2 Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from
decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any
private or other external interest they might have.
4 Leave of Absence
At the close of
the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
5 Acknowledgements
At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been
received.
6 Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been
received.
7 Deputations
Standing
Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are
required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications
are approved by the Chairperson of the Orākei Local Board. This means that
details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total
speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.
At the close
of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.
8 Public Forum
A period of
time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to
address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3
minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from www
members.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been
received.
9 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with
at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides;
and
(b) The presiding member explains at the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item
cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting
if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the
general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the
beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the
item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation
may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent
meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
10 Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had
been received.
|
Orākei
Local Board
23 April 2015
|
|
Feedback for
the Orakei Local Board on the draft Long-term Plan 2015 – 2025 consultation
File No.: CP2015/05360
Purpose
1. This
report accompanies raw and summarised feedback from Orākei residents and
groups on the draft Long-term Plan 2015 - 2025 (LTP), so this can be publicly
received by the Orākei Local Board. Based on this feedback, the report
recommends:
· Messages for the Budget
Committee on regional proposals such as rates increases and transport
investment.
· Advocacy positions to
the Budget Committee on Orākei projects or initiatives that require
governing body and/or council controlled organisation support.
2. The Orākei Local Board’s 23 April 2015 extraordinary business meeting is also
an opportunity to formally request the governing body brings forward the
upgrade of the Meadowbank Community Centre from the LTP proposed date of
2020/21 to 2015/16.
Executive
summary
3. Consultation
on the LTP ran from January 2015 until 16 March 2015. We received and processed
written feedback from 27,383 submitters, of which 1648 listed Orākei as
their local board. We also gathered feedback through community meetings, the Orākei
Have Your Say event on 3 March 2015 and feedback submitted through social
media. Raw feedback from all these sources is attached for reference.
4. The
strongest messages from the Orākei community on the regional LTP proposals
were:
· Opposition to the proposed
3.5 per cent overall rates increase
· Opposition to reducing
the business differential
· Support for a higher
uniform annual general charge
· Opposition to the
creation of a Development Auckland council-controlled organisation.
5. Submitters
also expressed strong support for the Orākei Local Board’s advocacy
projects: the Tamaki Harbour Edge Connector boardwalk, Pourewa/Selwyn train
station and a more equitable balance between regional and local investment.
6. Draft
Orākei messages on regional LTP proposals and the Orākei advocacy
projects are included in Attachment A. These are based on the community
feedback and directions from the Orakei Local Board’s workshops. The Board’s
agreement is sought to send this to the Budget Committee to inform its workshops
with local boards from 24 to 29 April 2015.
7. The
draft LTP schedules the upgrade of Meadowbank Community Centre for 2020/21. As
the project is a priority for the board and is supported by the Orakei
community, the board may wish to formally request that the governing body
brings forward the upgrade to 2015/16. The board may also wish to express its
concern about the wording of the consultation questions.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Orākei Local
Board:
i) receives this report and the attached feedback from
Orākei submitters on the draft Long-term Plan 2015 – 2025.
ii) notes that a majority of submitters expressed support
for the Orakei Local Board’s proposals.
iii) confirms the following list of advocacy points, based
on community feedback and board member discussions, for its workshop with the
Budget Committee on 29 April 2015:
Regional
Proposals - top four consultation topics
|
Investing in Auckland
|
|
The Orakei Local Board supports an
overall rates increase of 2.5 per cent, not the proposed 3.5 per cent
increase. The Orakei community is also strongly opposed to the 3.5 per cent
increase. The Board and its constituents support making savings in the
governance and support activity area and reviewing the operating
expenditure on Ports of Auckland that is included in this line. We do not
feel confident ratepayers are getting value for money from this
expenditure; for example some of the planning work council and its
subsidiaries undertake seems to serve little purpose. We also support
making savings in the economic and cultural activity area.
|
|
Fixing Transport
|
|
Neither the basic transport network
nor the Auckland Plan transport network provide positive transport
solutions for the Orakei Local Board area. The board's top priority
advocacy projects, which have been extensively consulted on with residents,
are not included in either option: developing a new train station in
Selwyn/Pourewa and separating traffic along Tamaki Drive through THE-C
boardwalk. The cases for tolls or petrol taxes have not been well made and
more time is needed to better explain and consult with our residents on
these options before a preferred option can be agreed.
|
|
Your Rates
|
|
The Orakei Local Board supports
increasing the UAGC to $500 as the burden on Orakei residential ratepayers
is already too great. We also consider any reduction in the business
differential should take into account the impact on residential ratepayers.
There was more support for increasing the UAGC in Orakei than in the rest
of the region and a large majority of Orakei LTP submitters opposed
reducing the business differential. The board considers the business rates
question was poorly framed and did not explain the council’s policy on this
issue. We support a 10 per cent cap on residential rates increases in
2015/16.
|
|
Housing and Development
|
|
Not enough information has been
provided on this and from the Orakei Local Board's perspective it is not
clear what the benefits are: it does not guarantee key Orakei placemaking
projects, such as the Tamaki Drive Masterplan, will be advanced. A majority
of Orakei LTP submitters opposed this initiative, in contrast to the rest
of the region.
|
Local Priorities
|
Advocacy
request
|
Activity
area
|
Why is it
a priority
|
Funding
implications or options
|
|
Upgrade
Meadowbank Community Centre
|
Parks,
Community and Lifestyle
|
The facility
has not been fit for purpose for a number of years and renovations have
been deferred as demand has increased. As it is centrally located and
easily accessible, an upgrade would benefit a wide area. Consultation on
the LTP and the LBP showed a majority of the Orakei community support
upgrading the centre. The Community Facilities Action Plan did not rate the
project an action priority.
|
The projected
cost is $3.6m. In the current LTP the project was scheduled for 2016/17 but
this has been pushed back to 2020/21 in the proposed LTP. The Orakei Local
Board requests that this is brought forward to 2015/16.
|
|
Advocate to
the governing body for a more equitable balance between larger-scale
regional initiatives and investment at the local level
|
Governance and
Support
|
This is a
general advocacy point in response to the Orakei Local Board area paying
the highest residential rates in the region and getting a relatively low
level of council investment. The projects that are being progressed in the
LTP do not always reflect local priorities. The Board proposes that local
boards' top priorities should replace the lowest regional priorities.
|
No direct
funding implications overall, but would result in a decrease in regional
projects and an increase in local projects.
|
|
Reduce the
burden on ratepayers
|
Governance and
Support
|
A clear
message from the Orakei community is that the rates burden is a significant
issue for residents. In addition to increasing the UAGC, the Orakei Local
Board asks that the governing body explore other options for keeping rates
down, including reviewing its ownership of non-core elements of council’s
holdings in the port and the airport and slowing the move to fully fund
depreciation.
|
No direct
funding implications.
|
CCO Priorities
|
Advocacy
request
|
Activity
area
|
Why is it
a priority
|
Funding
implications or options
|
|
Tamaki Harbour
Edge Connector boardwalk
|
AT - Cycleways
and walkways
|
This is a
priority project from the Tamaki Drive Masterplan, which was developed
through community consultation. The community has expressed strong support
for the project through the LTP and the Local Board Plan and the Orakei
Local Board considers that insufficient progress has been made on this
project since it was signed and endorsed by the mayor.
|
Not costed
|
|
Advocacy
request
|
Activity
area
|
Why is it a
priority
|
Funding
implications or options
|
|
Selwyn/Pourewa
Train Station
|
AT - Public
transport
|
The Orakei
community expressed strong support for this project through consultation on
the LTP and the LBP. It contributes to the Auckland Plan transformational
shift of moving to outstanding public transport within one network. AT is
undertaking a feasibility study and this project must be included in the
final LTP.
|
Not costed
|
Regional
Proposals – other proposals with local impact
|
Comment on proposed level of
service changes
|
|
The Orakei Local Board supports in
principle efforts to drive efficiencies in council services. However, very
little information has been provided about the proposed level of service
changes in the Long-term Plan Revised Local Budgets document and we cannot
endorse them until we have a clearer indication of the impact on our constituents.
We also support further investigation of other options, such as the sale of
non-core elements of council’s shareholdings in the port and airport that
would allow council to minimise rates increases and maintain levels of
service. Below are some specific comments on proposals to change services.
|
|
Proposal
|
Feedback
|
Funding
implications or options
|
|
Standardise
community library opening hours, including reducing central city library
opening hours to match those of our local community libraries
|
The facility
has not been fit for purpose for a number of years and renovations have
been deferred as demand has increased. As it is centrally located and
easily accessible, an upgrade would benefit a wide area. Consultation on
the LTP and the LBP showed a majority of the Orakei community support
upgrading the centre. The Community Facilities Action Plan did not rate the
project an action priority.
|
See board
proposals for minimising rates increases.
|
|
Remove some
street gardens which have high maintenance and safety costs compared to the
benefit they offer and replant some street gardens with low maintenance
perennials
|
This is a
general advocacy point in response to the Orakei Local Board area paying
the highest residential rates in the region and getting a relatively low
level of council investment. The projects that are being progressed in the
LTP do not always reflect local priorities. The Board proposes that local
boards' top priorities should replace the lowest regional priorities.
|
See board
proposals for minimising rates increases.
|
|
Increase the
time taken to deliver new library collection items onto the library shelves
and introduce a new fee when users do not pick up a request book from a
library
|
A clear
message from the Orakei community is that the rates burden is a significant
issue for residents. In addition to increasing the UAGC, the Orakei Local
Board asks that the governing body explore other options for keeping rates
down, including reviewing its ownership of non-core elements of council’s
holdings in the port and the airport and slowing the move to fully fund
depreciation.
|
Proposal has
potential savings.
|
|
Proposal
|
Feedback
|
Funding
implications or options
|
|
· Growing levels of
community participation across the region
· Communities
contributing towards the achievement of outcomes that meet their priorities
· Local
prioritisation and delivery
· Diverse community
needs being recognised and responded to effectively
· Council achieving
better outcomes, tailored to local community priorities
· A reduction in the
cost to deliver community development activity, over time.
|
We support a community-led approach
to community development and safety in principle but it is not clear how
ready community groups are to take on this role. We would require a thorough assessment of community
capacity and capability in each local board area before commenting
|
N/A
|
|
Background
8. This
feedback represents the Orākei community’s priorities and preferences. It
is intended to inform the Orākei Local Board’s workshop with the Budget
Committee on 29 April. At this meeting the Orākei Local Board will have
the opportunity to provide feedback on the key consultation issues of investing
in Auckland, fixing transport, sharing rates and housing and development, as
well as local priority projects and issues.
9. The
Orākei community’s LTP feedback will also inform the Board’s decisions on
locally driven initiatives allocations and advocacy content for the Orākei
Local Board Agreement 2015/2016. The Local Board Agreement is due to be
finalised in June, after the Budget Committee has confirmed the total locally
driven initiatives budgets for local boards.
Messages
on Regional Proposals
10. Attachment B summarises the LTP feedback from Orākei
residents and groups on the regional LTP proposals such as rates increases and
the level of transport investment.
11. Based on the
size of the majorities supporting or opposing the proposals and differences with
submitters in the rest of the region, the strongest messages from the
Orākei community were:
|
Message
|
Orākei
|
Region
|
|
Oppose a 3.5 per cent overall rates
increase[1]
|
64 per cent
oppose
|
54 per cent
oppose
|
|
29 per cent
support
|
38 per cent
support
|
|
Oppose reducing the business
differential
|
68 per cent
oppose
|
63 per cent oppose
|
|
24 per cent
support
|
28 per cent
support
|
|
Support a higher UAGC
|
47 per cent
support increase
|
21 per cent
support increase
|
|
30 per cent no
change
|
49 per cent no
change
|
|
Oppose the creation of a Development
Auckland CCO
|
39 per cent
oppose
|
33 per cent
oppose
|
|
33 per cent
support
|
43 per cent support
|
12. Like the rest of
Auckland, a majority of Orākei submitters supported keeping rates down by
cutting council spending on governance and support over the term of the LTP.
13. Compared with
the region as a whole, there was weaker support in Orākei for the Auckland
Plan transport network and stronger support for the basic network, but a higher
percentage were still in favour of the Auckland Plan network (40 per cent to 32
per cent).
14. There were
similar levels of support for the different transport funding options in
Orākei and the rest of the region. The strongest support was for motorway
charges at 39 per cent, while 25 per cent favoured tax and rates and 22 per
cent supported neither option.
Advocacy
Projects
15. Attachment C summarises the feedback sought in the
Orākei Local Board insert. Around 180 submitters responded to these
questions. The insert asked submitters whether they supported the board’s
advocacy for:
· The Tamaki
Harbour Edge Connector boardwalk (THE-C)
· The
Selwyn/Pourewa train station
· A more equitable balance between larger-scale
regional initiatives and investment at the local level.
16. Of the
submitters that responded to these questions, large majorities of 84 to 87 per
cent supported each of the three proposals. Between 170 and 180 submitters
commented on THE-C and Selwyn/Pourewa train station, while 125 submitters
commented on the proposal to advocate for more balance between local and
regional investment.
Meadowbank
Community Centre
17. The upgrade of
the Meadowbank Community Centre has had fairly consistent support from the
Orākei community. In the LTP consultation, 63 per cent of 172 respondents
supported the upgrade, while in the Local Board Plan consultation last year it
was the fourth most favoured project in the draft plan with 142 respondents
supportive of bringing forward the upgrade.
18. The Orakei Local
Board may wish to formally request that the governing body amends the LTP to
bring forward the Meadowbank Community Centre upgrade from 2020/21 to 2015/16.
Locally
driven initiatives
19. The local board
insert asked submitters whether they supported the Orākei Local Board
using its discretionary LDI funding to progress parks projects in the area.
Over 60 per cent of respondents supported the projects proposed for Glover Park
and Shore Road Reserve, while 57 per cent of respondents supported the proposed
sports field lighting improvements.
20. Pending the
Budget Committee’s approval of local boards’ total LDI budgets at its 7-8 May
meetings, local boards will be able to finalise their 2015/16 agreements,
including LDI allocations.
Sources
of feedback
21. Attachments B and C summarise feedback received from all
sources. Raw data is also attached for reference:
· Attachment D
– social media (while the local boards of social media submitters were not
recorded, the attached submissions referred specifically to the Orakei Local
Board)
· Attachment E
– Have Your Say event feedback
· Attachment F
– community meeting feedback
· Attachment G
– written submissions spreadsheet
· Attachment H
– written submissions in full
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
22. The Orākei Local Board needs to consider any changes that it might make to its
LDI budget allocation and advocacy decisions in light of the feedback on the
LTP proposals.
Māori
impact statement
23. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Maori.
The local board agreements are important tools that enable and can demonstrate
the council’s responsiveness to Maori. The local board agreement is based on
the local board plan which are both been developed through engagement with the
community, including Maori.
Implementation
24. Following the local board discussions with the Budget Committee on 24, 28 and 29 April the Budget Committee will
make decisions on regional proposals on 7 and 8 May. Local boards will then
hold workshops from 14 to 20 May to finalise their local board agreements prior
to them being adopted at board meetings between 9 and 16 June.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Orākei Local Board input into LTP 2015 - 2025
|
17
|
|
bView
|
Orakei feedback on regional proposals
|
21
|
|
cView
|
Summary of feedback from Orākei residents and
groups on local LTP proposals
|
39
|
|
dView
|
Social media feedback
|
49
|
|
eView
|
Have Your Say event feedback
|
51
|
|
fView
|
Community meeting feedback
|
65
|
|
g
|
Written submissions spreadsheet Orakei Local Feedback
(Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
h
|
Written submissions spreadsheet - Orakei Regional
Feedback (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
i
|
Written submissions spreadsheet Orakei Feedback on
other Local Boards (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
j
|
Draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Orakei Local Board
Pro forma Feedback (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
k
|
Draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Orakei Local Board
Written feedback Vol.1 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
l
|
Draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Orakei Local Board
Written feedback Vol. 2 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
m
|
Draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Orakei Local Board
Written feedback Vol.3 a (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
n
|
Draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Orakei Local Board
Written feedback Vol.3 b (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
o
|
Draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Orakei Local Board
Written feedback Vol.4 a (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
p
|
Draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Orakei Local Board
Written feedback Vol.4 b (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
q
|
Draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Orakei Local Board
Written feedback Vol.5 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Kris Munday – Senior Local Board Advisor - Orākei Local Board
|
|
Authoriser
|
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
