|
Resolution number HB/2012/22
MOVED by Member Parfitt, seconded Member Holmes:
a) That the Final Decision-making for Local Board Budgets
2012-2022 report be received.
b) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local
Board:
i) Approves balanced 10-year budgets for
2012-22 for the Council’s Long-term Plan 2012-22 that reflect the proposed
allocation of decision-making
ii) Advises the Governing Body
that:
a)
Not all Local Board decision-making has
corresponding budgets for the local activities and this matter needs to be
addressed with some urgency in order to adequately address the funding
allocations at the local board level.
b)
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board have
achieved a balanced budget, and in doing so moved out projects by two or more
years and some budgets were removed. These projects were identified
by the community and recognised as a priority by Hibiscus and Bays Local
Board.
c)
There was little flexibility for the
Local Board to make potential cuts/savings as many budget lines were unable
to be altered as many budget lines were for renewals or contractually
committed and the Local Board was not involved in the decision making around
contracts or ongoing commitments.
d)
Budgets that sit regionally and include
programmes that are delivered locally have not been visible to the Local
Board, which made it impossible to determine future budgeting options
accurately.
e)
The Local Board has significant
concerns where officers have made budgeting decisions without authority and
without proper approval from the Local Board i.e. budgets being brought
forward from future years into the current financial year.
f)
The budget envelope failed to address
the funding gaps carried forward from the former Hibiscus subdivision of Rodney District Council in the areas of arts, events, economic and community development.
g)
That the budget envelope does not
enable Hibiscus and Bays or the Governing Body to deliver on the Auckland Plan imperatives. An example of this is Silverdale as a Key Transformation
project and the associated growth opportunities that will result from the approved
Auckland Plan that will be required in the Hibiscus and Bays area in response
to growth and where infrastructure will be required to meet the demands of
the increased population for the Local Board area.
h)
The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board requests that the
scholarship fund for high schools within the Local Board area be reinstated
into the Local Board budget.
i)
The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board requests that the
Governing Body advise why camping grounds within local parks and reserves
(e.g. the holiday park in Orewa) are no longer shown as a local activity nor
are the budget shown at the Local Board level.
j)
That the Local Board expresses its
concerns that proposed changes to the non-regulatory decision-making removes
delegations that should be reasonably allocated at the Local Board Level.
i) The Local Board has undertaken an
assessment of the changes proposed and requests a clear explanation and
analysis of the detail of those changes and the intentions of the amendments
to the November 2010 Allocation of Non-Regulatory Decision-Making.
k) The Local Board is concerned that
Development Contributions have not been accurately recorded against all
capital projects in the Local Board area and requests that officers clearly
explain, in plain English how the proposed draft policy compares to the
legacy policies and explain the impact of the new policy.
iii) Confirms the list of advocacy areas for
the Governing Body and council-controlled organisations as per Attachment 3
and the following additional advocacy areas:
Advocacy to
Governing Body:
a) Waiving of Consent Fees Policy for
not-for-profit community groups and organisations.
b) Traffic Management Plans and in
particular the costs associated with traffic management for local events.
c) Changes to the proposed environmental
health and licensing fees and charges and the effect the increase of costs
associated with this will have on café/food operators in our Local Board
area. A practical approach needs to be considered to ensure that we work
towards a “Liveable City”.
iv) Documents any feedback on:
a) The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
provide the following comments to the Governing Body on the decisions made by
the Strategy and Finance Committee to ‘clarify local board budget parameters’
at its meeting on 3 April 2012:
i) That the $87.5m additional capital
expenditure budget agreed for “sportsfields improvements” noted in resolution
b) iii) b) should be allocated using agreed criteria across the whole of
Auckland including the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.
ii) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
consider that the definition of a ‘major’ upgrade noted in resolution b) iii)
c) being $1million, is too low particularly given that it is not possible to
complete a single facility to an adequate standard with this amount of money
so no local “major upgrades” will be able to meet the test.
iii) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
consider that the definition of a ‘major’ upgrade noted in resolution b) iii)
c) is unclear in terms of how the “facility’s replacement value” will be
calculated.
iv) That the transfer of budget to Local
Boards based on Governing Body reprioritisation decisions in resolution b)
iv) is noted and accepted and that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board are
concerned that there is currently no opportunity for Local Boards to input
into the timing of these projects and budgets.
v) That resolution b) viii) regarding the
requirement to “prepare budgets for the Long Term Plan that balance every
year” is noted and that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board consider it
unnecessary to ensure total balances in the later years given the opportunity
to re-visit these budgets within three years.
vi) That in balancing their budgets in
accordance with resolution b) viii) the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board note
that the allocation of discretionary to non-discretionary items gave little
flexibility to cut budgets and there was no visibility of what was being
delivered regionally, resulting in no true ability to increase levels of
service, instead the Local Board was forced to focus on retaining current
levels of service.
vii) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
consider resolution b) x) regarding any changes to the allocation of
decision-making resulting in the “re-mapping” of associated budgets to be
contrary to the intent of the legislation which formed the Auckland Council
and intended local matters to be addressed by local boards and that elected
members work together under a ‘co-governance’ model.
c) Region-wide priorities
i) The regional priorities do not benefit
the entire region and the ‘flow on’ benefits are unlikely to be realised for
the whole or Auckland.
ii) The Southern Initiative ($1.4 million)
needs to leverage other funding i.e. from Central Government so that Council
funding enables comprehensive projects.
iii) COMET ($1.4 million) this needs to be
reconstituted across all Auckland with the clear ability to leverage funding
from Central Government.
iv) Silverdale is a transformational project
but where are the growth projects and funding for the North.
v) Penlink and other related projects (e.g.
Curley Ave) are supported but too late in the Long Term Plan timetable.
Penlink will support the future growth needs of the area, provide jobs during
construction and address congestion.
vi) Waterfront Theatre ($10 million) is
dependant on Auckland Theatre raising additional funding and should not be
confirmed unless this funding is guaranteed.
vii) Many of the projects involve Auckland Council contributing millions of dollars for the benefit of private enterprise.
Our Local Board questions whether this is a role of Auckland Council that
will directly benefit specific industries or companies. There is a lot of
high spending for little return for the whole of Auckland.
viii) Confirm that alternative funding
mechanisms, such as Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) and Build Own Operate
Transfers (BOOTs) will be investigated for projects like the cruise ship
terminal, super yacht facility and marine developments.
d) Region-wide policies
i)
Revenue and financing policy:
Depreciation should be funded to maintain Council assets.
ii) Development Contributions policy:
The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will advocate that this policy provide for
future growth. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board disagrees with any proposed
reserve contribution lower than the allowable 7.5% under legislation and
believes that all contributions taken from a Local Board area should be used
within that local board area (not regional catchments).
ii)
Public private partnership policy (PPP):
The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board supports the use of PPP’s where
appropriate.
iv) UAGC (rates): This rate needs to be
set at the highest dollar value.
vii)
Dog Registration: Fees need to identify
responsible dog owners allowed for under legislation and responsible dog
owners should be advantaged not disadvantaged.
vI Rationalise dog control service
contracts across Auckland to achieve potential savings.
vii) Swimming Pool (free entry to swimming
pools): A 5th option where users due charged the same across all swimming
pools is supported.
viii)
Rates remission for community owned
halls and facilities needs to be continued.
ix) The proposed rates: A transition
policy that will address the significant increases in capital values is
supported so that limits the increase to individual properties will be phased
in over three years.
x) Surf Life Saving: Surf Life 10/20
funding (budgets and associated grand funding is supported).
e) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local
Board notes:
i) The financial guidance required to
finalise budgets is attached to this report, including key decisions made by
the Strategy & Finance Committee on 3 April
ii) Local board budgets for 2012-22 must
balance in every year
iii) If budgets do not balance in every
year, the Strategy & Finance Committee has advised that it will respond to any advice provided by the local board about how
to balance its budget if required. If this has not occurred, it will balance
the budgets by proportionately reducing the budgets for the local boards
discretionary projects to address the overspend.
iv) A list of additional projects that
would be funded if additional funds were available can be prepared if
required and discussed with the governing body during meetings on 14-18 May
v) The financial statements attached to
this report have been updated since the draft Long-term Plan to reflect
budget refresh adjustments, the allocation of
previously unallocated capital expenditure and the allocation of centralised
costs, including staff
CARRIED
|
