IAWAI Water Services Strategy

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this feedback.
I write as a senior civil engineer and someone who has a strong interest in urban planning and the local economy
My first observation is that it is concerning that Debt is forecast to increase exponentially in the next five years.
This contradicts the stated aim of 'Growth paying for growth'.
To me this is more like robbing future generations of opportunity, which is blatently unfair.
There is a case for taking on debt for transformative projects which are going to hugely benefit future generations, but that case has not really been made - and it would seem that the debt being taken on is largely for maintenance of what we already have.
There should be a clear accounting excercise untertaken to show that maintenance costs will be met by rates, and growth in Treatment plants will be met by development contribututions.

Partially support

First off I understand that this is a complex issue which requies a nuanced approach.
This is a step in the right direction, however, the growth charges need to take into account the vast difference between infill housing and greenfield developent.
Infill housing makes better use of what we have already, and has a barely any impact on asset maintenance.
Greenfield developments add a large amounts of costly liability and maintenace to councils balance sheets.
For example the currnent subdivision I am working on as a civil engineer requires four pump stations and a rising main 4km long, all of which will need to be maintained in perpetuity by Council.
Greenfield also inevitably increase congestion on inner suburbs to an unbearable level then requiring road upgrades that were not envisioned at the start of the project.
In summary Council cannot afford to be agnostic about where growth should occur if it does not want to bankrupt future generations.

Partially support

As per my previous answer the HUE for greenfield subdivision, does not account for the increased asset maintenance burden.
Infill, and especially granny flats utilize existing infrastructure optimially, and need to be encouraged via exemption from HUE, but instead increase the rates bill so as not to pose unnecassary barriers to entry.
The benefit of this type of housing is that it supports multiple generations living together supporting each other which is a great result for NZ as it reduces the strain on the health system. It also gives a way for first home buyers to avoid taking on massive debt, as they can easily biuld a house on thier parents section. Later when they want to subdivide they can be charged the HUE

There needs to be in person meetings where we can hold our representitives to account, and get transperancy on how decisions are made and what the makup of the organisation is.

Partially support

I support engagement with the public but there needs to be more than just a statement.
1. Why only consult on projects worth more than 10% of IAWAI annual budget or over 25% of all assets? This seems like a very high bar for doing engagement and send the message that CFonsultation with the publ;ic is just a hassle to get through not an oppotunity to spend money in a better more targeted way.
2. Projects in line with the Water Service Strategy are not going to be consulted on. It is not clear why this prevents consultation with the cummunity.
This just seems like a backdoor way to avoiding meaningful engagement.

No

No, these are my own personal views