|
Resolution number OR/2015/94
MOVED
by Chairperson DEC Simpson, seconded by Deputy Chairperson CRJ Davis:
That the Orākei
Local Board:
a)
notes that the creation of the $10 million per annum
discretionary capital budget for local boards has resulted in the Isthmus
Local Boards losing $4 million per annum for facility partnership projects
and none of the models compensate central boards for the resulting reduction
in funding available.
b)
notes that under the best case scenario for the Isthmus Local
Boards (model A), they will have $1.4 million less for capital projects when
compared with the $4 million available for facilities partnership projects
under the previous allocation model.
c)
supports local boards being able to fund capital projects by
using their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding and paying the
consequential operating costs as taking this option away limits flexibility
and the ability of local boards to deliver on community priorities and also
removes some of Boards’ decision-making ability.
d)
supports local boards being able to bring forward regionally
funded projects using their discretionary capital budget as this will allow
flexibility which may be required in tight financial times, noting that even
though a Long-term Plan (LTP) may envisage a project happening in the future
that may not be the case as budgets are reviewed annually and projects are
sometimes pushed out further with no consultation with affected communities.
e)
notes that the Auckland Transport Capital Fund is allocated to
local boards using a 100 per cent population model.
f)
supports model A, as its preferred option, the 100 per cent
population model for the allocation of the $10 million per annum
discretionary capital budget to local boards, as this is how the transport
capital fund is allocated.
g)
notes that it would support model B, 95 per cent population and
5 per cent deprivation, as its preferred option for the allocation of the $10
million per annum discretionary capital budget to local boards, if this was
the preferred option resolved by the majority of Local Boards.
h)
notes that the Orakei Local Board does not support models C, D
or E as this would create yet another model by which funding for local boards
is allocated.
i)
requests clarification from officers as to who pays for project
feasibility and scoping costs for capital projects if these cannot be
capitalised as part of the process and notes that the Locally Driven
Initiatives Fund should not be used for this purpose.
j)
requests clarification from officers as to who will scope and
deliver capital projects now that the Small Local Improvement Projects
(SLIPs) team no longer exists.
k)
requests that project management and delivery is funded from
departmental overheads instead of from the new capital fund as this maximises
the value to the community of the discretionary capital budget for local
boards.
l)
supports the annual allocation of the discretionary capital
budget being accumulated over a period of three years and supports the
ability for this funding to be bought forward.
m)
supports the discretionary capital budget being used for one
project or spread over the three years for smaller projects.
n)
supports local boards having the flexibility to accumulate the
discretionary capital budget for more than three years.
o)
considers that local boards should be able to make decisions on
the full three year discretionary capital budget regardless of the size and
cost of the project.
p)
recommends that the Governing Body amends the definition of
what constitutes a ‘major upgrade’ to enable local boards to have full
decision-making over how the discretionary capital budget is spent without
the need to seek Governing Body approval for projects with a budget more than
$1millon.
q)
notes that this request of the Governing Body is made in light
of the Isthmus Local Boards losing $4 million per annum for facility
partnership projects, as part of the creation of the $10 million
discretionary capital budget, where previously local boards were not required
to seek Governing Body approval for facility partnership projects worth more
than $1 million.
r)
does not support the Local Boards Funding Policy including a
general allocation formula for future funding as the creation of new funding
mechanisms should be considered on a case by case basis as circumstances may
be different for each fund, i.e. in this case the Isthmus Local Boards are
losing $4 million per annum for facility partnership projects.
s)
disagrees that projects that have already been committed to
through the former Facilities Partnership Fund should continue to be funded
from the relevant Boards’ Capital Fund allocation.
CARRIED
|
