludge in the sewerage ponds and why it had been allowed to build up. She thought people who contributed to the sludge should be paying for it. Why should people outside the urban area to pay to clean it up. She asked if the Council could find another way to undertake the project instead of imposing a cost on people who did not live in the district.


His Worship thanked Miss Ormerod for her submission. The cost of some of the capital projects was attributed only to urban ratepayers and rural ratepayers would not be paying. Cr Highsted asked where the message had come from that rural ratepayers would be contributing to urban issues. Miss Ormerod thought she had read it in the consultation document. Cr Bolger said it was a myth that rural ratepayers would be contributing to urban capital projects. In response to Miss Ormerod, the rate increase was mainly related to roading costs. In response to His Worship asking about what an earth scientist was, Miss Ormerod said it related to climatology, geology, rural management and soils. Cr Dixon asked if Miss Ormerod was suggesting closing all the facilities. She did not agree. She had said to close the ones that were not financially viable. Cr Dixon said that would be all of them as none made a profit.

Submission number 2015/19 – Michelle Tamati – not in attendance

The hearing adjourned at 10.34am and resumed at 10.50am

Submission number 2015/175 – Graeme Gardyne Mr Gardyne was in attendance to speak to his submission. His main concern was about the increase in rates that were higher than the rate of inflation. He sounded a note of caution about the apparent trends which would impact on farmers and business owners in Gore. The change in rating formulas concerned him along with some of the capital projects, such as the proposal to upgrade the civic administration building. His Worship said all Councillors would share his concerns, and there were some challenges with the water supply projects etc. There were 66 Councils in the country and Gore was rated 8th in terms of rates per ratepayer. He acknowledged the Council could do better and it needed to be very vigilant about what it spent money on. In response to Cr Sharp, Mr Gardyne wondered if there were other buildings in town that could house some of the functions of the Council. He questioned whether everyone needed to be under the one roof. With technology available, it may not be necessary for everyone to be in one building.


Cr Beale asked if Mr Gardyne would find it an inconvenience if he had to go to another building in town to see Council staff and then come back to say the main office to finalise an enquiry. Mr Gardyne could understand that, but perhaps people would have to accept some of those limitations. Submission number 2015/170 – John Wilson Mr Wilson was in attendance to speak to his submission and his recent experience visiting the small town of Derby in Tasmania which was about the size of Wyndham, that had bike trails and as a result was expecting $15 million revenue to come into the town. He encouraged the Council to support the development of more bike trails in the area. The Council had assisted with the development of a trail at Dolamore Park. He felt pulling groups together would enable things to be done differently. His Worship agreed there was much more interest in cycling and there were 3-4 proposals being mooted around the district and it made sense to ensure the groups were all working together. Mr Wilson said Derby was a forestry town and that resource was declining and the town was dying as a result. The cycle trails had rejuvenated the town. Cr Bolger said it was good to have a positive submission. Cr Davis said the climate in Tasmania would be different to Gore. If the Council was going to get involved, what level of interest could be generated. Mr Wilson said the climate in Gore was not that dissimilar to Derby. Weather was not too much of a problem as long as the track was good. There was a local group that rode regularly all year round, including winter. He knew people would travel to experience different types of trail rides. If Gore did not do something, then another area would. Cr Davis asked whether a walking and cycle track could be combined. Mr Wilson agreed and said he liked the idea of having a combined trail. It was all about access for both walkers and bikers. It did work. Cr Highsted asked for an update about the Hokonui trail track and how the Council could be involved. Mr Wilson said the trail was being worked on again and there was a cycleway standard that was being worked to. He saw the Council being involved by being included in the plan and it needed to be the central point so people knew where to come. He saw the Council having a coordinating role for future tracks etc.


In response to Cr Sharp, Mr Wilson said there was an existing mountain bike track from Pope Road that went into the bush. The end length of the Hokonui trail would be about 7-8km. Cr P Grant said it was a good submission and it was fair to say there was plenty of scope to extend the track in Croydon Bush. Mr Wilson agreed and said there were old logging tracks that could be incorporated. Cr Bolger asked about economic spin-off. Mr Wilson said if there was a trail that could include options for people then they would stay locally and that was the market to capture. In Derby, the town had invested $2.5 million in trails to achieve a $15 million return over three years. He did not think it would be unrealistic to expect people from Queenstown or Dunedin to experience trails in the Gore District. Cr Beale asked if there was a website for visitors to access. Mr Wilson said there was and visitor access was getting better. There was a cycleways site and various other individual sites that were available. Submission number 2015/152 – John Smith Mr Smith presented his submission and said he did not want any more rate rises. He thought rates rebates affected the town. He would like rates and costs reduced. There should be time to say the spending had been enough. The district may be going into difficult times. Mr Smith mentioned some recent comments in the newspaper which referred to a person who had not been attending meetings. He had spoken to the person concerned and had a copy of the person’s diary that indicated he had been at the meetings. He referred to the change of the name of Gore. He loved the town and did not like personal attacks on anyone. His Worship said he felt over the past 7-8 years there had never been more unity around the Council table than what currently prevailed. It did not pay to believe everything that appeared in the paper. In terms of the branding, the name of Gore had not changed. The logo had changed and he understood Mr Smith did not like it. One of the things that was good about changing a brand was at least it was being talked about. The national feedback he had received about what Gore had done had been fantastic.


Submission number 2015/54 – Murray Fortune

Mr Fortune presented his submission and circulated his additional comments, a copy of which is attached and forms part of these minutes. Cr Beale referred to the figures contained in the submission and asked if they included driveway entrances, water connections etc. Mr Fortune confirmed they did and those costings were not taken into account when comparing any Council costs. Cr Bolger said Mr Fortune had placed his submission on one lot being subdivided into two lots. Would it be any different with say four lots being created? It was more palatable to him with one lot being created as opposed to having a development of 4-5 sections. Mr Fortune said at the moment the urban population was still declining. If anyone came to the Council for a four lot development, he did not believe it was creating additional demand. With a declining population, how could creating four more allotments create additional demand when there were less people? In response to Cr Bolger, Mr Fortune did not believe four allotments was a significant number. In response to Cr Highsted, Mr Fortune said Invercargill City had the ability in its planning structure to make a contribution to a significant development. The Southland District Council had an opportunity to make a contribution, but it had enough reserves. Both Councils had the ability to do so if they wanted to. On infrastructure, it was within the annual plan of the Southland District Council, the Council said placing those contributions was proving to be a disincentive for people to do anything in smaller communities. Cr Bolger asked if he would make a distinction between commercial and residential development. Mr Fortune said the plan did not allow for contributions for industrial development. Cr Bolger said there were infrastructure contributions. Mr Fortune did not believe that occurred unless there was a certain financial threshold reached. Cr Sharp asked if there was a demand for residential subdivision. Mr Fortune said he heard there were sections available but not necessarily where people wanted to go. There were sections available but some were not as nice as others. That also happened in other communities. People were fussy and probably


why there was development on the outskirts of Gore rather than within the urban boundary. Cr Sharp said development outside of the town did bother him. Mr Fortune agreed and said Council rules dictated what could and could not be done in terms of size especially. Submission number 2015/87 – Susan Dennison, Mataura School

The submission was presented by the Principal of Mataura School, Susan Dennison. Her submission related to the swimming pool. A copy of additional comments made at the hearing is attached and forms part of these minutes. His Worship said the Mataura pool was a superb facility but the challenge was the declining patronage. The question was what could the Council do to encourage people to use it more. There had been a lot of time spent over the years changing the opening hours etc, but it did not seem to make much difference. Mrs Dennison thought it was a tricky one. There were vulnerable families who struggled to meet costs including money to go to the swimming pool. She did not know why children did not go to the pool. They did not appear to have access to a lot of technology to otherwise occupy them. Some children preferred to go to the river regardless of how attractive the pool was. Cr P Grant commended Mrs Dennison on her submission, but noted she did not agree to removing manganese from the Gore water supply. Mrs Dennison was thinking from a financial perspective and her own children were brought up in Gore. Cr D Grant asked about the number of children who had taken part in the free swimming lesson programme and how many had reached the standard of being able to swim 200 metres. Mrs Dennison thought there would only be 3-4 who could swim that distance. She added the standard was expected to be reached by year 8 and Mataura school only went to year 6. In response to Cr Sharp, Mrs Dennison said she would be happy for the pool to be open at least for the three months of summer. But she was very much wanting the children to have explicit learning opportunities with swimming and for literacy and numeracy. The school needed that opportunity to continue.


Submission number 2015/177 – Luke Howden Mr Howden was in attendance to speak to his submission. He asked the Council to consider the level of rates increase which could impact on people being able to afford their first house and become a ratepayer. He referred to the proposed upgrade of the civic administration building and suggested the Council consider a different building that could be shared with others. There could be an opportunity to move some businesses around and free up some space on the Main Street for instance. Cr Davis said the Council was expecting a report later in the year about the earthquake strengthening requirements of the civic administration building. Depending on the outcome of the report, if the whole building needed to be demolished, was Mr Howden suggesting the Council look at building something new and then occupy 1-2 floors. Mr Howden agreed he was suggesting that. He felt it was the figure that spooked people. Submission number 2015/174 – Eddie Conlan Mr Conlan presented his submission and spoke about his situation about putting plans in place if the predicted downturn in the rural sector eventuated. He believed the Council had to take the same attitude. He did not believe ratepayers should have any financial input with derelict buildings. Local business owners needed to look at their own situations in order to be financially viable. The Council needed to look at putting money aside to cover capital expenditure like desludging the sewerage ponds and arts and heritage. He asked if the Council needed as many staff as it had. In his own business, he was likely to have to put one of his staff off. He said the comments about the gardens was fantastic, but if people walked down Irk Street and found there were only three businesses left, then flowers were no good to anyone. His Worship said the plan put forward by the Council had not been dreamed up overnight. There had been a lot of effort put in and a lot of projects removed along the way. The plan was answering a lot of requirements imposed by the Government especially in relation to water standards. Mr Conlan appreciated that and suggested the Council stand up to the Government and tell it the town would not survive if it kept getting impacted by Government regulations. His Worship said any influence Mr Conlan could exert over the local MP would be helpful. Cr Bolger agreed with much of what Mr Conlan had said. Building up reserves to do capital works was a good idea, but in principal to do that the Council would have to


increase rates. If it did not increase rates by a significant amount, then the cost of the capital works would be affected by the rate of inflation. He added the Council did not skimp on maintenance. His Worship said funding depreciation had only started about 15 years ago. There was no other Council in the country that was more user pays oriented than Gore. He personally felt it had gone a little too far. It was constrained by legislation in terms of what it could do with fixed charges and rates. The big issues in the plan were water and sewerage projects that would be funded by urban ratepayers. Mr Conlan referred to the compliance costs he was faced with through Environment Southland. His Worship said all of the requirements around the water projects the Council was proposing were driven by compliance issues imposed by the Government. Mr Conlan said as long as the Council put the UAGC back to 30% he would not have a problem. In response to Cr Sharp, Mr Conlan said he tried to put money aside through his farming years. He referred to the stadium in Dunedin for instance but it was out of place. New ventures should not be entertained until there was money in the bank. The Council could not keep borrowing money to undertake more projects. Submission number 2015/15 – John Barnett

Mr Barnett was in attendance to speak to his submission and tabled additional comments, a copy of which is attached and forms part of these minutes.

The hearing adjourned for lunch at 12.31pm, and resumed at 1.05pm Submission number 2015/27 – Alison Deaker Mrs Deaker presented her submission. A copy of her additional comments were

tabled, a copy of which is attached and forms part of these minutes. In response to Mrs Deaker, His Worship explained the rural special fund which, at the time of amalgamation in 1989 was approximately $850,000 and was now about $400,000. It had been frozen in the meantime in order that the fund could further build up. His Worship clarified that the water and sewerage projects would be funded solely by urban ratepayers.


Submission number 2015/34 – Wendy Joy Baker

Ms Baker presented her submission. A copy of her additional comments were tabled, a copy of which is attached and forms part of these minutes. His Worship said the Council took dog issues very seriously and recently had changed the way animal control was managed in the Gore District. One outcome was a more proactive approach to problematic dogs. In response to Cr Byars, Ms Baker said there was some good signage around the town, but there needed to be some for Bannerman Park. Any sign needed to be a reasonable size to stand out. Submission number 2015/182 – Andrew Morrison Mr Morrison presented his submission and explained its content. He said the Gore District had a static population and in 2002/03 year, rates revenue was $7.4 million and by the end of the LTP it was projected to be $20.1 million. He questioned who would be paying with a static population. He had deep concerns about alienating the community. Cr Bolger cited a suggested rural rate increase of 8.4%. Three years ago rural ratepayers had a rating decrease and he did not recall any rural ratepayers coming in and congratulating the Council. He asked why it was not being averaged out over a period of time. Mr Morrison said it was totals, debt and funding allocation models. Cr Bolger said Mr Morrison had been quite scathing about the increase in costs which was driving rates which was over the rate of inflation. Mr Morrison was in business just like the Council. He asked if his farming costs had gone up over and above the rate of inflation. Mr Morrison had kept his costs below that. Cr Bolger asked him not to refer to them in percentage terms. Mr Morrison was talking percentage terms because inflation was referred to in percentage terms. Cr Bolger said his own farming costs had outstripped the rate of inflation. Like every business person, the Council was the same. When he compared his business costs, they outweighed the Council’s costs. He asked if he was not being a little unfair when people were grappling with increased cost, would the inflation cost attached to construction be a better measure rather than CPI.


Mr Morrison guaranteed he would not be running at a cost increase of 6% over a ten year period. Cr Bolger asked if he was aware that the Council had undertaken $3.5 million of capital works without having to borrow money. Its performance was stellar. Mr Morrison said the Councillors were the governors of the district and should be grateful that people were submitting on the LTP to provide feedback. He asked if the LTP was sustainable. Cr Bolger said costs were increasing. The alternative was not to do any maintenance or capital works and fall foul of the Audit Office who reviewed the asset management plans. He asked if Mr Morrison realised the Council was squeezed between a rock and a hard place if it did not adhere to the requirements it had to meet. Cr Beale said there had been quite a lot of discussion about the upgrade of the civic administration building and it being removed from the LTP. The Council had not yet received a final report on the earthquake strengthening needs. But it had to be included in the plan. Mr Morrison said he was concerned that once something was put into an LTP then it was almost a done deal. He would like to see the report first and the increase in staff numbers before the project was approved. Cr Sharp said Mr Morrison asked where the depreciation funding had gone. It had gone on interest payments. His Worship said depreciation had mostly gone on capital works not interest rates. The Chief Executive asked for clarification about the assessment of Council rates and whether recycling had been factored in which resulted in a 7% increase but also resulted in an elevated level of service. Mr Morrison said he had obtained information from the Statistics New Zealand website. Cr Davis advised the Audit Office had told the Council that the upgrade of the civic administration building had to be included in the LTP. Mr Morrison accepted that and said the Council had far more information than he had. He was concerned at the static population and the projected debt levels. Submission number 2015/43 – Rodger Copland – non attendance


Submission number 2015/66 – Charlie Fisken Mr Fisken presented his submission. He said much of the money spent by the Council went on making the town look good which was great, but it was time now to get back to basics. He suggested for the lack of water, that existing and new builds install their own water tanks. It would solve a few problems and alleviate the problem of not enough water and also too much water as excess stormwater would flow into the tanks. Shifting the rating burden to businesses and farming was not an option. It would have a detrimental effect on employment opportunities within the town which was not a result the Council needed. He did not support lowering the UAGC. He was concerned at future economic stability of the rural community which affected the town. He thought there may be a wind back. The rural community could not sustain any more payments through rates increases. He thought most farmers would have to go to the bank to get the money to pay the rates. He would support a rates increase at the rate of inflation plus 15. Sustainability was affordability. The projects that the Council needed to progress with would have to be funded by borrowing. The Council needed to make savings within the present structure to enable most of the extra borrowings to be met. Mr Fisken thought the average rating unit paid about $2,500 which equated to $48 per week. In ten year’s time, it would increase to $4,800. That was just an average. When he converted to dairying, his rates doubled and in ten years he estimates he would be paying about $14,000 per year or $270 per week. He suggested the inflation side of the rating formula should be a five year rolling average. Mr Fisken took exception to the Council’s behaviour in the past 12 months at the treatment of a farmer in the district and having to put himself to enormous expense to defend himself. Cr Bolger asked if Mr Fisken had any comments about the Council’s debt and where it was projected to go. Mr Fisken had no real concerns about the levels of debt provided they could be managed within the rate of inflation plus 1%. His Worship thanked Mr Fisken for his submission and was interested in making sure the District was the best place it could be so it had a future. There were some real challenges in the future. There was an amazing legacy in the District in terms of facilities. The Councillors were here to make a difference to the community. Mr Fisken encouraged the Council to get out into the community and hold public meetings as used to happen in the past. He saw that side of engagement as not being as good as it used to be. His Worship said the way people engaged had changed hugely.


His Worship departed the meeting at 2.17pm, and Cr Bolger assumed the Chair.

Submission number 2015/85 – John Gardyne Mr Gardyne presented his submission and said he was concerned about the UAGC and debt. He suggested $100 from each rating unit should be channelled straight into debt repayment. There should be at least $500,000 paid off debt each year. Debt had to be part of the financial strategy. Cr Sharp thought $100 per rating unit for debt reduction was a different scenario. Was that occurring elsewhere? Mr Gardyne believed it was treated differently, but the projects that needed to be addressed may need to be slowed down. Cr Bolger said most of the debt would arise in the urban area.

His Worship returned to the meeting at 2.27pm and assumed the Chair.

Mr Gardyne said it would apply across all ratepayers. Cr Bolger asked if he was thinking about a targeted rate of $100 per rating unit. Mr Gardyne said that was an option. Cr Bolger said there was quite a lot of resistance to the UAGC. Was it more palatable to have a cap or floor in it so it did not drop below a certain percentage? If 30% was not achievable or did not meet the majority feeling, was another option a floor of say 25%? Mr Gardyne said it would not incentivise business. It needed to be kept fair and honest and keep the costs where they belonged. Paying $100 per rating unit towards debt reduction would save urban and rural ratepayers a lot of money. The Chief Executive agreed a payment structure would make huge inroads into the debt profile, but would cost about 4.5% rate increase. It would also breach the self-imposed rating cap. Mr Gardyne believed the Council had been under-rating. Cr Bolger said interest rates were probably as low as they could be. If money was to be borrowed to do big infrastructure projects, now was probably the time to do it and spread it out over a longer period of time. The Audit Office was not very keen about that approach. Cr Sharp said it was a good time to borrow with low interest rates, but they would increase.


Mr Gardyne said the debt would reduce significantly by collecting $100 per rating unit towards debt reduction. Submission number 2015/94 – Sport Southland The submission was presented by Harley Ware, Eastern Southland Sport Coordinator and Vanessa Hughey, General Manager. Ms Hughey reiterated that Sport Southland was very keen to continue working collaboratively with the Council. His Worship thought a regional strategy was a good initiative to work towards. Cr Beale referred to a gym proposal at the multi-sports complex and asked how it would be paid for and not have an impact on private business. Mr Ware said local businesses had already been approached and were willing to proactively investigate an opportunity should it arise. Ms Hughey said across the country, gyms attracted certain types of people. A community facility enabled a space to be working out in a non-threatening way and with a transparency around the fact that the revenue generated was put back into the community. Cr Davis asked if the gym was likely to be a reality at the sports complex or was Sport Southland advocating a stage 4. Mr Ware said stage 4 would not necessarily look like what had previously been promoted. He thought about another 200 square metres would be required. Submission number 2015/102 – Federated Farmers of New Zealand

The submission was presented by Tanith Robb, senior policy advisor, accompanied by Andrew Morrison and John Gardyne. Ms Robb read additional comments, a copy of which are attached and form part of these minutes. His Worship asked if Federated Farmers could show him a more fairer rating system than the Gore District had. Ms Robb said each Council used a different system and referred to Invercargill City and Queenstown Lakes District Councils. His Worship appreciated every district had a different mechanism for calculating rates. From a Federated Farmers view he asked if there was a fairer system than what Gore had. Mr Morrison felt the Council was moving away from an equitable rating model.


His Worship asked if there was another model out there that was more ratepayer friendly. Cr Bolger noted there had been a comparison of a $4 million rural property with a residential property valued at $200,000 how the rural property paid 20 times more. Surely Federated Farmers realised the majority of that rural rate went towards roading. It was not an apples with apples comparison. Cr Bolger said there was also subsidy received for roading. An example of a rural ratepayer paying $10,000 would be extreme. He did not think there were many farmers paying that level of rates. He asked why there was no comparison with commercial ratepayers. Cr Page said the Council had tried to make Gore a better place for people to live. Federated Farmers should look at and accept that. It was looking to Gore residents to assist the rural community and the Council was trying to attract the people who were needed to support the rural sector. Mr Morrison said the community was intrinsically linked. Rates were not ring fenced between urban and rural. It went across the whole community and was about equitable apportionment. Ms Robb said farmers wanted to attract good workers and for the community to be a thriving place to live and work in. Federated Farmers wanted rates to be allocated fairly and did not mind farmers paying their fair share but they should not be burdened and carry an unfair share of rates. Mr Gardyne could not understand why the Gore District population was not growing when he saw housing prices in Auckland and Christchurch. It was affordable for people to come south. His Worship said it was not just a southern problem either, it also affected North Island towns. Cr Bolger said he was hoping Federated Farmers was able to see a feature of the Council’s thinking was trying to grow the District and attract people to it. Submission number 2015/106 – Todd Barclay, MP for Clutha Southland The submission was presented by Margaret Pullar, Glenys Dickson and Mark La Hood. Cr Sharp asked why scoping of the previous proposal had not been done. Mrs Dickson said the person chosen by the Council hit a snag and it was not taken any further.


Cr Sharp asked if the money was still available. Mrs Dickson was not sure. In response to Cr Sharp, Mrs Pullar said the last time the consultant had been heard from was 2010 and he promised to be back but he had not been. Cr Highsted asked if the group would liaise with the Hokonui Trails Trust and work together. Mrs Dickson said there had been discussions held and it was logical to work together. His Worship thought coordination was essential. Cr Davis noted the initial funding was $21,000 but what about ongoing costs thereafter. Would there be additional costs expected of the ratepayer. Mrs Dickson said the scoping report would detail how much annual contribution could be required. Mrs Pullar said a feasibility study would guide what was required. Cr Davis said a number of submitters had asked the Council not to contribute to other projects. Mrs Dickson said the group wanted to get off the ground with a feasibility study and there were other avenues for subsequent funding that could be followed. Submission number 2015/48 – Safe Communities

The submission was presented by Acting Area Commander Kelvin Lloyd, NZ Police, Bruce Stubbs, NZ Fire Service and Nicola Miller, ACC. A powerpoint presentation was shown, a copy of which is attached and forms part of these minutes. Cr D Grant asked if the funding request was likely to be ongoing or was it a one-off. Mr Stubbs advised the coordinator would bring everything together. Cr P Grant asked why Gore would contribute $10,000 when it had less than 10% of the Southland population. Mr Stubbs said Gore was scoring quite high terms of fire and crime statistics. It was about all three Councils having an equal share in the initiative. Cr Beale struggled with the request. There were a multitude of organisations already available in the Gore District. He felt it could turn into a “feel good” position rather


than duplicating what was already available. He suspected the $10,000 funding would be the thin edge of the wedge. Mr Stubbs said that was certainly not the case with other Councils. They had found a coordinator had a momentum that others were funding and the linkages were happening. Cr Beale said there were people in the community already who did what was being proposed. In response to Cr Davis asking where the person would be based, Mrs Miller said it was unsure. It may not be Invercargill. The accreditation was internationally recognised. Cr Davis asked why the ratepayers were being asked to fund the position. The Council had a massive amount of infrastructure work to be completed. Mr Lloyd said the aim was for a safer community. He understood the position Councillors were in. He came back to the success that other Councils had had in getting the coordinator positions established and there had been huge benefits.

The hearing adjourned at 3.53pm and resumed at 4.03pm Submission number 2015/125 – Sally McIntyre

Ms McIntyre presented her submission and read her additional comments, a copy of which is attached and forms part of these minutes. She was surprised to find no complete draft document of the Long Term Plan on the Council’s website. Cr Davis noted Ms McIntyre’s submission that the Mataura pool should not be closed and asked for her ideas for the source of funding for the ongoing operation of the pool. Cr Bolger questioned the figures provided in her submission and referred to the table showing the effect of proposed changes for average rating units. He asked why she had not included commercial rating units which would also be affected by the change. Cr Bolger noted her concern about rural roads and the decrease in funding for these and asked how much additional rural rates revenue she would like to see invested into roading. With reference to her questions about staffing levels and shared services, he asked whether she felt it was reasonable to remove the Roading Manager and General Manager District Assets positions from the Council staff when the biggest capital works would be in their respective areas of responsibility. In his opinion it was beneficial for residents to have local Council staff in charge of these projects.


Cr Davis noted submitters’ references to amalgamation. She stressed that a move towards any amalgamation would have to be started by the public. She asked whether Ms McIntyre was aware of any efforts underway in the community to progress this issue. Ms McIntyre said she was not. His Worship said the Council was a key partner in shared services and it was focussed on getting efficiencies and keeping local democracy. Ms McIntyre was concerned about the potential for Gore having to join with Invercargill City Council if nothing changed; she felt that Gore residents would not benefit from such a development. His Worship emphasised the key figure was the rates cost per ratepayer. The allocation of funding was another issue. He suggested Councils with lower staff levels might outsource more and he felt the provision of in-house services was beneficial for the community. Submission number 2015/194 - Robin Matthew McGowan Mr McGowan presented his submission and expressed concern about the doubling of debt per rateable unit. He agreed that water and sewerage issues had to be addressed. He felt using treated water for washing cars, watering gardens and flushing toilets was wasteful and asked whether new piping could be installed to use untreated water for those purposes. In relation to funding for water projects, he proposed to reduce the requirements for loans by using funds from asset sales. He suggested the Council sell park land for residential or industrial development. He preferred the Council to remain in charge of developing the land rather than selling it to a commercial developer. In regard to the heritage presentation fund, Mr McGowan said he had raised concerns five years ago about costs involved to the ratepayer in relation to heritage listed buildings. At the time he had been assured there was no reason for his concern. He was now disappointed at the suggestion of a heritage preservation fund. Mr McGowan did not see much future for shops in the heritage buildings and he thought people were drawn to malls instead. He provided further explanation to his submission in regard to the Mataura pool and questioned whether a joint venture would be possible with Alliance for the operation/maintenance of the pool. He felt that heritage funding had already been increased substantially in the past and he did not want to see further expansion of that budget.


Cr Bolger asked for Mr McGowan’s thoughts on fixed targeted rates and valuation based rates. Mr McGowan felt it was unfair that a rural ratepayer on a larger property out of town might have to pay twice as much as an urban resident living close to all Council facilities. He agreed that residents of low value properties should pay less than those on high value properties, even if the latter did not have a high income. Submission number 2015/25 – Trish Aitken and Janice Burton, The Southern District Health Board – Public Health South Ms Burton thanked the Council for the opportunity to present her submission and introduced Public Health South. The organisation was seeking a constructive relationship with the Council to address priority health issues and realise positive health outcomes for the Gore community through a “health in all” policies approach. “Health in all” policies were embraced by a number of Councils throughout New Zealand. Ms Burton said that factors outside the health system had the strongest impact on people’s health and wellbeing, including social, cultural, physical and economic environments. Public Health South could provide public health advice and assistance in developing health strategies and policies to enable a “health in all” approach to be applied. She cited the Gore Youth Social Sector Trial, where a variety of agencies worked together to improve outcomes for young people in Eastern Southland, as an example for a “health in all” approach. Another recent example was the fluoridation workshop hosted by Southland District Council for Southland Councils in February. The Public Health Service arranged four health experts, including the Clinical Director of Oral Health for the Ministry of Health, to attend the workshop. Ms Burton believed these forums could provide the Council with easy access to expert information to help determine strategies which could be applied in Gore. Ms Burton referred to the beginning of a ten year countdown for the Government’s vision for Smoke-Free Aotearoa 2025. Her organisation encouraged the Council to consider extending the scope of its current Smoke-Free Policy and try to either reduce the number of new smokers and/or help existing smokers to quit. She stated that 36,000 smokers across Southland would need to quit within the next ten years for the Government to reach its target. A partnership between Public Health and the Gore District Council could help identify simple steps to increase leadership in this area. Public Health South had recently established a sub-committee to support Councils that was currently attended by Southland District Council and Invercargill City Council staff. Public Health South encouraged the Council to join the group. On behalf of Public Health South, Ms Burton asked for:

the promotion of all Council events on Council owned public space as being smoke-free;


the current Smoke-Free Outdoor Spaces Policy to be reviewed and an extension to other outdoor spaces be considered; and

endorsement of the Government’s goal for Smoke-free Aotearoa 2025. She said this would not commit the Council to any investment. Public Health South supported the establishment of a Safe Southland community group and becoming accredited as an international Safe Community. Ms Burton referred to the Waitaki District, where a paid part-time coordinator had been employed to achieve this purpose. She believed that a similar paid part-time coordination role for the Southland region would be essential for its success and asked the three territorial authorities, Gore, Southland and Invercargill to consider a financial contribution to a budget for such a part-time role. Public Health South acknowledged the competing pressures faced by Councils between the financial imperatives of maintaining and improving infrastructure and managing any increase in rates fairly, especially for those on fixed incomes. Ms Burton voiced concerns of the public health service, that deferring maintenance and policy development could potentially result in some harm. Ms Aitken expressed support for the Council’s approach in relation to the removal of manganese and iron oxide from water. Referring to the submission in relation to the Otama water supply, Ms Aitken stated that the SDHB was seeking a participatory role alongside the Council. In response, Cr Davis noted that the purpose of the Otama water scheme was not to provide water for human consumption. With reference to the smoke-free policy, Cr Dixon asked whether an alcohol-free policy would be more beneficial for the community. Ms Burton agreed that alcohol was a significant issue and said there had been a change in legislation. She added there would be an opportunity for a local alcohol policy to be put in place once the outcome of test cases between local Councils and the alcohol industry were known. Submission number 2015/147 - Mark Copland and Peter Hargest

The submission was presented by Messrs Copland and Hargest. Additional comments were provided, a copy of which is attached and forms part of these minutes. In response to the comments in relation to the information distributed by Cr Sharp to residents, Cr Bolger noted that rural ratepayers were not being requested to contribute to urban essential services and said it had been fundamental misinformation. He was disappointed to see submissions referring to it.


Mr Hargest felt the comments were valid in that rural people were asked to subsidise urban people, costs were shifted across to the rural ratepayers relieving tension and weight on urban ratepayers. His Worship referred to the Council’s reaction to Cr Sharp’s actions. He referred to the first part of the agenda and an opinion from Anderson Lloyd Lawyers with its view on the potential conflict of interest for Cr Sharp. His Worship believed there was no place for bias and predetermination in local government and noted that this had been the Council’s concern. Cr Davis noted the submitter’s interest in Council business and said she was surprised that they did not wish to receive the Council’s newsletter which was published to inform ratepayers of the proceedings at Council. She stressed there was no cost associated with receiving the newsletter email. She believed relying on newspaper reports or other sources would not always provide accurate and comprehensive information in relation to the Council. Mr Copland said he did not subscribe to the newsletter to keep costs down for the Council. Cr Davis replied there was no cost associated with it, unless it was posted. Mr Copland preferred to receive mail through the post. Mr Hargest believed people were bombarded with too much information and demands on time were increasing. Mr Copland complained about the state of River Road which he felt was disgraceful. Responding to Mr Hargest’s comments in relation to increase in staffing, the Chief Executive noted that some of the positions had since been disestablished and other positions quoted in the submission were replacing previously engaged contractors. Submission number 2015/169 - Jeremy McPhail Mr McPhail introduced himself and presented his submission. He referred to discussions earlier in the hearing and said he understood that the Council may not have a choice but to undertake the required seismic strengthening for the civic administration building. In regard to the Mataura recreational facility he stated that he was initially not in favour of keeping the pool open, particularly in view of the cost involved and the existence of a first class facility in Gore. However, reading the submissions he had changed his mind on the issue. He believed there was a moral obligation to keep the facility open and that lives could be saved by keeping the pool operational.


In response to Mr McPhail’s question, His Worship said the Council did not have access to individual information on eligibility for the rates rebate scheme until an application was received. He stressed the Council was proactive in ensuring people’s awareness of available rebates. Initially, there had been a high uptake for the scheme and the latest estimates were about 45 to 50%. He said there was reluctance, particularly with older people, to reveal their financial status to organisations like the Council even though every effort was made to keep information confidential. There had been 850 applications to the scheme through the Council last year. Mr McPhail was surprised to find 26% of private households were renting. Cr P Grant asked whether workers residing on a farm were included as renters. In response to Mr McPhail’s question about staffing numbers, the Chief Executive said in 2001 86 full time equivalents and 66 full time staff were employed. Today there were 71 full time staff and 89 full time equivalents. Included in these numbers were:

two planning staff who replaced a contractor

two IT staff

the doubling of the Building Control Department

one extra staff member in administration

one additional 3 Waters technical staff member

one additional staff member for communications/events

one additional staff member for the Roading Department

one staff member for the stadium Staff numbers had only increased by four or five through efficiencies. The Chief Executive noted the Council had been involved in an official information request to four Councils about staff increases over 20 years. The requester had refused to reveal the information received from the other councils, but the Chief Executive invited residents to request information on staff numbers from neighbouring Councils for reference. He said over the last 15 years the responsibilities of local government had increased enormously in complexity, particularly in the areas of resource management and 3 Waters. The Chief Executive believed that rises in staff numbers had been modest in comparison to other authorities. Cr Bolger asked for Mr McPhail’s preferred solution if the outcome of the seismic report on the civic administration building would force the Council to act. Would he prefer to raise the funds for an immediate upgrade or stretch the necessary works over a longer period of time which could eventually be more expensive?


Submission number 2015/08 - Paul Goodwin – not in attendance Submission number 2015/96 - Trevor Stark Mr Stark expressed concerns about the amount of debt per rating unit. He believed that while he agreed an upgrade to the heritage precinct would be good, he felt the Council could not afford the project at this time. He was opposed to ratepayer funding for derelict buildings and believed owners should be responsible for these. Mr Stark asked whether the Council could approach owners and suggest a clean-up at the owner’s expense. He deemed the heritage preservation fund unnecessary for the same reason, owner’s responsibility. Mr Stark felt that the UAGC at 30% would be fair and equal with everybody paying the same amount regardless of the value of their property. Cr Highsted noted that owners of derelict buildings did not always cooperate. There could be significant legal cost involved to resolve an issue. He stressed the Council’s intention was to address issues with absentee property owners, not to acquire properties for the Council. His Worship referred to a situation in Mataura, where a proactive community board negotiated with home owners to make changes to their properties. One or two buildings had been demolished with little cost involved to the Council. The Council’s proposal involved ratepayer funding for derelict buildings only if there was no other alternative to deal with an issue. He stressed that this would only be the most difficult cases. Cr Beale expressed concern that owners could decide to walk away from their property if the Council endeavoured to force them into action at their expense. The Council intended to use the proposed fund to alleviate these concerns. He added that central government legislation could potentially force Councils to act in some of these cases. The Chief Executive explained that legally pursuing property owners could potentially be difficult. He noted courts were often reluctant to issue an order to owners to demolish, personal property rights were well protected and particularly if the derelict building was unoccupied and thus deemed not dangerous. He was concerned about the uncertainty of total costs involved and the outcome of legal proceedings in these cases. Mr Stark asked whether the Council would take ownership of the section once a building had been demolished. The Chief Executive replied that there had been few cases so far. He referred to the former Keystores building where the Council had become the owner of the land. In another case the Council had only waived demolition fees to resolve the problem.

He explained that the Council did not intend to acquire the sections for the long term; it was merely interested in facilitating the removal of eyesores from the area. His Worship added the Council wanted to see sections opened up for new development.

A copy of a report from the Communications Manager on feedback posted on the

Council’s Facebook page was tabled at the hearing. A copy is attached and forms part of these minutes.

The meeting concluded at 5.43pm.

SUBMISSION TO GORE FUTURE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

1. I have some documents with me:

Rates costing calculations – 1994-95. With this past quality of disclosure

submitters could easily make informed presentations to council. Compare these

with the scant information circulated this year in the consultation document.

This new format has not been an improvement, lacks detail and poses leading

questions, like the freezing of the UAGC, in another instance tries to influence

submitters stating council’s preferred option. Not good enough!

Submissions to the 2005 – 2015 LTP. In summary the submissions of 10

years ago are the similar as those currently submitted. The state of rural roads,

arts and heritage spending, retaining the 30% UAGC etc. Council failed to listen

then so is there any hope you will listen and abide by submissions this time.

Increasing the districts size was one carryover item from 10 years ago. Is there

any progress on that? None and none likely. Any prospect to grow Gore District

by extending into the communities with common interests and purpose, like

West Otago and Northern Southland, well, forget it with this assault on property

owners, reducing the UAGC.

Comments made by Cr Davis, Page and the Mayor worrying that

proforma submissions sent to Environment Southland on air quality would be

disregarded. Now it your turn to respect and consider all submissions, including

those presented without the assistance of a hired crown prosecutor.

A recent article headed “ Council throws the spotlight on the CBD” came

off GDC website. The apparent remedy to the shop closures and vacancies in

Gore’s CBD was to engage a consultant to state what is obvious: align shopping

hours, understand your customers’ needs, use IT, etc..Really!!

The consultant acknowledged that Gore has a robust commercial heart,

we know already, and the Mayor added, that Gore will apparently have “a

strategy to become a national champion for commercial resilience and support”

means what exactly?(repeat) Not with the way you intend to hoe into and

reduce the UAGC.

An AK Herald article from 1 May 2015 titled “English knows risk of low

grade growth”. It refers especially to central and local government

spending illustrating that type of spending contributes only to low grade

growth.

2.UAGC. If you want something then be prepared to pay for it.

This UAGC reduction proposal today will encumber the districts property

owners by elevating their rates contributions through greater use of capital

value rating.

It was a 10 years battle to get this council to understand how necessary the

30% UAGC was and that has been in place for 20 years. From memory we put a

poll of ratepayers to council, with nearly 700 signatures to get this adopted.

Show some respect for that poll and respect past decisions of council.

GDC has started at the wrong end of their funding policy review, instead of

honestly and accurately asking the questions: who are the beneficiaries of

costs and who use the services and amenities rated for, have arrived at a

predetermined result.

The end game with this UAGC reduction is it allows continual tinkering of

UAGC percentages annually, for costs like democracy, cemeteries, information

centre and arts and heritage, for the life of the LTP and beyond to fit your

misguided agenda for rates setting. It ignores who should bear the cost

through rates, and will particularly work to your political advantage. Business

property owners are outnumbered and out-voted on this one however you are

reckless in changing the UAGC. The decision is anti-business and anti-growth.

It won’t build resilience or improve the vacancies on Main Street but

compromise both, as CV rating increases flow through into business rentals.

The objective of lowering rates for low value properties is a lie as all residential

properties with a value under $500 000 potentially benefit. The appropriate

availability of accommodation supplements and rates remissions for those on

low incomes already caters for the less well off. It is therefore, not your role to

act as the social welfare department.

Submitters have spoken and you will hear from a sample of almost 85% that

have (via their submissions) supported retention of the 30% UAGC. 85% of

submitters, councillors and whose opinions you need to respect. The result of

both the Mataura Pool question and this UAGC reduction tells me that you are

out of touch with the community you sere. This time respect the submissions

and you will be bound to retain both. The Pool and the UAGC. (check 5

minutes)

3. The lack of definition concerning the Civic Building up-grade and the

assumption the surplus over earthquake strengthening costs can automatically

go to improvements, without itemising those improvements is poor

communicating again. Assuming the inevitability of local body amalgamations,

when was it established such improvements are necessary in the long term.

You may be out of jobs. Part of me hopes that is sooner than later. When it

happens it will in part be of your own making.

4. The rising staff levels serving a static population in Gore District needs

thorough scrutiny by councillors and decide who is necessary and who is a

luxury on staff. 12 – 15 more staff collectively costing $1 - 1.5 million for what

measurable benefit? Life inside GDC looks like “easy street” and that extends

to the fleet upgrade: vehicle renewals or rentals that those in private

enterprise can only observe with disbelief. So to, the handout for a building

preservation fund and the derelict building fund. You can’t afford that so pass

a by-law but stay out of private property issues.

5. The GDC pursuit of spending money on the Heritage Centre building is still as

misguided as you were told 10 years ago. The income streams from Arts and

Heritage and Museum activities do not warrant the expense. Acquisition on

the Irwell St building is a sad commentary of the business acumen of the past

council. They paid 30% over valuation, fell for a lie about likely lessees, renting

it instead for 20% of its potential rental value, resulting in current receipts that

don’t cover the opportunity cost of capital. Retain the front façade for a mural

and sell the rest for a commercial activity.

Rural roads. Please inspect the roads I drive, Sandy Knowes and Brock roads

particularly. Both recently gravelled with substandard washed round stones.

Enjoy the corrugations and the drive like on ball-bearings. Then go into Clutha

district onto MacKenzie and Donald roads and see the quality aggregate Clutha

district put on their roads. Take notice of the road widths and the water table

maintenance, both neglected in Gore district. Your roading manager should be

sacked. Yet you intend to adopt an LTP that reduces rural road expense 5%.

You urban councillors don’t understand but will rubber stamp the rural roading

budget that now is less than the parks and reserves vote. Get real!

6. Summary.

You councillors need to step up and challenge those authors of change to the

UAGC. that presumably claim to have knowledge and more experience.

It’s not the Precinct that drives Gore’s prosperity, or Gore’s Parks and Reserves

or the Croydon Aviation Museum. Philanthropists and donors and the

benevolent in the district can support them.

No. It’s the people that work that drive Gore District. They depend on people

owning small to medium sized businesses, service industries, professional

businesses, large industries and farms that provide employment. They drive

Gore District. If Gore is open for business as you say, it better be open to

business. Business owners choose to re-invest and create additional

opportunities in the commercial sector or choose not to. Similarly they choose

to do business locally or not. So don’t bludgeon them with escalating property

rates.

It’s business and the economic activity as a result that will grow the school rolls

and support the hospital, it’s not the GDC.

Events such as the Southern Field Days, the Gold Guitars, the Fashion Awards

show what strength and initiative there is in Gore and Districts, despite GDC.

Focus on your core services and let this district prosper its own way.

Don’t persist with an agenda of “shafting” property owners with reductions to

the UAGC or you will deserve amalgamation in some form. If you proceed with

the UAGC reduction future closures on Main Street will in part be testimony to

your decision to go against submitters and not retain the UAGC at 30%.

In conclusion the UAGC proposal confirms, you as a council have never

understood rural people, their business, their roading requirements and

resources needed. The UAGC proposed is divisive when unity is paramount. It

will polarise you from the business and farming communities. It is a stupid

proposal with significant consequences.

Thank you.

Hugh Gardyne . Waikaka.

Reflect you councillors, that were it not for the effort of one “whistleblower”

who happens to be a councillor, we would not have been alerted to this huge

proposed deduction to the UAGC and unlikely to have been united in our

response. Council chose the expense of an Anderson Lloyd opinion when the

answer is in the Auditor Generals guidelines. The CEO could easily have bought

that to the councillor’s attention, but chose bullying tactics over common

sense. It ironically puts the spotlight on you. If you have voted the estimates,

the rate funding review, adopted the LTP and that it goes out for consultation;

can you all now impartially receive and consider submissions having not

already made up your own minds. I doubt it!.

GDC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK FORM

Comments.

2 a. Please provide visitor numbers through the separate sites within precinct? Also income

from separate sites?

2 b. It is not GD Council’s responsibility to assist any private landowner with heritage issues?

This is a wish list item not essential services issue.

3. GDC have already wasted money on Mataura pool heating when the boiler was replaced.

When will GDC recognise Mataura is practically a suburb of Gore that has underused

facilities for all urban dwellers to use? Tell me again the value to us of the Mataura Pool or

any “destinational recreational facility” in Mataura.

4 b. Please provide the result of the previous petition for lifting the UAGC to 30% and the

council resolutions that adopted it.

The petition was signed by in excess of 600 ratepayers. It aligned council spending on areas

of equal benefit to all people, with an equitable UAGC rating system. Council needs to

respect that result and direction from ratepayers. Past decisions of council are on occasions

held up as binding on future councils. Why should this one be different?

Accommodation supplements, rate remission options are in place to help the poor and

needy residents removing that responsibility from council. You are not the social welfare

department or any other benevolent society.

Control your expenditure, stay with a fair rating system, and see how you can facilitate

growth in Gore district. Not overtax and target your ratepayers that own property.

Local Government NZ and the Society of Local Government Managers should petition

Government to release 2.5% of GST to local gov’t for costs instead of targeting property

owners for expenses that is not property owner’s responsibility to fund.

Thank you

Hugh Gardyne

Good morning Your worship and councillors. I understand you have read the submission I filled out online so I will just expand a little. Water. AS I said it is the basis of life and needs to be of the very best quality. I wonder therefore did any of you see the tv item on Tokomaru and their new treatment plant which was opened in April this year.They invented a treatment plant which has brought their water up to NZ drinking water standards with a cost of $350.000,significantly less than the $1.9 - 3 million they were originally looking at. They are prepared to share this knowledge with other councils,would this be an option for Gore water supply to save the millions planned. Why does it always have to be top dollar that is looked at. ftafce eteey dollar c&u m yes

loJkaJr ©piicKvS. I do not support any more ratepayer money going into the Heritage centre,no problem with it being developed but not at rate payers expense,our rates are getting out of control and this cannot go on. How many of you have to live on $300 or less a week?Our population is ageing and cannot sustain too many more rate increases,this is a want not a need and I do not agree that this is going to be a key driver of economic development.Instead you need to be looking at attracting businesses which people can afford to shop at as a lot of . people are going out of town. "TWe en U-e t- eL fording ute-s or* Maybe, If there is surplus from another area it could be put in a fund for this. *** c

Mataura Pool, Mataura people I have spoken to would ask that you take the current plan for this out of the long term plan, at least for the next few years. I am aware that the road show with the photo of this new concept found favour with the young people but take a closer look and it is only a glorified slide. Councillor Highsted you have children,if you showed them a photo of a place they had never been which looked exciting what would they want?? I am sure if there had been a photo of the pool with a water slide in it that would have been a popular choice as well.However the pool wasnt an option,very clever. Plus we already have something similar to this at the school which the kids are able to use just not so colourful maybe. <als© U* jeanALf# Ur-

To say that a hydroslide would cost $900.000k or more is just putting a road block in place,we dont need a splash palace,just a slide much like the one you have pictured in the playground with water running down to shoot kids into the pool is all it would take to make the pool an exciting place to visit.Once again, why is it always top dollar being looked at. This could be a community based project,the lions are keen to help fund raise to keep the pool.I have been looking online and a place in Timaru can purpose build water slides to suit the facility so lets look at that.%^ \s ccxiUU

4.U We have actually been down this track before in 2009 I think when we asked for a

coffee machine,that didnt happen, the kids wanted a slide,or a tarzan swing,that did'nt happen and we also suggested a spa,once again,it did'nt happen. I sat at the Ammbassodor awards and listened to the contestants say all the things that Gore has that makes it a good place to live.Now I realize the council did'nt fund all these things but you have, a bike park,a skate park,a BMX track,gardens with an aviary,the mulit sports centre,the kids hub under way and many playgrounds. You are also planning to spend 750k upgrding the Gore playgrounds Now I ask,is this fair when all we have is a couple of decent playgrounds and the pool and you want to close it due to lack of patronage when the Gore pool is way more under used and I know we have been told we cant compare the two, but you have in coming up with this plan.

Also where are our kids going to learn to swim,why should they have to travel to Gore,if one drowns in the river how would you all feel. And what about the 3 schools that use it,more expense for parents busing kids to Gore for swimming.

We feel there are a lot of options that can be looked at ie. Advertising it more, the hours it is open to make them more user friendly for the elderly and young mums. My friend from Christchurch who now lives here was going to go for a swim and thought she could go at 9am and was astounded it wasnt open. Signage outside also needs improved to make it more visible

I know the comments will be we have not said we are closing the pool but that is the master plan in the long term and why???

Who from Gore is going to come to Mataura to this playground when you have so much here in Gore and this construction you have pictured will not be user friendly as it is not suitable for all ages of children ie.toddlers,their playground is down at Queens Park which is a long way from where we wanted it to be. This facility would only be able to be used by certain ages and we have less families with children in Mataura,the kids that are here might use it a few times and then get bored, so are the pensioners going to have to slide down this to get their excersize. It will be just a waste of money.

We would like to have more people come here to live but if we keep losing facilities who is going to want to come,the ones that have moved here think it is a great place to live so we would hope more will come.

The pool is of benefit to all ages from birth right through to the elderly and is an essential part of the community,people get great health benefits from it and if we could get a spa this would make it even more so. I implore you,let the group we have formed work out ways to increase the patronage and leave us to fund raise to improve it. Just a question,is it right that in the breakdown of the pool expenses you have

$33,000 put in as sundry,What business works like this?

I realize it is an old pool but we pay more than our share in rates so if and when the time comes it needs maintainance we have more than paid our dues,we pay almost $1900.00 on our property which is valued at only $110,000 and a lot of others here are paying the same. What does a similar valuation in Gore pay I wonder,if our house was in Gore it would be valued at twice as much and for the same cost.

I dont agree to freezing the UAGC at 650.00 for 10 years as this is the only way everyone contributes a fair share to the rates.

New residents to Mataura from Christchurch cannot believe the way Mataura is being treated by this council,you are supposed to be there for the whole district,not just Gore and in fact I have been asked that if this carries on can we ask for a parliamentery inquiry into this.

My name is Andrea Russell I have lived in Mataura for 14 years with my partner Vaughan Ramage who is born and bred Mataura and we have two sons 9 and 7.

Today I am here for all the children of Mataura and surrounding districts. Not just the Mataura school children because there are a lot of children in Mataura that go to other schools. My mother couldn't swim and she made sure my brother and I could. We went to lessons and swam competitively as children. My partner Vaughan cannot swim. I have spent hundreds of dollars on swimming lessons for our boys both at Mataura and Gore swimming pools. You can never underestimate water. Now if they are out trout fishing with Vaughan and I'm not there I would be confident if they fell in the river they would have the skills and experience to save themselves.

In my submission I included the following: A quote from the Water Safety NZ website. As New Zealanders we love the water - whether playing or surfing in it, boating or sailing on it, or simply enjoying our stunning coastline, beaches, lakes and rivers. Sadly every year a large number of Kiwis lose their lives to drowning. Make water safety a priority for you and your family - learn to swim, wear and use the right safety equipment, learn survival skills and most importantly keep your loved ones, especially young children close. As at 4 May 2015 there have been 44 drownings and 38 for the same time last year.

Research from 2010 showed that 80% of kiwi children could not swim well enough to save themselves if they found themselves in trouble in the water.

We need our swimming pool so our children and families are given the opportunity to learn these important skills and increasing their chance of surviving in the water.

Swimming lessons are not cheap say $70 a term and for some of our Mataura and surrounding district families this is a big ask especially if there are two or more children. I could talk for 10 minutes on how to improve the Leap Frog Swimming Programme but that's another story. If parents can't afford swimming lessons but the children go to the pool for a play they are still gaining skills like confidence and getting used to the water environment.

The Mataura river runs through our town and we don't want children swimming in the river. As a Senior Firefighter with the Mataura Volunteer Fire Brigade I have been involved with a search for a teenager that jumped off the Mataura bridge. It was a difficult, stressful time and had a tragic outcome.

I fear that if the pool does close a lot of our families won't take their children up to Gore for a swim due to the cost of travel, or maybe it could be a time issue.

This swimming pool is not only about children. Its about community. The people that go on a Monday night sometimes up to 15 people and its different people every week, keeping fit in the ActiveS class. Or the ladies that come down from Gore every Tuesday and Thursday for the aquaerobics class. The husband and wife from Wyndham who spend an hour each lane swimming training for the ironman. My friend who has had a knee replacement and walks up and down the Mataura pool as part of her physio. Kyi lee Munro takes the Mataura Afterschool Programme children down there on a Friday afternoons and during one week of the holidays.

I've had a look at the attendance figures and I'm not saying they are wrong but there have been a lot of people using the pool when I have been there. Different faces each time. Parents, Grandparents, aunties and uncles and children. I've been there sometimes and you can't hear yourself think its just so noisy. The delight, and joy on the childrens faces is priceless. There are people in each of the three pools, they are on the inflatables, lane swimming and enjoying each others company. This is community and you want to take this away. A few times I have thought to myself where are the councillors now they need to see this!

You can see such a difference in the school children after their 10 free swimming lessons with the school. Their confidence just shoots up and they make such gains in their ability over the lessons. But I don't think their learning time in the class should be compromised. This would happen if they had to be bused to Gore each day. Their writing, reading and maths would suffer. The level of parent help would also be an issue.

I don't have all the answers on how the pool can be run better. I have suggestions like changing the opening hours and having say a mother and toddler time.

I can't rave enough about the supervisors at Mataura. Donna and Jo do a fantastic job it is a place where you can go and be yourself the children are supervised not babysat. Everybody is interacting and its just cool to watch. The facility itself is always clean and tidy and welcoming.

We have enough parks in Mataura and I don't think talking to others an outdoor fitness track with different stations will work for the residents. While talking to parents on the rugby sidelines and outside school I asked if they had completed their Consultation Document Feedback form. They all had a form at home and wanted to have their say on the Mataura pool but were confused as to which part of the form they had to complete. Did they have to give feedback on the other sections or could they just have their say on Section 3 Mataura Recreational Facility? I think if the form was less confusing and simplified you would have received more feedback.

We all know that pools don't make money. Please take the time to think about water safety and what we need in our community and I think that's keeping Mataura pool open for our community.

There was an interesting article in the ODT last Friday about Mosgiel Pool Winning support of the Dunedin City Council. I have a copy for each councillor along with a copy of this talk.

Thanks for your time. Are there any questions.

Andrea Russell 13 Burns Street Mataura 0276507441

Submission

To the Gore DC Long Term Plan

Our submission relates to the comment within the consultation document that the Council sees

itself as "Open for Business" and for Council to be in a position to enable residential development to

go ahead.

The statements expressed today are not those of an individual with a vested interest, but rather

those of a professional person concerned with the future well-being of the District.

1. We have raised this issue as Council policy seems to require that the maximum amount of

financial contributions be required from people seeking to undertake small developments

within the district.

2. To be open for business, one needs to be competitive with an adjoining business.

3. In this situation, Council is a business, while the adjoining authorities in Southland (viz the

Invercargill City Council and the Southland District Council) are the adjoining businesses.

4. When Council imposes financial contributions, these are meant to be required on effects

based requirement, rather than the taking of the maximum sums that are set out within the

District Plan

Taking as an example, if a mom and pop were to subdivide their Albany Street section to create an

additional allotment (of land value say $80,000.00), then this Council will require the following

contributions:

• Reserves contribution of $ 6,900.00

• Infrastructure contribution of $ 7,658.00

Or a total of $14,258.00

If this same development was undertaken in Invercargill, then the same financial requirement from

Council would be a total of $ 0.00

If that same development was undertaken in Edendale (or Winton or anywhere within the urban

area of Southland District except Te Anau), then the same financial requirement from Council would

be a total of $ 0.00

(based on the assumption that there are sufficient reserves within the area)

If this suggests that Council is open for business, then it is believed that it is not a viable model.

GOREDC\LTP\2015

CFMcD

Based on the presumption that there is a declining urban population within Gore, (as there are in

other areas of Southland), as well as an aging population, then on an effects based process, it can be

fairly said that there would be no increase in demand for either reserves of infrastructure by the

mere creation an additional allotment.

If, as outlined and listed within this document, that there are some projects required to be

implemented and that new infrastructure needs to be undertaken, then this is really an ongoing

maintenance and upgrading issue rather than a capacity issue.

Council should be encouraging infill projects such as highlighted above, that are not requiring any

new infrastructure, rather than providing disincentives for projects such as this.

It is believed that wording within the District Plan would not need to be altered as the wording

would still allow for significant projects to be scrutinised and appropriate contributions to be

charged.

Despite Council comment that non-payment of a financial contribution in the first instance is straying

into territory where a private benefit is sought at the cost of a public good, it is obviously clear from

other Councils approach (as outlined above), that this approach is not necessarily correct.

We hear the comments and feedback from the public that it is not worth undertaking development

within the urban area because of the current Council costing regime and the manner that it is being

implemented.

We have appeared before Council on these same issues a number of times, with little progress, but

trust that Council will relook at or revisit these issues, as it does and will impact on the long term

viability of our community.

26 May 2015

Murray Fortune

GOREDC\LTP\2015

CFMcD

GDC Swimming Submission Kia Ora. Today I am here representing the children of Mataura. Our children have made excellent progress with their swimming over the past few years during the 2 weeks of swimming lessons. For many of our students this is the only swimming instruction they ever receive. Currently there are 3% of our students taking part in swimming lessons in Gore, this is only 3 children out of 106. This is a reflection of the family lives our children live in, many families are busy working several jobs, some do not have cars, and the cost of swimming lessons is too great for many of our low income families. We live in a town with a tempting fast flowing river. Over the past few years there have been no deaths, we do not want to see this statistic change. The NZ Drowning stats are horrific as you well know. The late Celia Lashlie talked about boys turning into young men and taking risks which are not calculated. I view the sea as a temptation for our students. We have recently taken our school to the beach and had a student exclaim “what a big river” when faced with the sea. She had never seen the sea before. We are not going to be able to give all students every experience we would like to, however we would like to set them up with a set of skills they can use. Swimming is one of these. Our focus at Mataura School is on achievement and we have raised this considerably over the last few years. We are very concerned that if our students had to travel to Gore for lessons then there would be large amount of learning time used ineffectively. If it were only going to be 10 mins to Gore, 5 mins getting changed then we would have no problem. This however would be dependent on us having 5 buses. This is not practical so it is likely that classes would have increased time out of class. If there were 2 classes students would have to wait the 30 mins additional time while the first class was having lessons. We cannot afford for our students to be out of class up to 2 hours for a 10 day period. They need explicit literacy and numeracy teaching. Currently we have 3 instructors with each class in Mataura. These experts are able to accelerate our students swimming skills through their expertise, our teachers do not have this expertise. If there were 2 classes in the pool at a time would we have access to 6 instructors? The cost of buses is also another concern. 3 buses would cost us between $400 and $510per day, a total of $4000 - $5000 for 10 days of swimming. This is a huge cost for a small school like ours to absorb each year. It is the equivalent of teaching Reading Recovery to 2 students each year. Water Safety NZ is recommending that NZ children need to be able to swim 200m unaided. Our children cannot get to this skill level without specific teaching and practice. Our Mataura Pool is a great teaching venue and area to play. As Albert Einstein said “Play is the highest form of research.” This asset in our community allows children to play, and therefore learn. We view our pool as a community venue. It is an experience. We use it as term rewards, an opportunity to write about, we can read other students stories about their swimming pool experience. We build on the process of play and learning through our whole school curriculum. We ask that you keep the Mataura Pool as it is best for the children of Mataura.

Thank you for this time.

I am sorry about my negativity to the future plans of the council. It is mainly because of the economic situation that our district is experiencing and also the amount of debt that the council has. These two can only increase our future rates which all rate payers are complaining about.

The council must look at their expenditure and only approve expenditure which is going to bring people and wealth into our district. I have found recently at least two expenditures which I find very difficult to assess their value for Gore. They are the new GO -RE signage and all the accompanying costs involved and the appointment of an events officer. Can the council show in monetary terms how much revenue these two items will generate?

I wish now to speak on my concerns about my submissions which I have presented for Gore's Future. I apologise for my written submissions but because of the lack of my computer skills I could not download the form. I could only scan it. Councilors need to be aware that many of our senior citizens are not up to speed with this technology.

[1] Fixing our water.

I believe the offending well was commissioned in 2010, five years ago. Has the discolouration taken place recently? Is this discolouration always present? Is it due to the lowering of the water table? Why do we find Maganese and iron oxide in this well? If you know the answers then ratepayers should know why this well is causing the problem. Council must look at other places for our supply of good water. Putting in filters will be an ongoing cost for council and ratepayers. If you pump from the second well what guarantee this problem won't happen again? If this is the case why did you not use the Jacobstown well in 2010? Have you looked at encouraging ratepayers to install rain water tanks on their properties? The total cost of fixing our water system is $6 m. This amount spread over 5-6 thousand ratepayers is too great to improve our water. I am sure there are other ways. To add $6.00 a week on to the the present rate account would be exorbitant.

Therefore I feel the whole problem needs to be looked at again as even taking out a loan still has to be paid for by the ratepayer.

[2] Looking after our Heritage.

This is a worthwhile project when the economic situation is right. Why does the council think ratepayers must carry this burden of cost when they will receive very little or nothing in monetary terms from it. Who will gain from this development? The number of tourists passing through Gore is not enough to warrant the cost of this development. If the business people think it will improve their daily trading then surely they should foot the bill. May I ask does this cost include the running of it as I'm sure it will have to be manned by more staff. I am sure the present pedestrian areas are sufficient and the excellent gardens and floral arrangement are sufficient Ratepayers will most likely visit this place only once or twice leaving the tourists admission to maintain it. Finally until there are more tourists coming through our town, council must put these excellent ideas on hold. Perhaps the Mandeville museum could give very good attendance and income figures from their project so as council can compare with their projection figures.

I disagree to a fund being set up at this stage as there are more ways for the council to serve the ratepayers.

[3] Mataura Recreational Opportunities.

Why are there discussions about closing the Mataura swimming pool? Will a unique play ground attract any more children? Is the population of Mataura increasing? I feel it will be like the swimming pool and the hockey grounds. Most Mataura ratepayers will come into Gore to do their shopping. What better place could there be for parents to take their children than to the event centre where there are facilities for all ages and desires. Numbers attending the pool and skate stadium will increase It will begin to establish a joint community instead of a 'you and us mentality.' If council found that the present facilities became over crowded then future plans could be made.

Because of my above opinions I disagree to applying for money for this plan.

[4] Rates.

The council has put the 'cart before the horse.' The ratepayers have not agreed to the future plans of the council and until it has a complete approval of the future plans then I think councilors must go back to the ratepayers and hear their opinions in regards to Option 1 or 2.

Maintenance must be continued but on a priority basis so as the present rates can remain the same. 'Cut your coat according to your cloth.' Has council reduced their spending? Many ratepayers will have to look at their spending and tighten their belts. We need to have some stability in our community. Increasing the rates each year is causing stress on many of the senior citizens and low income families.

Because the population of Gore is fast becoming retired citizens council has to make every effort to hold rate increases. Senior citizens have no way of reclaiming the extra costs which seem to be increasing each year. If the estimated $ 15.1m is added onto the present rate demands for ten years I don't think this amount can be acquired in Gore.

In the Ensign May 20 the headline- 'Attracting staff seen as a key to growth.' May I ask councilors where in the future plan will these plans attract more people to Gore? I believe if we could say that the rates are to remain the same then I think this would attract more people and businesses to Gore. This would be a good start and give ratepayers something to be positive about.

Finally one must say how much effort the council has gone into preparing this plan for our future. But I do ask and even implore council to look at the population of Gore. Look at the demographics of the ratepayers. How many have permanent jobs? How many job vacancies are there? What is the weekly wage or salary? Why is there a decline in the occupancy of commercial buildings? With these statistics in mind I believe that the increase in rates which must be imposed to implement these plans, will cause hardship to many ratepayers. This is the time to pause and take stock.

More good publicity will be gained for our town if it can say the council is working on maintaining the present rates for the next few years.

Please try!

Thank you for this time. John Bamett

It is my understanding that UAGC is applied to ensure every ratepayer pays a minimum contribution for council services. How many rate payers have requested assistance in the form of applying for an accomodation allowance. Therefore one has to query why the local Farmers that I might add also feed into the Gore District as in their spending capacity are going to be held liable to a higher rate increase than the urban dwellers. In particular when it is common knowledge that rural residents are without the advantages of street lighting, storm water problems are our own, water units are at the cost of the farm, sewage is also dealt with at our cost. Including any local amenity albiet it the swimming pool, library, park etc that is available to be enjoyed comes at the cost of time and petrol and often over gravel roads with pot holes galore. It is cited that one of the advantages will be to up grade the Civic Centre 2016/2017. My concern is why? As I fail to see what difference this up grade will make to the rate payers or general public with regard to services provided when a rate payer will base their experience dealing with the council when it is personal assistance that leaves an impact, not a fancy office with a new swivel leather chairs etc. I am sure many rate-payers would like to attend to some renovations at their own properties but do not have the funds available, so why should their rates be assisting the council to up-grade their offices. My thoughts on Mataura pool are that it be pulled down, what can be sold is and a dog park be built instead, resulting in Gore people going to Mataura and ultimately feeding into that community via local shops and in particular the local SPCA shop. Schools only do swimming approximately 6 – 8 weeks a year and other local schools have to travel into Gore, via buses or car pooling. Thank you for listening. Alison Deaker

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

To: Gore District Council From: Federated Farmers of New Zealand Hearing Submission on: Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 Date: 26 May 2015

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to our submission. My name is Tanith Robb and I’m a Senior Policy Advisor for Federated Farmers of New Zealand, based in Invercargill. Federated Farmers acknowledges the submissions made by our individual members. Last year we were disappointed by Council’s response to our submission on the draft Annual Plan. We believe Council’s decision-making is strengthened by the interest and effort local ratepayers put into Council processes. I appreciate you will have read our written submission. So I would like to focus on summarising and expanding upon some of the key points we have made. Setting the fixed charge for each property Federated Farmers strongly opposes Council’s proposal to freeze the UAGC at $650 for 10 years.

This proposal would exacerbate the already disproportionate amount of rates that farmers in the District have to pay.

Council’s rationale for this proposal is based on the assumption that owners of higher value properties are better able to cope with rates increases than people who own lower value properties.

This is absolutely incorrect, and quite biased in favour of urban property owners, who tend to have significantly less of their overall wealth tied up in property.

Many farming families have large mortgages and low incomes – in other words their banks are asset rich and they are cash poor. Conversely, many families with one or two incomes in an urban setting will have much smaller mortgages and reliable yearly incomes.

2

Council assumes that the farming family will be more able to comfortably pay their rates – but the fact is that Council doesn’t know which family is in a better position to pay their rates.

Farming families are hugely disadvantaged by Council’s use of capital value based rates. The current value of the UAGC does not completely address the huge imbalance of rates burden in the District.

Under a capital value based rate, a farmer with a property worth $4m is obliged to pay 20 times the amount paid by the owner of a residential property with a capital value of $200,000, and to compound matters this does not reflect the relative benefit derived by each property owner from Council’s activities.

Rates aren’t ‘just a tax on land’ for these two key reasons. First, because councils should be concerned about funding their activities based on an assessment on who uses these activities and to what extent, and second because property values are only one measure of overall wealth, and no measure of relative income, particularly between different types of ratepayers.

Reliance on property values as a measure of either of these factors does not lead to equitable outcomes.

Capping the UAGC will increase the unfairness and inequity of Council’s rating system.

The UAGC is used to fund activities that benefit all ratepayers equally. Therefore, all ratepayers should contribute equal amounts to these activities through the UAGC.

Council’s role is not to redistribute assumed wealth in the District. Council’s role is to implement a fair and equitable rating system wherein those ratepayers creating demand for a service or benefitting from Council activities pay for them.

For those struggling to pay their rates, there is the Government established Rates Rebate Scheme. This provides rates rebates of up to $605 for those on low incomes – the majority of the UAGC. Farmers are not eligible for this assistance.

Council’s proposal to decrease the use of the UAGC from 27% of rates collected to 18% of rates over the course of the Long Term Plan actually increases the inequity and unfairness of its rating model, and moves the rating burden to a small portion of ratepayers that Council has no proof are in any better position to pay significantly more rates than ratepayers on lesser valued properties.

We strongly recommend that Council rejects the proposed decrease in the UAGC.

Instead, Council needs to look to maintain the current use of the UAGC to recover 30% of total rates revenue.

Proposed Rates Increases

We strongly oppose the forecast increase in rates for rural landowners, and the increased allocation to property value based rates.

3

In 2015/16, the proposed average rates increase in the District is 4.5%, but farmers are facing rates increases of between 5.5 and 8.5%.

These increases are significant, particularly as farmers, with relatively higher value properties required to make a living from, are already paying a relatively greater amount in rates.

For a farmer paying $10,000 in rates, in 2015/16 they will face an 8.26% increase, which represents an extra $826 in rates for the year ahead. For a residential ratepayer paying $2,000, they are facing a 3.49% rates increase, and a total increase of $70.

By increasing rural ratepayers rates to this degree, Council is exacerbating an existing discrepancy. In this example, the farmer’s increase alone is over 40% of the residential ratepayer’s total rates bill.

A farming property should not contribute a disproportionate amount to Council activities, where that property has no greater impact than that of a residential property, or where the direct benefits are not captured by the farming property. This is why we are such strong proponents of the UAGC and Council’s Fixed Targeted Ward Rates. Because these are the fairest methods the Council has available to pay for activities where everyone benefits relatively equally.

Federated Farmers considers that the Council needs to do more to curb rates increases. We recommend that Council reviews its proposed expenditure and cuts non-essential spending to reduce debt and increase rates affordability for its ratepayers.

Council needs to recognise that rural ratepayers are already paying significantly more rates that urban residents, and so should seek to ensure that use of capital value-based rates are kept to a minimum so that the disproportionate amount of rural rates is not exacerbated.

Looking After Our Heritage We recommend that Council focuses on the “must dos” rather than the “nice to haves” over the next 10 years. Council is facing a significant amount of capital expenditure on infrastructure over the next ten years, and ratepayers will be under pressure to fund these projects. On this basis, we question why Council is keen to progress the development of the heritage precinct at a cost of $2.2 million. Federated Farmers considers that this project should be delayed. We also oppose the proposed rating method to repay the loan required for this project, which will be “split between the uniform annual general charge and general rates.” The goal of the precinct as noted in the Consultation Document is for it to become “a major visitor attraction” and that the promotion of heritage tourism will be “one of the key drivers of economic development in the District.”

4

Yet funding of the proposal is going to fall back on general ratepayers and disproportionately on farmers because the loan required for the project will be paid back from the uniform annual general charge and general rates.

We consider that the costs of the development of the heritage precinct should be recovered from those ratepayers who stand to directly benefit from the additional commercial opportunities the precinct is aimed to provide, specifically the commercial sector and the accommodation sector.

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to our submission.

Safe Communities

Southland

A Regional Approach

Goal of Safe Communities Southland

Southland to be a safe place to live and work.

Achieved by organisations - private and public collaborating and communicating together of risk areas.

It’s not about making more work, but about working together on common goal

Background “Raising the conversation on Community

Safety” Hui held in August 2014. Wide range of government agencies and

community organisations came together to start the conversation on working together towards community safety.

Steering group presented to Mayoral Forum

Steering group presented concept to all 3 Councils and Regional Council.

Councils accepted idea and agreed to

Background Follow up Hui held on February 24th. Data was presented to the group on

Injury issues within the Southland area. “Safe in the South” report.

Identified issues of concern Four working groups steams were set up

with premise of moving this forward while awaiting a co-ordinator to support the programme.

Submissions to LTP to gain support from Council. F nding eq i ed f om Co ncils fo co

Recap of Safe Communities Concept

Why set up a Safe Communities Programme

Promote social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and the future

Designed to produce measureable outcomes that are important to individual communities

Even modest improvements in community safety will produce significant results.

As at 30 June 2014 28 NZ TLA are involved

Advantages of working together to reduce community risks

One message, many voices

Create clearer & more comprehensive picture of local risks

Coordinate efforts, reduce duplication and integrate planning

Provide access to other sectors, shared resources, develop collective expertise.

Southland’s Injury AnalysisSafe in the South report was completed in January 2015. Highlighted specific issues

for each TLA. Copy available on ICC website

Data presented at Hui and opportunity for organisations to voice their concerns

From this four areas emerged: Families Community Workplace Safety

Southland’s Injury Analysis Groups started a stocktake of what is happening in

the area, who is involved, what gaps can be identified.

Leads from each group appointed.

Training of these leads from Safe Communities Foundation to occur ends of May.

Working smarter not harder. Already agencies are starting to work together when may not have happened previously.

Verbal Submission Gore District Council Draft LTP 2015 - 2025

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to my submission

When I first asked for information on this LT Plan I was surprised to be informed that there was no

actual document of the Draft LTP available. Today on the Council web site there is still no document.

Strangely enough Clutha & Southland District Council's LTP are readily available on their web sites.

• Is there actually a Draft LTP?

• If so where is it?

• Why has it been held up?

• Is it because the LTP is unaudited that it does not appear on the web site?

• WHY have the auditors not passed the Gore District Council draft LTP?

Page 13 of the Annual Report 2014 it was stated "The Council will address the rates benchmark as

part of the 2015/25 Long Term Plan." I don't see any reference to this in the Consultation

Document. If the actual draft LTP was available one may have an idea of what this means.

The Mayor's comparison to other councils' use of the UAGC is a bit hollow. CODC with its recreation

& Culture activities, has a targeted rate based on a UAGC

Ward Rate Alexandra $178.24 Cromwell $367.88

Earnscleugh $ 83.64 Maniototo $366.09

Teviot Valley $211.57

This rate is for P&R, Pools, Museums, Sports clubs, some community halls & other recreation.

Another UAGC is set on a differential basis based on location. Recognition is given that equal access

is not possible something Gore Council will not recognise-Alexandra & Clyde Pools, Stadium, Parks.

Alexandra $297.82 17km boundary $178.69

17km & Beyond $ 29.78

Clutha Council does not have costly Culture and recreation activities draining rate payer resources.

Culture & recreation revenue takes 8% of Clutha's operating revenue whereas Gore takes 25%.

These people related services explain why GDC needs to uses the UAGC to the maximum. Let's not

forget that the balance of pools, stadiums and libraries have had to be put on the DWCV rate

because Gore DC overspends on non- core activities mainly in the Gore Township. The Parks and

reserves $2.3M rate has been set on a population based targeted rate.

Clutha policy of funding pools

Council has committed to providing a $1.35 million rates-funded grant towards the new pool. The grant is to

be repaid through rates over 25 years beginning a year after the grant is made. This will be predominantly by those in the Lawrence/TUapeka Ward, Lawrence township, with a portion of funding coming from ratepayers throughout the district. This is a similar funding formula to the other pools in our district.

1

Clutha has not spent on a state of the art waste management service which has increased Gore rates

substantially. Gore's operating costs for waste will push rates up this year by 15%.

This is the problem with all facilities when proposed not enough emphasis is put on the future on

going operating costs and maintenance costs. How often do we hear that more money has to be

found because of capital cost overruns? What is proposed in the CD plan for capital projects one

thing for sure is those costings will rise.

Clutha Council's Economic Development Trust recognises the value of its farming community with a

database set up of primary producers with over 900 farmers contacted. It is commendable that

Clutha sees the benefit of continuing to build relationships with rural industries that have potential

to support and grow the district's primary production sector.

Gore DC is silent on rural affairs it does not want to understand the resources and expectations of

rural communities, but thinks it is perfectly OK to radically change a funding policy that will penalize

rural folk who do not have equal access to Gore Township's facilities. It is clear that those who reside

in the Gore borough receive considerably more benefits than what their rural cousins do.

Management and Councillors have forgotten that rural folk have to fund their own water and

sewerage schemes, travel further distances, many on poorly maintained gravel roads, to actually use

any of the urban facilities. They do not ask for a hand out to help subsidise these costs.

The commercial sector should be asking the hard questions of their elected Gore Ward

representatives as to why they allowed the proposed radical changes to the UAGC to be put

forward. Insufficient information was given in the CD as to how this huge change would impact on

not only rural but commercial ratepayers.

The commercial sector with its already unreasonable differential will also be taken to the cleaners

with further disproportionate top-heavy rates taken from their businesses with many of these

already struggling. The down turn in the dairy industry will impact on those businesses that have

benefited in recent years from dairy conversions in the District.

Re Cr Beale's question this morning to Mr Gardyne I would like to point out that a shop owner who

did submit some years ago in favour of the UAGC at 30% told me that having put a lot of research

and time back then, it was obvious that with this council's mind-set he would be wasting his time.

Clearly there are savings to be made and it would be good for Councillors to read the Rate saver

report "101 ways to save money in Local Government.

Council vehicles are a drain on scarce resources. 5-yrs ago there were 33 vehicles. Today 41 - an

increase of 9. That is 27%. 11 of these are part of employment packages.

We were told years ago that having flash pools, arts & heritage centres, magnificent parks and

reserves would attract people to come and work in Gore. Why then does the CE not stand by his

convictions and remove the costly policy of cars being part of an employment package?

2

Looking at Clutha & Gore Annual reports it is clear that GDC management is anything but prudent.

Annual Report GDC Property, Plant & Equipment as at 1 July 2013 at cost

GDC Plant & equipment $3.192M

Motor Vehicles $1.451M

Total $4.653M

Clutha Plant & Motor Vehicles Total $3.160M

GDC At valuation Land $11.103M Buildings $12.881M

Clutha At cost Land $2.870M

Restricted Land $ 1.261M Buildings $ 2.971M

One wonders why Gore records the land and buildings at valuation when Clutha records at cost.

Employee Entitlements

Total GDC $705K Clutha $423K

Council Created Reserves Gore $184K Clutha

Retained earnings Gore $132K Clutha

Debt Gore $11.34M Clutha

$31.46M

$238M

NIL

Staffing 220K to 240K Gore 1 Clutha 1

100K to 160K 4 6

80K to 100K 7 5

60K to 80K 16 18

> $60K 93 60

Total PTE 89 67.5

Proportion of wages to Expenditure Gore 27% Clutha 12%

CO DC 19% SDC 18%

So the Mayor thinks he has the expertise to make Gore the most resilient provincial town in NZ. Well

actually Gore is a small rural town with a declining population and the hiring of consultants such as

First Retail Group is a further drain on scarce resources. Retailers do not require the services of a

consultant to tell them how to run their business.

For the DC to state that $3.2M to upgrade the Civic Centre to meet earthquake strengthening

standards is misleading. Why won't the CE release the Coles Consulting Ltd report which the CE says

is 'by its nature preliminary? When did this 'preliminary' report arrive?

I am at a loss as to why Councillors do not get the message that its proposed changes to the funding

policy is not consistent or effective and definitely not prudent. Council must forget its grandiose

schemes. The UAGC is the only fair option for those activities that give equal benefit to individuals

and must be increased back to the 30% level. In the CD you ask us to "please tell us what we have

got right," The community has given its answer 'nothing.'

3

Will council crumble again to requests for the likes of a cycleway to Mandeville?

I am an urban ratepayer who believes that rates should be set fairly and equitably. When the UAGC

was set at 30% some years ago I remember the CE making a comment that with the rates rebate

having been raised the impact on low income ratepayers would be lessened. Did he lobby central

government to have the threshold raised instead of targeting rural folk to pay for Gore township's

luxuries.

The imprudence of the past 10 or more years has caught up with this Council. The CD states that

there will be little change to council's level of service. Councillors have to be realistic at what a small

rural town can actually manage that is affordable to its urban ratepayers without draining rural

people's resources.

Amalgamation as put forward some years ago bringing in wider areas of the surrounding districts is a

feasible option. But it could be that Council having procrastinated for so long those areas would

have good reason to recoil at the thought.

Time does not allow me to speak to all parts of my submission, but believe that these have been

adequately covered in my submission.

Could the CE tell me why I did not receive the CD that I learned only this morning was sent to all

submitters wishing to speak to their submission?

Thank you

Sally Mclntyre

4

I

Submission to L.T. Plan 2015 - 2025 G.D.C.

26-05-15

Mayor, Councillors,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit.

First of all, we would like to commend Cr Sharp for alerting his constituents, & all rural constituents, to the effects likely to impact upon them from the reduction first, & then the freezing of the UAGC. Why is council alarmed at his publicising a most significant change to the L.T. Plan ? The GDC consultation document failed to mention or explain that the effects of the proposed changes would transfer costs across to Capital Rating, significantly hitting upon rural people & rural business.

A major fail for GDC transparency. Well done Cr Sharp for exposing the truth. Can council tell us that, which Cr Sharp said, wasn't true?

Amidst the publicity of the reduction of the UAGC, council has not explained at all just why population based costs, previously charged 100% to the UAGC should be shifted to District Wide Capital Rating. Almost 12% for Democracy, over 13% for Arts & Heritage, over 23% for cemetaries, and over 10% for Information centre.

We reject the reduction and fixing of the UAGC. Council must return the U.A.G.C. to 30% to fund "population" related expense. The approximation in the current submissions are 114 against freezing the UAGC & 24 for. This shows an overwhelming majority against what council is proposing.

The public need to understand that there is a cost to these activities, many of which are highly discretionary. Rates are a market signal and everyone should share in the cost. The attempt to shift true costs, creates distortions and unreal expectations.

The fact that GDC has expressed concerns that the rates, (its costs), that it is demanding from residents are becoming unaffordable, and the fact that it is attempting to load extra cost to others, is an admission that GDC itself is becoming unaffordable and unsustainable.

Council failed to explain to the public that rate funding of rural roads has been reduced by 5.69%. Given that rural roading is the one major service supplied by GDC to the rural wards, it is hard to understand why rural rates have been increased by up to almost 8.5%. But we all know that UAGC charges has been dumped on capital rating.

1

Mataura Pool. This should remain open. Any sort of local government, living up to its name, as a basic minimum, must protect its young. In Mataura, the Mataura River is a continual threat because of drownings. Years ago, the safety of a town pool was highly desired and finally attained in Mataura. The asset exists, the investment exists, it cannot, should not, be sacrificed, it must be retained. (Submissions, Mataura Pool retention, 149 for, vs 24 against.)

You've cut the rural reading, you're trying to close the Mataura Pool, but where are the sacrifices in Gore ? Any cuts to Parks & Reserves ? Is it that Gore Crs. have become selfish & greedy at the expence of Mataura & rural people.

The overwhelming response from submitters about the Arts & Heritage precinct is against redevelopment. It was 31 for, vs 111 against, and also for the Heritage preservation fund 31 for vs 117 against. This is resounding in the fact that the majority of people don't think that we can afford these things. If the council proceeds with these projects given this result, it is further evidence that it is all about Gore and about no-one else.

Civic Building. Forget this until proper plans are prepared and disclosed to the public. Separate out seismic strengthening requirement from discretionary office expansion. Why is it taking so long for seismic strengthening costs to be released ? Has the CEO received these costings yet? (Official information request) .Downsizing of staff should be a priority given the continuing district population decline, and the inexorable rising cost of council.

In the face of these developments, it was remiss of the Council not to have canvassed the opinion of the district about the desirabilty of amalgamation with a neighbouring authority. In the meantime, emphasis should be placed on, "shared services" with neighbouring councils. It is of concern that over the past 5 years council has employed 2 extra planners, an assistant for the accountant, 1 assistant migrant services, 1 communications officer, 1 community development officer, 1 strategist, 1 organiser for events, 1 road assistant, 1 footpath assistant, 1 weekend animal control officer, 1 at Croydon Aviation, 1 MET Events centre assistant, and talk is that a project manager is on the cards. All alarming for a small council, no wonder the Headquarters are crowded. This is 13 new positions for ratepayers to fund.

What is going wrong with G.D.C.? Here is a brief comparison with Clutha D.C.

Gore with a population of 12033,has a total asset value of plant & vehicles of $4.65m Clutha, population of 16890, total value of plant & vehicles of only $3.61 m.

How about wages. Gore, $5.2m representing 27% of it's operating costs. Clutha, a wage bill of only $4.4m representing only 12% of its operating costs.

3

It is disappointing that Gore Crs cannot keep key indicators within some sort of parity.

Go district Re. Never had public consultation. And why not ? Council never attempted to canvass local opinion about what local people deemed important, or significant or iconic. It has created confusion amongst locals, generating amusement amongst non-residents and across NZ, mostly unflattering. Can we get the money spent refunded?

It has been noted by a number of Gore people that the Go district Re logo is missing from the doors of Mayor Hicks' & CEO Parry's cars.

Go district Re was described as a "powerful tool for promoting the area and building pride in the community. ", .

"This is the first time the District has been branded and the Mayor sees it as an ideal vehicle to promote economic development, as well as bring cohesion to the marketing of the area's events, services and attractions."

Therefore, we believe that the logo should also be applied promptly to the Mayoral and CEO cars.

Arts & Heritage. It is claimed in the Consultation Document that council "sees the promotion of heritage tourism as one of the key drivers of economic development in the district". Ratepayers need facts & numbers, benchmarks and evidence of economic benefit. Will cashflows from A.&H. subsidise & eventually supplant rates ? No facts given.

The brazen attempt by GDC to bulldoze through wishlist and discretionary spending, at the same time as disguising its unaffordability by shifting substantial cost across to District-wide Capital Rating will impact significantly and economically upon the Gore District rural wards, ratepayers and rates. This has only succeeded in further antagonising and alienating rural ratepayers. GDC needs to understand clearly, that its actions are possibly incorrectly identified amongst the rural constituency as a financial assault by urban Gore. GDC is seen as little more than the old Gore Borough Council subsidising and benefiting itself by financially exploiting its expanded rural hinterland, and a minority group of the district. As a service town, Gore exists on goodwill. We believe that Gore urban business should view with alarm and concern any council action likely to polarise, antagonise and widen the urban/rural dichotomy.

f -

Return the UAGC back to its 30%, and retain its market signal. If the GDC believes that its costs are unaffordable, as its actions betray, then the correct and only proper course is to cut its cloth properly. The alternative leads on to the only conclusion which is local government amalgamation, reduction of duplication, better management and a community board.

Mark Copland Peter Hargest

Addendum to the agenda for the extraordinary meeting of the Gore District

Council to consider feedback to the proposed 2015 - 2025 Long Term Plan

consultation document, held on Tuesday 26 May 2015.

Report on feedback posted on the Council's Facebook page

(Memo from the Communications Manager)

As part of the Council's feedback opportunities for this year's Long Term Plan

process, the public was encouraged to put comments on the Council's

Facebook page.

It was made clear in the consultation document, Gore's Future, and any

promotional material that comments on social media would not be considered

as formal feedback but would be presented to councillors for their perusal.

There were three posts during the consultation period, which ran from 2 April

when the website page Gore's Future went live to 11 May.

Each post was boosted, in that it was paid to be pushed out to a targeted

audience. This audience was people aged between 16 years and 65 plus, living

within 40kms of Gore. Each boosted post had a maximum budget of $20. These

posts reached over 12,000 people and had high levels of engagement.

Please see below comments that were put up by people, many of whom would

not engage with the Council is if was not for this platform. Please note these

are unedited.

First post to encourage feedback on Gore's Future. Posted 8 April

It's time to have your say. Gore's Future, the Council's consultation document for our proposed Long

Term Plan 2015 - 2025 is out now and with some important projects in the pipeline, we would like

your feedback. Each week we will be highlighting some of the important issues, starting this week

with fixing the discoloured water West and North Gore residents have to put up with on occasion.

We see the removal of manganese and iron oxides from the water as a priority and plan to install a

treatment plant. The project will cost $1.7m and if you agree, we hope to have the plant working by

2016/17. For more information, you can get a copy of Gore's Future on our website

www.goredc.govt.nz/goresfuture, or from our Civic Centre office, the Gore and Mataura libraries,

and strategic locations around the District. If you want to have your say via social media just

#goresfuture - your comments will be forwarded to councillors although they will not be filed as

formal feedback.

6,976 people reached

Organic 284 Paid 6,692

Top Comments

http://www.goredc.govt.nz/goresfuture

Melissa Smith, James Hogan, Jessica Canning and 28 others like this.

3 shares

Lyn Berry You could start by learning to spell Gore properly. No other district/council breaks their

name like that. No wonder overseas visitors don't know they are in Gore when they get here.

Like • Reply • 11 • April 9 at 3:43pm

Nick Grant why consult your going to do what you want any way look at that red neck flag GO RE. so

yeah have your say they dont care what we think...

Richard Stewart and for christ sakes take down them boards with clown with that suit top and

gumboots down, people must laugh like hell at these stupid bloodly boards i know i do and shake my

head, this is what my rates goes to? gore council what a joke.


Maree Wilson Yea, well, it won't matter what we want, you do as you please, when you please, how

you please, tell us well after the fact, and if we don't like it you just thumb your nose's at us, here is a

question for you, and I bet a penny to a pound you won't give me an answer, let alone an honest

one, what has the Changing of the name from Gore, to GO RE cost us as rate payer's, and I mean the

total costs thus far, from letter heads on paperwork to signage on vehicles flags and bill boards, also,

could you provide information to us as Rate Payers of the Money we have all made from this change,

as I can tell you, I personally don't seem to be reaping any rewards from it, yet I seem to have paid

for it without consultation, you have a cheek if you ask me, people from surrounding districts

constantly ribbing us over this most pathetic attempt to get noticed by whom, I don't know, "get the

mirror out, stand back, and take a dam good look at yourselves"

Anntwinette Grumball Well u can start wit changing tat stupid no u tats sign in hokonui drive as a

professional driver in a heavy vehicle I didn't see the little pathetic sign and was pulld up by police

and told it was now no u turn and incurs a 150$ fine its the most pathetic intersection as a delivery

driver


Sean Mcmullen Make a decent sign be a good start

Like • Reply • 1 • April 10 at 1:47am

Post highlighting the Mataura playground proposal. Posted 16 April

Gore District Council

What do you think about creating a unique playground or cycle park, such as those pictured below,

at Tulloch Park, in Mataura? These are some of the options we have put forward in our consultation

document Gore's Future, which we need your feedback on. We have some big projects in the

pipeline for the next 10 years and now is the time to have your say. Feedback is open until 11 May.

Everything you need to know, including our new online submission form, can be found at

www.goredc.govt.nz/goresfuture


Organic 1,008 Paid 3,474

Top Comments

Ginamaree Scrumchy Nicholl, Nadine Bennett, Ada Mcleod and 72 others like this.

1 share

Wade Adams Mataura is becoming a pass through town for alot of people why not put something

to attract people to stick around rather than something that will get vandalised within Smins and

attract the wrong crowds to be around your kids

Like • Reply • April 18 at 4:08pm

Gore District Council Hi Wade - thanks for the feedback. One of the main reasons the Council is

thinking of developing a unique recreational attraction in Mataura is to give people a reason to

travel to the town and stop, and something to be proud of so hopefully it won't be vandalised. Check

out all the details around this proposal by reading the consultation document at

www.goredc.govt.nz/goresfuture

Vickie A Wright and how much are our rates going to go up by to pay for it


Gore District Council Hi Vickie - your rates will not be affected by this proposal, to get all the facts

go to http://www.goredc.govt.nz/.../recreational-opportunities.../

Like • Commented on by Sonia Gerken - April 18 at 8:48am ,

Hayley Dick If you put a park like this in Mataura do you think it could be mowed properly?? Or will

it be like the others where the grass just goes all over the roads when your finished & no one wants

to go to the park due to the excess grass they are covered in when they come home?? Mataura

right, it doesn't really matter about the upkeep, they should just be greatful to get the parks mowed!

Like • 2 • April 18 at 10:26am

Maree Wilson If the GDC are paying for something, it is coming out of our Rates, the thing that

blows me away, is what they pay themselves on top of everything else.

Like • 3 • April 18 at 7:42pm

Maree Wilson It won't matter what we think, The GDC will do as it please's.


Donna Bruce Maree u need to run 4 council. Im sick of them wasting my rates (which are planned to

rise AGAIN) the go-re idea is a joke and an embarrassment to the town


Nicola Vetters Well with the new kids hub being built at gore people wont come down there

probably better off doing up the pool and adding a hydroslide something that isnt in gore or gore

doesnthave


Malcolm White And in 10 years time they will move it to Go-Re like they do with everything else.

Toni Hurley I also think the pool is more valuable to keep than a skate park. Also agree with what

someone else said that the GDC will waste our rates where ever they like anyway. Can't see why we

don't upgrade our parks in gore and mataura and keep the pool for what it would actually cost to

remove pool and build something that will probably just be vandalized like most of the other

community things round here.


Galium Dickson Good idea the parks are getting quite dated but why not in gore where it will be

utilised better? Is pumping money into mataura sustainable?

Kristina Johnstone It is if you live there. Kids can't walk to gore. They have to use what's in their

town


Galium Dickson Mataura is literally five minutes from gore. What about people that live in rural

areas? Do they all need parks at every crossroads to?

Alison Thompson Gore needs a cycle/walking track

Wayne Murray i c the mataura haters on here still just want everything in gore, mataura residents

pay rates 2 and what we get the parks mowed once a week


Donna Bruce Waste of rate payers money sinking it into something like that in mataura. As a rate

payer not happy. Invest it in gore. And not something like the gross waste of money the go-re fiasco

Like - Reply • 4 • April 17 at 8:12pm

Dione Grant I really think Mataura, in particular its kids, needs a pool. Learning to swim is important

and despite the ongoing cost of the pool this is something that is worth paying for. A public pool is

one of those few things that caters for all ages. Has the council considered upgrading the pool

systems to make them more cost effective? Or adding to the pool rather than taking it away, what

about a gym or something similar?


Galium Dickson Why do we need two pools ten minutes from each other? Why can't the multi sport

complex be a hub for all the district to use? Rural people drive to town for sports and to use facilities

such as this.


Shirla Leask Not everyone can drive or afford to drive just to go swimming. What about the kids that

are missing out because of travel costs. Gore has enough parks and bike parks. Put the money to

better use like oh Idk schools Kindys. Give kids a better opportunity at school instead of wasting it on

yet another park that will just be ruind by vandals


Galium Dickson Schools are funded by the government not the council. Travelling is a fact of life in a

rural community.

Lisa Bushrod Brilliant idea. I would Def travel to mataura to take my kids there, as I'm sure many

other people would


Nick Grant mmmm smelly


Glenys Henderson I would love to see big improvements in all our parks, actually I remember back

about SOyears to playing on the exact see saws and swings that are still at the main street

playground in Gore now. That truely is sad


Patrina Medley What about a good one in gore too then


Kath Dillon Parks look great. I think people will travel further to go to a park than a pool. Something

for Mataura to take pride in.


Amber Perry Can u please use approximately $500 of that to pipe your diseased ridden water run off

that runs thru my yard first?


Kimberley Marshall Great idea mataura has stuff all at the moment


Peter Corcoran How a bought maintaining what we have some of the country roads and reserves are

in very poor shape rather than waste money on more projects we can't afford


Paige Kirk I think its a great idea.

Like • Reply • April 18 at 8:03pm

Glenys Henderson http://www.tripadvisor.co.nz/ShowUserReviews-g255370..., We have a very long

way to go Gore don't we

Like • Reply • Remove Preview • April 16 at 12:37pm

Sarsha Jacobsen-Moulton Awesome idea smile emoticon

Like • Reply • April 19 at 5:29am

Mia Mcvicar Kendra Mcmath imagine how munted these would get in mataura

Boost Post

Desktop News Feed

I Gore District Council

Mobile I lew 5 Feed Haw effertivesias'the boost?

1 new pho'os A Like Page Ci . •

What do YOU think about creating a unique playground or cycle park such as those pictured below atTulloch Park, in Mataura? These are some of the options we have:put forward in our consultation: document Gore's Future which we need your feedback on We have some big projects in the pipeline for the next 10 years and now is the time to have your say Feedback is open until 11 May Everything you need to know including our new online submission form: can tie found at www oorsdc ocr nz 3cr°s uture

3,474 Paid Reach m

Actions - ~:r : "

352 Photo Clicks

3 Link Clicks i

8 Page Likes

64 Post Likes

.38Cbmments

1 Share

Hiae Details

Audience and Payment

466 Actions

$20.00 Budget Spent:

Post to warn of feedback period closing. Posted 7 May

http://www.tripadvisor.co.nz/ShowUserReviews-g255370

You only have until next Monday (11 May) to have your say on the Council's plans for the next 10

years. If you care about such issues as fixing the discoloured water some residents have to put up

with, or redeveloping our world renowned heritage precinct to help drive economic development

then please tell us. Just go to our Gore's Future page at http://www.goredc.govt.nz/gores-future/

and fill in a feedback form online - it only takes a few minutes.


Organic 524 Paid 2,992

Top Comments

Cokoibusa Matelita, Cheryl Cavanagh, Margaret Maclean and 8 others like this.

Alison Deaker You forgot to mention freezing the UAGC for 10 years also!

Like • Reply • May 7 at 11:30pm

Gore District Council Hi Alison - yes freezing the UAGC at $650 and gradually increasing the use

of the valuation-based general rate is one of the big issues we want feedback on, as are recreational

opportunities in Mataura and upgrading water treatment plants. You will find all the information in

our consultation document - we look forward to your submission. Cheers

Like • Commented on by Sonia Gerken • May 8 at 9:15am • Edited

Kim Haar The brown water is from the Jacobs town well cos the council has bleed it dry. Maybe

they should ask the Sharp family how to actually keep water clean cos they seem to have taken

better care with the cooper's well on their land even environment southland has said so, but hicks

would never fess up to that he would rather bad mouth them instead making them out to be

irresponsible.

Like • Reply • 3 • May 7 at 8:05pm

Gore District Council Hi Kim - you are right, the discoloured water is from the Jacobstown. There

is plenty of water in the well however we limit use of it because of the discolouration, which is

caused by high levels of manganese and iron. The presence of these trace elements is probably due

to a nearby underground layer of lignite. Check out our consultation document for more info. Cheers

Like • Commented on by Sonia Gerken • May 8 at 9:45am • Edited

Nick Grant it is law that you supply as with clean drinking water so there is nothing to talk about just

do it!

Like • Reply • 6 • May 7 at 5:04pm

Clause G12-Water Supplies Provisions Objective G12.1

The objective of this provision is

to-

(a) safeguard people from illness caused by contaminated water:

(b) safeguard people from injury caused by hot water system explosion, or from contact with

excessively hot water:

(c) safeguard people from loss of amenity arising from-

(i) a lack of hot water for personal hygiene; or

(ii) water for human consumption, which is offensive in appearance, odour or taste

Nick Grant new Zealand building code G12 last line states it all!

Like • May 8 at 6:15am

Gore District Council Morning Nick - thanks for raising this as another of our big projects we want

feedback on is spending an estimated $4.9m to bring Gore and Mataura water supplies up to NZ

Drinking Water Standards. Check out the consultation document for more info - we look forward to

your submission. Cheers

Like • Commented on by Sonia Gerken • May 8 at 8:17am

Krystal Harrison Definitely going to fill this out and my vote is for a Dog Park. Or is Gore really that

AntiPooch as it makes out to be?

Like • Reply • 1 • May 7 at 9:31am

iocst Post •••••••••• •••••••• ... • ... •

Desktop New# Fe#0 MoMIe Nesis Feed

' : Gore District Council " 2 net. pho.os * i&e p***

You only have until next Monday (11 May} to have your say on the Council's plans for the next 10 years. If you care about such issues as fixing the discoloured water some residents have to put up with, or

redeveloping our world renowned heritage precinct to help dive economic development then please fell us. Just go to our Gore's Future page at

nip "»-.r" gc,"ecc gcr"z-gr-e- ''iitr-' and Jill in a feedback form online -

it only takes a few minutes,

HtiWBffedtiWwsS.Ihe boosts Wv#' fit fir :"r

$19.95 Budget Spent:

M 12 Post Likes } •

8 Comments I

4 Shares

H fie cetailR


2,992 120 Paid Reach m Actions r

Actions - f - - 1 .; ;

6?:pfiotoCffcks;

. 26 lwk Clicks

3 Page Likes _

12 Post Likes

8 Comments

4 Shares

Hide details


Minutes of an extraordinary meeting of the Gore District ... · Minutes of an extraordinary meeting...

Documents

Transcript of Minutes of an extraordinary meeting of the Gore District ... · Minutes of an extraordinary meeting...