WATERFORD BOUNDARY COMMITTEE ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND • Committee established June 2015 • Public consultation 17th Nov- 15th Jan 2015 • Area of Interest 2,380 ha
• 6,500 population • Report to Minister Dec 2016. • Published Feb 2017
BACKGROUND • 19,131submissions 19,096 for retaining boundary
• 99.85% in favor of no change • Widespread geographical spread of submissions • Evidence of united county • 299 submissions from Waterford City & County
• Only 29 submissions in total favoured a boundary change.
THE COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS • Both local Authorities – High level of commitment to their communities • Very efficient in day to day service delivery costs. • High level of collaborative engagement in delivery of services acknowledged
• Little scope for delivery of future efficiencies (no savings ) • Dedicated elected members in both Kilkenny & Waterford. ( real servants of their communities)
THE COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS • Physical constraints to development north of river • City exclusively on South Bank : due to • Width & strength of River Suir & the Local Topography , • Distinct pattern of development – industrial uses port- railways
• Centuries of development on the South Bank. New Motorway Infrastructure makes North South connections more feasible. • Natural location for original boundary would be River Suir
THE COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS • PLUTS objectives valid and coherent • PLUTS needs to be revised – (Kilkenny involved even if boundary changes).
• Include deliverables and timeframe - new downstream crossing - north quays a game changer • Belview Port a strategic regional asset ( Developed in partnership with Port Authority) • KCC has taken a strategic approach to Belview development
• Collaboration at strategic level less evident. • No joint retail strategy • No implementation plan for PLUTS
• Existing boundary overly complex impractical and outdated
THE COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS • Kilkenny figures not in dispute • Rates harmonization is difficult & complex
• Both LA’s to work together to negotiate an equitable compensation • Assumes no significant impact on rate payers.
• Many complex and legal problems in moving boundary to centre of river • Compensation would have to be paid by WCCC to KCC • Additional Costs for Waterford & Kilkenny • Waterford to keep local office open • Kilkenny would require new base
ATHLONE/ROSCOMMON REVIEW • Similar context and issues as Waterford/Kilkenny • No boundary change recommended • Greater cooperation recommended • To develop strategic plan/vision ( like PLUTS) • To prepare a retail strategy
• Develop day to day cooperation/service delivery
COMPARE & CONTRAST Waterford/Kilkenny
Athlone/Roscommon
Large no. of submissions Widely distributed
√
√
Voice of people Democratic wishes Recognized
x
√
Gateway status
√
√
Better local government ref Putting people first
x
√
Identity
x
√
History of cooperation
√
x
Overarching strategy
√
x
COMPARE & CONTRAST Waterford/Kilkenny
Athlone/Roscommon
Joint retail strategy
x
x
Enhance strategic cooperation
x
x
Large urban area & population removed from MD
√
√
Efficient service delivery recognized
√
√
Existing cooperation acknowledged
√
√
Time for MD to develop potential
x
√
COMPARE & CONTRAST
Single regional area
Waterford/Kilkenny
Athlone/Roscommon
√
X ( two regions)
Same issues – Very Different Outcome
ANALYSIS • Kilkenny proactively sought implementation of PLUTS • Kilkenny proactively sought preparation of retail strategy • Waterford did not lead on implementation of PLUTS
• Apparent inconsistencies in the work of both committees • Quantum of responses to public consultation ignored • Near unanimity of submissions in Waterford/Kilkenny ignored
ANALYSIS • Original PLUTS caters for growth of 1.6 times its size • Ample land available within WCCC area - No additional zonings • Focus on regeneration of Waterford city required not additional land.
• North Quays • A new railway station • Three new bridges
• Michael Street retail development required.
ANALYSIS • Updated PLUTS required. • Strategic cooperation required irrespective of proposed boundary change • Committee sights this as a reason for proposed boundary change – does not address the substantive issue of PLUTS implementation • Joint retail strategy still required irrespective of proposed boundary change
• Existence of boundary not an issue for national organisations (IDA, Enterprise Ireland, TII)
ANALYSIS - FINANCIAL IMPACT • Submission by KCC to the Boundary Committee set out in detail the financial impact on KCC of a proposed boundary based on the AOI. • Loss of Income from Commercial Rates. • Loss of Income from Local Property Tax. • Loss of Income from Development Contributions. • No Opportunity for Cost Savings would arise. • Additional Capital Costs to be incurred by KCC in the provision of services to the remaining residents in the Pilltown MD. • Businesses in the AOI would suffer a 10% increase in commercial rates as the ARV for WCCC is higher than the 2016 ARV for the former Kilkenny County Rating Area.
ANALYSIS - FINANCIAL IMPACT • KCC estimate of the value of the Income lost - €110m. • Method of calculating the loss was reviewed by PWC.
ANALYSIS - FINANCIAL IMPACT • Report of the Boundary Committee: • Acknowledge that there is no scope for delivery of further efficiencies in day-to-day service delivery costs – Ref Page 42. • Recognition of the pro-active approach by KCC to the investment in Belview. • Recognition that the relative levels of expenditure on services by both authorities are judged appropriate for the need. • Acknowledge that KCC would suffer serious financial loss in the event of a boundary change – Ref Page 44. • Acknowledge that KCC would have to be compensated. • Commercial Rates Differential: • Committee there would be no significant Impact. • KCC does no agree and believe the differential is in excess of 10%.
ANALYSIS - FINANCIAL IMPACT • Revised Estimate of the Financial Loss based on the proposed boundary revision: • Estimated value of the Financial Loss is €48.6m.
• Plus Capital cost for the provision of infrastructure to serve the remaining population in the Piltown MD - €2m.
ISSUES ARISING • The solution recommended in Athlone/Roscommon is exactly what KCC is advocating. • Kilkenny has a vested interest in Waterford city developing.
• A strong Waterford = a strong region = a strong Kilkenny (Ní neart go Cur le Chéille) • Waterford City Region requires: • A university, an opened & expanded airport,
• New railway station + improved services, • 3 new bridges
• Delivery on SEAP for Jobs.
• A boundary change will not deliver these
ISSUES ARISING • Strategic cooperation has expanded significantly in recent years. - Not recognized by committee • Three sisters Capital of Culture Bid • South East Action Plan for Jobs, Tall Ships, • Revising PLUTS – LAP/LECP joint workings and public consultations.
• Regular meetings at MD level
OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE • Option 1 - No change • Boundary admin nuisance- interferes with optimum delivery
• Lack of implementation of PLUTS
• Option 2 - Same boundary + improved cooperation • Practical application significantly problematic in terms of delivery
• Significant natural rivalries • No agreement on joint retail strategy
• Successive boundary proposals by Waterford – reduced level of trust/collaboration
OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE • Option 3 – Change boundary to centre of River • Many complex administrative and legal problems
• Little practical advantage
• Option 4 – Boundary extended to Area of Interest • Not a natural boundary
• Belview a National & Regional asset • Belview separated from Ferrybank by greenbelt
OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEE • Option5 – Boundary extension All of Kilculliheen part of Aglish and Dunkit • Existing boundary overly complex impractical & outdated
• Provide an adequate buffer to cater for future projected growth • Recognises issues of identity raised for Slieverue village
• Structure and aspirations of PLUTS coherent and appropriate • PLUTS needs revision • Deliverables – New Railway station, 3 additional bridges, • North Quays – game changer
IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS • Boundary Change • Identity Change for 5,581 persons to be transferred - 1,252ha ( 3,092 acres) (52% of AOI) • All of Kilculliheen & parts of Dunkit & Aglish
• Slieverue village & Belview to remain in Kilkenny • Reconfiguration of Municipal Districts • People disenfranchised ( lesser representation in a larger area)
• New location for Services required in South
IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS • Implications for ETB • Implications for current staff • Waterford to pay compensation ( only rates + property tax referenced)
• Setting precedent in National Context ( Cork, Dublin, Limerick, Athlone, Bray, Carlow, Drogheda) • Minister to decide – context is the NPF and the future of local government. • Minister must place any boundary change before houses of the Oireachtas.
THE AREA RECOMMENDED
SUMMARY 1.
No Savings achievable from Recommendation
2.
No Efficiencies achievable Recommendation
3.
PLUTS & Retail Strategy
4.
•
Co-ordinate across local authorities and wider public policy levels
•
Supporting NPF
•
Powers available under current legislation
Waterford to Grow under NPF •
Capacity available to double City without boundary change
Why Are We Doing This ?