|
Albert-Eden
Local Board
27 April 2016
|
|
Annual Plan
2016/2017
File No.: CP2016/06339
Purpose
1. This report
requests that the Albert-Eden Local Board:
a) makes decisions
on:
i. final
locally driven initiatives (LDI) budgets by activity, within funding envelopes
ii. key advocacy issues.
b) provides any
feedback on regional issues, including:
i. the Uniform Annual General
Charge (UAGC)
ii. the Interim Transport Levy
(ITL)
iii. Māori
freehold land rates
iv. rates for farm/lifestyle
properties over 50 hectares.
c) makes
recommendations to the governing body on other financial matters such as:
i. any new/amended Business
Improvement District (BID) targeted rates
ii. any new/amended local
targeted rate proposals
iii. proposed LDI capital projects
outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility.
Executive
Summary
2. This report seeks input from
local boards on a range of annual plan related matters, including LDI,
advocacy, feedback on regional issues and other rate proposals.
3. Local board views on these
matters will be considered in discussions between the local boards and the
Finance and Performance Committee on 6 and 9 May; and by the governing body
prior to adopting the Annual Plan 2016/2017.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Albert-Eden Local
Board:
a) Makes decisions on final
2016/2017 Local Development Initiatives (LDI) budgets by activity, within
funding envelopes.
b) Agrees key advocacy issues.
c) Provides any views it may have
on regional issues.
d) Recommends any new or amended
Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rates.
e) Recommends any new or amended
local targeted rate proposals.
f) Recommends any proposed Local
Development Initiatives (LDI) capital projects, which are outside local
boards’ decision-making responsibility.
g) Recommends $XX of 2015/2016
Local Development Initiatives (LDI) operating expenditure (opex) to be
deferred.
|
Comments
Locally driven initiatives
4. Local boards are requested to
agree the level of funding for each group of activity. This funding is further
allocated to specific projects and services detailed in the work programmes.
5. As part of the Local Boards
Funding Policy, local boards can resolve to defer those projects that are
funded by the LDI where there was an agreed scope and cost but have not been
delivered. The local board may wish to resolve 2015 / 2016 projects that meet
the criteria for deferral to 2016 / 2017.
6. Key information of the funding
of each activity and the LDI funded projects that meet the criteria for
deferral is provided in Attachment A.
Advocacy initiatives
7. Local boards resolved on their
key advocacy issues in November 2015, for discussions with the Finance and
Performance Committee and consultation. Since then, relevant council
departments and Council Controlled Organisations have provided local boards
with advice on the current position of each advocacy issue, and any next
steps. This information was provided to local boards in April 2016, as part of
a broader information pack, to consider at their workshops, and is also
attached to this report for information (see Attachment B).
8. In light of this information,
the Local Board may now wish to agree any advocacy priorities for discussion
with the Finance and Performance Committee on 6 and 9 May.
Regional issues
9. The local board
provided initial feedback on the regional issues at their 18 November 2015
business meeting. The local board:
a. supports in principle a
decrease in the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) to better balance fairness
and affordability issues.
b. accepts
as necessary, the Interim Transport Levy and awaits the results of consultation
prior to formalising its views.
10. The local board
may wish to provide further feedback on these issues for consideration by the
Finance and Performance Committee.
Feedback
from public consultation
11. Local boards consulted on their
proposed local projects, advocacy initiatives and regional issues between
February and March 2016. The results of the public consultation have been
analysed and were reported at the local board’s 27 April 2016 business meeting.
Local targeted rate and BID
targeted rate proposals
12. Local boards are
required to agree any new BID and local targeted rate proposals (noting that
any new local targeted rates and / or BIDs must have been consulted on before
they can be implemented).
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
13. Local board decisions and
feedback is being sought in this report.
14. Local boards play an important
role in the development of the annual plan, and provide views and information
at key stages as council continues through the annual plan process.
Māori
impact statement
15. Many local board
decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements
and the annual plan are important tools that enable and can demonstrate
council’s responsiveness to Māori. Local board plans, which were developed
in 2014 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the
basis of local priorities.
16. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards
and iwi, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing conversations
will assist local boards and Māori to understand each other’s priorities
and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation
in council’s decision-making processes.
Implementation
17. Feedback from
the local boards will be summarised and provided in full to the Finance and
Performance Committee and governing body for consideration and adopting the
Annual Plan 2016/2017.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Albert-Eden Local Board – LDI operational budget and
LDI operational projects that meet criteria for deferral
|
11
|
|
bView
|
Albert-Eden Local Board - 2016/2017 advocacy
initiatives
|
13
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Pramod Nair - Lead Financial Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services
– Local Boards
Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
|
Albert-Eden Local
Board
27 April 2016
|
|
Annual Plan 2016/2017 – feedback from public consultation
File No.: CP2016/07224
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to
present feedback on the:
· Albert-Eden
Local Board’s (the local board) proposed local projects and advocacy
initiatives and the regional topics received through the Annual Plan 2016/2017
public consultation
· inform
the local board’s decisions on projects and priorities and setting budgets as
part of its 2016/2017 Local Board Agreement.
Executive
Summary
2. Public consultation on the
Annual Plan 2016/2017 was undertaken between 15 February and 24 March 2016.
Feedback was sought on the local board’s proposed projects and advocacy initiatives
and four regional topics.
3. 3,321 submissions were received
on the Annual Plan 2016/2017. Of this, the local board received 207
submissions that commented on both the proposed local projects and regional
topics. This equates to six per cent of all submissions received across the
region.
4. The following tables outline the
key findings from the public consultation:
|
Local
project or advocacy initiative
|
Public
consultation feedback
|
|
Priorities
for 2016/2017
|
· 46% partial support.
· 34% support.
· 12% did not support.
|
|
Budget to
bring forward completion of the Mt Albert town centre upgrade
|
· 71% support.
· 16% did not support.
|
|
Upgrades to
Phyllis Reserve
|
· 98% support to assist funding the clubrooms and
develop the sports field.
|
|
Recreational
space at Chamberlain Park
|
· 69% support.
· 22% did not support.
|
|
Increase the
community grants budget
|
· 65% support.
· 23% other.
|
|
Create an
Accommodation support fund
|
· 50% support.
· 26% did not support.
|
|
Undertake a
Māori cultural heritage study
|
· 46% support.
· 36% did not support.
|
|
Advocate for
the eventual replacement of the Mt Albert Aquatic Centre
|
· 40% did not support.
· 30% support.
· 30% other.
|
|
Regional
topics
|
Public
consultation feedback
|
|
Uniform
Annual General Charge (UAGC)
|
· 39% overall support for the UAGC being higher than
$397.
· 29% overall support for the UAGC being lower than
$397.
· 22% overall support for the UAGC staying at $397.
|
|
Interim
Transport Levy
|
· 49% support business paying more.
· 30% support business and residential ratepayers
paying the same.
· 66% support the levy being based on property value.
|
|
Farm and
lifestyle property rates
|
· 52% support retaining at 80 per cent.
· 23% were unsure.
· 16% support reducing to 60 per cent
|
|
Māori
freehold land rates
|
· 41% support a reduction.
· 38% do not support a reduction.
|
|
Recommendation/s
That the Albert-Eden Local
Board:
a) Receives feedback on its local
projects and advocacy initiatives from Albert-Eden submitters on the draft
Annual Plan 2016/2017.
|
Comments
Overview of the Annual Plan
2016/2017 public consultation
5. Public consultation on the
Annual Plan 2016/2017 was undertaken between 15 February and 24 March 2016.
Feedback was sought on the local board’s proposed projects and advocacy
initiatives and the four regional topics. The proposed local projects and
advocacy initiatives were:
· investing $3.5 million to renew and
develop assets in the area, and a further $11 million for maintenance and
operations
· revitalising our town centres by bringing
forward $2.25 million of funding from 2017 / 2018 to 2016/2017 to complete the
upgrade of the Mt Albert town centre
· continuing to implement our local parks development programme:
- $900,000 to develop and upgrade the sports fields at Phyllis
Reserve, Mt Albert
- $600,000 to restore reserves that have been impacted by the State
Highway 16/20 project
- $1.8 million to renew existing assets such as park furniture and
playgrounds
- $450,000 towards the development of recreational park space in the
western end of Chamberlain Park
- $350,000 towards the development of Potters Park, Balmoral, including
a new playground, paths, planting and entranceway
- support for Pa
Harakeke planting and maintenance at Walmer Reserve, Pt Chevalier, a
community-led project where flax is grown for cultural weaving.
· creating a $150,000 accommodation support
fund
· increasing the community grants budget
from $45,000 to $75,000
· undertaking a Māori cultural
heritage study to identify sites of significance to mana whenua
· securing funding for the future
development of sports fields at Chamberlain Park
· identifying the need for a fit-for-purpose aquatic centre in our
area that would replace the Mt Albert Aquatic Centre.
6. The four regional topics for
feedback were the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC), Interim Transport Levy
(ITL), farm and lifestyle property rates and Māori freehold land rates.
7. The council provided a suite of
options for the public to provide feedback on the local and regional
consultation topics. This included online through Shape Auckland and Facebook,
completing a physical feedback form or in person by attending a Have Your Say
event. To support the feedback process the local board:
· held a key stakeholders meeting on 9
February
· provided three library drop-in sessions
on 15, 20 and 25 February
· attended business association meetings
throughout February
· attended a Movies in Parks event on 12
February
· held a Have Your Say event on 10 March.
Summary of submissions
8. 3,321 submissions were received
on the Annual Plan. Of this, the local board received 207 submissions that
commented on both the proposed local projects and regional topics. This
equates to six per cent of all submissions received across the region.
9. 194 of all submissions were from
individuals. Other submitter groups were:
· six from local businesses
· two from business associations
· three from special interest groups
· one from a multi-individual and one from a residents and ratepayers
association.
10. No submissions were received from
community groups or the public sector.
11. Using the internet to submit
feedback was the most effective mechanism for Albert-Eden respondents. Over
half (56 per cent) of all respondents used either the Shape Auckland website or
emailed their feedback. Submitters also responded well to the option of
posting the hand-out that was included in the March 2016 edition of Our
Auckland. Twenty per cent of respondents used this method.
12. Attachment A provides a full
breakdown of respondent’s methods to provide feedback..
Demographic profile of submitters
13. A demographic snapshot of
respondents from the Albert-Eden area highlights that:
· 58 per cent of the respondents were male,
while 41 per cent were female. These figures are similar the regional response
rate for gender
· 59 per cent of respondents were aged
between 35 and 64 years. This is higher than regional response rate of 54 per
cent
· four per cent of respondents were aged 24
years or younger. This is slightly lower than the regional response of six per
cent
· 86 per cent of respondents were NZ
European and NZ / Kiwi, while three per cent were of Chinese descent
· three per cent of respondents identified themselves at Māori.
14. It should be noted that the
demographic snapshot is not representative of all submissions. This is due to the
demographic questions being optional and therefore some respondents chose to
not respond.
15. Further details on the
demographic profile of submitters from the local board area, and a comparison
to regional responses rates are included in Attachment A.
Feedback on local projects
and advocacy initiatives
16. This section provides a
high-level summary of feedback received on the local board’s projects and
advocacy initiatives for the 2016/2017 financial year. Detailed feedback on
each project can be viewed in Attachment A.
17. No feedback was received on the
following projects and advocacy initiatives:
· invest $3.5 million to renew and develop
assets, and a further $11 million to maintain and operate these assets
· renewing existing assets such as park furniture
and playgrounds
· the development of Potters Park,
Balmoral, including a new playground, paths, planting and entranceway
· support for Pa Harakeke planting and
maintenance at Walmer Reserve, Pt Chevalier
· securing funding for the future development of sports fields at
Chamberlain Park.
Local board priorities for 2016/2017
18. Submitters were asked have we
got our priorities right for this area in 2016/2017? This question allowed
submitters to broadly comment on all the local board’s priorities. 136
responses were received for this question, where:
· 46 per cent partially supported the
priorities
· 34 per cent supported the priorities
· 12 per cent did not support the
priorities
· eight per cent were unsure.
19. A supplementary question was also
included, which asked respondents to consider what do you think should change?
This allowed submitters an opportunity to comment on their response to the
first question, and note any changes they would like to see. 77 additional
comments were received for the supplementary question. The question drew a range
of comments on the local board’s priorities, as well as broader local board and
council issues.
20. While broader local board and
council issues were typically individualistic in nature, a small number of
themes emerged. The following table provides a summary of these themes, by
activity type:
|
Theme
|
Comments
|
|
Community
development and safety
|
Community
safety and older people:
· Funding should go towards making neighbourhoods
safer, as there are too many burglaries.
· Surprised by the lack of actions relating to
community safety. There are many people in the community, especially elderly
people who do not feel safe in their homes or streets.
Eden /
Albert Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB):
· Better signage is needed so that the CAB has
increased visibility and therefore can provide a greater service to people.
· The local board should consider increasing its
support to the CAB, or make it a priority.
|
|
Parks and
open spaces (including maunga)
|
Chemical
spraying:
· Stop spraying parks and reserves with toxic herbicides,
and instead use a chemical-free option.
Maunga:
· Support removing vehicle access from the maunga.
|
|
Sport and
recreation
|
Priorities
and facility upgrades:
· Concerned that addressing sports facilities and
grounds are no longer a priority.
· The condition of existing sport and recreation
facilities are poor and hurting clubs. They need to be upgraded as soon as
possible.
|
|
Transport
|
Greenways
connectivity and active transport:
· That all parks and reserves should have the ability
to connect and pass through on bike and foot.
· Support more focus on active transport and continue
to improve cycleway infrastructure to increase safety.
|
21. Comments relating to the local
board’s priorities are detailed in the following sections.
22. Attachment A provides a full
breakdown of broader local board issues by activity type.
Budget to complete the Mt
Albert town centre upgrade
23. 50 submitters provided feedback
on the proposal to bring forward funding to complete the upgrade of the Mt
Albert town centre. Respondents strongly supported the proposal (71 per cent
support). Submitters noted the town centre had been neglected for too long, and
the upgrade will transform the area for both local businesses and the wider
community. Other respondents made requests for what they would like considered
as part of the upgrade, they include:
· cycle lanes, shared paths and wider
footpaths
· pedestrian safety must be a priority
· less emphasis on cars and car parks.
24. Several comments and reasons for
not supporting the proposal were also made by respondents, noted concerns were:
· the upgrade is a poor investment as Mt
Albert is too close St Lukes and New Lynn, which are the key town centres in
the area. Budget for town centre upgrades should instead be focussed in these
areas
· the Mt Albert town centre is obsolete and investment should instead
be redirected to the proposed Wairaka Precinct at Unitec.
Parks development programme
Recreational space at Chamberlain Park
Golf Course
25. 54 submitters provided feedback
on the proposal to create a recreational space at the western end of the
Chamberlain Park Golf Course. 37 (69 per cent) respondents supported the
proposal and noted that:
· the park will provide improved linkages
into and through the park on foot and bike
· given the limited opportunity for new open space in the local board
area, the proposed changes provide excellent recreation opportunities for the
public.
26. 12 respondents did not support
the proposal. Those who commented stated that they preferred the golf course
continuing to have 18 holes, instead of nine.
Upgrades to Phyllis Reserve
27. One submitter and one pro forma group submission provided
feedback on the proposal to develop and upgrade the sports fields at Phyllis
Reserve. The submitter did not support the upgrade because they felt that the
proposed budget should be used towards developing the nearby Harbutt Reserve.
The submitter noted that Phyllis Reserve has benefitted from considerable
investment recently, while Harbutt Reserve comparatively has been neglected.
28. The pro forma
group submission, which contained 41 individual responses, is advocating for
the local board to assist with funding of the Metro Mt Albert Sports Club
clubrooms. Respondents highlighted that:
· upgrading the clubrooms will complement
and enhance the sport field development and provide social infrastructure in an
area where intensification is planned
· the current provision and quality of community facilities in the
area do not meet the need of the club, or the local area.
29. Pro forma respondents were also
advocating for the upgrade of the sports fields. They noted that this is long
overdue because the current situation is hindering their aspirations to
continue to grow the club’s membership.
Restoration of parks impacted
by State Highway 16/20
30. One submitter supported the
proposal to restore parks that were impacted by the State Highway 16/20
project. The submitter felt that urgent works at Alan Wood Reserve is
required, in particular the restoration of the park’s trees and cricket
wickets.
Community grants budget and
Accommodation support fund
31. 51 submitters provided feedback
on the proposal to increase the Community grants budget. Respondents supported
the proposal (65 per cent support) and commented that it is an appropriate
amount to support local community groups.
32. 46 submitters commented on the
creation of an Accommodation support fund. Half of respondents (50 per cent)
supported the proposal, while 26 per cent did not and 23 per cent were unsure.
Māori cultural heritage
study
33. 50 submitters provided feedback
on the proposal to undertake a Māori cultural heritage study to identify
sites of significance to mana whenua. 23 respondents (46 per cent) support,
while 18 respondents (36 per cent) did not support the proposal. There were no
additional comments or reasons for supporting the proposal.
34. Respondents which did not support
the proposal noted that they did not consider this a priority, and commented
that mana whenua should contribute towards the study.
Advocacy initiatives
35. The public were also asked to
provide feedback on the local board’s two key advocacy initiatives:
· securing funding for the future
development of sports fields at Chamberlain Park
· identifying the need for a fit-for-purpose aquatic centre in our
area that would replace the Mt Albert Aquatic Centre.
36. Although no feedback on
developing sports fields at Chamberlain Park was received, 40 submitters
provided feedback on the initiative to eventually replace Mt Albert Aquatic
Centre with a fit-for-purpose aquatic centre. 16 respondents (40 per cent) did
not support, while 12 respondents (30 per cent) supported the proposal and the
remaining 12 respondents were unsure.
37. It appears that the public is
unaware that the recent repairs at Mt Albert Aquatic Centre were only a
short-term solution as the council and school are together considering the
long-term future of the facility. This is based on unsupportive respondents
who highlighted that the facility has just been renovated, and is relatively
new compared to other facilities.
38. Respondents who support the
advocacy initiative suggested that the new aquatic facility should be part of
the Mt Albert Community and Recreation Centre due to its central location, and
the YMCA has a good record of managing pools. Other respondents also felt
continuing to have a pool in the inner city suburbs is critical.
39. Respondents who were unsure noted
concerns about whether this is a priority for the local board, and questioned
the need since the Mt Albert Aquatic Centre was only recently upgraded. A
small number of respondents supported the aquatic facility remaining at MAGS.
Feedback on regional topics
40. This section provides a
high-level summary of feedback received on the four regional topics. Detailed
feedback on each topic can be viewed in Attachment A.
Uniform Annual General Charge
41. Submitters were asked two
questions relating to the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC). The first
question asked what is your opinion on the fixed charge portion of rates?
This allowed submitters to state whether the UAGC should be kept the same, made
higher, or made lower. 148 responses were received for this question, where:
· 54 submitters (36 per cent) support the
UAGC being made higher than $397
· 41 submitters (28 per cent) support the
UAGC being kept at $397
· 39 submitters (26 per cent) support the
UAGC being made lower than $397
· 14 submitters (10 per cent) were unsure, or supported a different
option.
42. The second question asked
submitters if changed, what should the fixed charge be, within the
range of $350 to $650? 134 responses were received for this question,
which also included a range of comments and preferences on the UAGC level.
43. The following table provides a
summary of feedback by respondents preferred UAGC level:
|
UAGC
level
|
Number and percentage
|
Summary
of feedback
|
|
Reduce to
$350
|
37 (29%)
|
· Need to keep rates costs to residence affordable,
especially very elderly people occupying their own home.
· It is essential to get the cost of living for lower
income people and renters down.
· Any fixed charge falls most heavily on low income
residents so this should be $350 or less. Higher income residents are better
able to pay their rates.
|
|
Increase to
$650
|
25 (20%)
|
· Rates should be fair and equitable. Having a high
fixed charge helps achieve this.
· No reason fixed charges should be lower when all
services are the same. The rest of the upper rate payers are paying
considerably more in rates.
· House prices are increasing at a high percentage in
Auckland. Services provide to these houses do not increase. Everyone should
pay a fair share of the rates.
|
|
Under $350
|
21 (17%)
|
· Need to lessen rate burden on those who can least
afford it.
· Fixed rate charges are unfair on lower income
families and single occupant properties. A single person uses considerably
less in the way of council services than a household of multiple dwellers.
|
|
Increase to
$450
|
18 (14%)
|
· Increase to $450, and in following years make
similarly modest increases (so as to make it easier on those on reduced
incomes).
· Nobody should be paying more or less as the services
are poor as they are. I don't think you should be paying for something you
are not receiving.
|
|
Unsure
|
11 (9%)
|
· The variable charge should be based only on the land
value, so that people "land-banking" would have an incentive to use
the land better and increase our housing stock.
|
|
Increase to
$550
|
10 (8%)
|
· $550 is a fair amount to spread costs equitably.
· All households have the same access to services
therefore the cost should be shared fairly.
|
|
Different
|
4 (3%)
|
· Depends on what it (fixed charge portion) has to do.
Throwing money at purposes can make them less efficient and therefore more
expensive. Yet there are necessities. Personally I think upper echelon
salaries could drop - without people even noticing, some are so high.
|
44. Analysis of the above questions
highlights that there are varying differences and views on the UAGC level. To
create a complete assessment of respondent’s views, the following table
combines all responses from both questions:
|
UAGC
level
|
Question 1A
|
Question 1B[1]
|
Total and percentage
|
|
Higher than
$397
|
54
|
55
|
109 (39%)
|
|
Lower than
$397
|
39
|
42
|
81 (29%)
|
|
Keep at $397
|
41
|
21
|
62 (22%)
|
|
Not sure and
others
|
14
|
16
|
30 (11%)
|
|
Total
|
148
|
134
|
282 (100%)
|
Interim Transport Levy
45. Submitters were asked two
questions relating to the Interim Transport Levy (ITL). The first question
asked what is your opinion on the ITL amount paid by businesses versus the
amount paid by all other ratepayers? This allowed submitters to state
whether the ITL should be kept the same, or whether businesses should pay more than
residential ratepayers. 150 responses were received for this question, where:
· 74 submitters (49 per cent) support
business paying more
· 44 submitters (30 per cent) support the
amount being the same
· 16 submitters (11 per cent) support a
different option
· 16 submitters (10 per cent) were unsure or had a different view.
46. Respondents felt that businesses
should pay more because they place more demand on, and benefit from the
transport network. A number of submitters noted that businesses:
· employ people and thus puts pressure on
transport, so it is appropriate that they should pay more
· can claim this charge as an expense
(including GST) and recover their costs
· use of roads and associated services is
proportionately greater than residential ratepayers, therefore their
contribution should be greater
· get much more value out of transport infrastructure than private
individuals.
47. A number of respondents expressed
concern that the ITL is another cost being incurred on businesses during a period
where they are struggling with increased fees and compliance costs. Business
respondents also felt that transport is an issue impacting all Aucklanders, so
this cost needs to be shared across all users.
48. The second question asked
submitters what is your opinion on the amount businesses pay for the ITL in
relation to their property value? 148 responses were received for this
question, where respondents supported (66 per cent) the suggestion that the
levy be based on property value. Respondents did not necessary agree with
council’s options that high-value properties place more demand on the transport
network, or can afford to pay more. Rather, their views focussed more on
equity. Comments to support their views were:
· that the new levy could be based on the
number of employees each business has, rather than on their capital value. It
doesn’t seem fair that a business in Warkworth should pay at the same rate as
those in the CBD
· higher value business properties are
often also larger premises so it makes sense that they pay more
· fairness should not require lower value businesses to pay the same
as a larger one.
Farm and lifestyle property rates
49. Submitters were asked to provide
feedback on the rates paid by farm / lifestyle properties (over 50 hectares)
reducing from 80 to 60 per cent of the urban residential rate (meaning all
other ratepayers pay more).
50. 141 responses were received for
this question, where just over half of all respondents (52 per cent) felt that
the rate should be kept at 80 per cent. Those who commented stated that this
option is the fairest and may reduce land banking in future.
51. 23 per cent of respondents were
unsure about the appropriate rate for farm / lifestyle properties, and noted
that it would depend on the council services they receive. 16 per cent of
respondents support reducing the rate to 60 per cent, as they acknowledge rural
properties and areas reduced / limited access to council services, and inferior
infrastructure (e.g. storm water, no footpaths).
Māori freehold land
rates
52. 140 responses were received on
reducing rates for some Māori land to reflect restrictions on its use. 58
submitters (41 per cent) supported the proposal, and commented that it aligns
to the Te Tiriti o Waitangi and reflects compensation practices for land that
was historically lost. Other submitters noted that it's a small increase for
others and it would be a shame to create more hardship for iwi who have some
challenges trying to work out how to best manage this land.
53. Conversely, 53 respondents (38
per cent) did not support the proposal, and 25 (18 per cent) were unsure. The
majority of submitters who did not support the proposal felt that ethnicity or
race should not be a consideration, and everyone should be paying the same
(regardless of race).
Feedback from engagement
events
54. In addition to the written and
online feedback, the local board held a Have Your Say event on 10 March 2016
and a key stakeholders meeting to support the public consultation. While the
key stakeholders meeting primarily informed attendees of the upcoming public
consultation, local priorities and regional topics, feedback from the Have Your
Say event highlighted:
· support for the local board’s projects
and advocacy initiatives
· the varying perspectives and views on the
UAGC level
· support for reducing Māori land
rates
· that comments and views are consistent with hard copy and online
submissions.
55. All feedback from the Have Your
Say event is outlined in Attachment B.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
56. The local board will need to
consider any changes to their locally driven initiatives budget or advocacy
based on feedback from the Annual Plan 2016/2017 public consultation.
Māori
impact statement
57. The local board’s proposed
projects and advocacy initiatives for 2016 /2017 have the potential to make a
positive impact on Māori and can respond to Auckland Council’s commitment
to improving Māori wellbeing and delivering Māori outcomes. For
example the:
· Accommodation support fund can support
rates payments of marae
· parks development programme provides
active and healthy lifestyle options for everyone, including Māori
· increased community grants budget could support events and
programmes relating to Matariki.
Implementation
58. There are no implementation
issues at this stage of the Annual Plan’s development.
59. The following table outlines the
local board’s role and next steps to complete the development of the Annual
Plan:
|
Month
|
Deliverable
|
|
27 April
|
Local board
decisions on:
· final locally driven initiative (LDI) priorities, by
activity, within funding envelopes
· proposed LDI capital projects outside local board
decision-making
· any recommendations to the governing body on
financial matter (i.e. a BID or targeted rate)
· advocacy initiatives.
|
|
6 and 9 May
|
Discussions
between the local board and governing body on local board advocacy
initiatives.
|
|
Mid-May
|
Governing
body agree to budgets
|
|
15 June
|
Local board
decisions on:
· adopting the 2016/2017 Local Board Agreement
· adopting a fees and charges schedule for 2016/2017
· agreeing work programming for 2016/2017 by activity.
|
|
30 June
|
Governing
body adopt Annual Plan.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Annual Plan 2016/2017 – additional information from
public consultation
|
29
|
|
bView
|
Have Your Say event feedback
|
55
|
|
c
|
Submission Volumes 1 - 4 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Tristan Coulson – Local Board Advisor – Albert-Eden
|
|
Authoriser
|
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
|
Albert-Eden Local
Board
27 April 2016
|
|
Central Facility Partnership Joint Advocacy Positions
File No.: CP2016/07319
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to
seek agreement from each of the seven central Local Boards, who are members of
the Central Facility Partnership Committee, to develop joint advocacy positions
on the future re-instatement of the Central Facility Partnership Fund.
Executive
Summary
2. In round figures, since 2010,
the Central Facility Partnership Committee has allocated $10 million, which was
leveraged to provide community projects to a total value of $45 million. This
community-led approach is consistent with the empowered communities’
philosophy. With the establishment of the $10 million Locally Driven
Initiatives (LDI) Capex Fund as part of the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan the
Central Facility Partnership Fund ceased to exist.
3. Following agreement by the
Waitemata, Orakei, Albert-Eden, Puketapapa, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Waiheke and
Great Barrier Local Boards it was agreed to re-establish the Central Facility
Partnership Committee.
4. A key purpose of the
re-established Central Facility Partnership Committee as outlined in the Terms
of Reference is to provide governance and oversight of approved partnership
projects and feasibility studies; and develop and articulate joint
facility-based advocacy positions and programmes.
5. A report was considered by the
Committee on 14 March 2016, which provided the members with an update on what
advocacy positions had been taken to date by each central local board and
identified upcoming opportunities to establish and present joint advocacy
positions.
6. It was considered that a
consistent approach, across the seven central local boards would create a
stronger advocacy position on the re-instatement of the Central Facility
Partnership Fund.
7. The Committee agreed to develop
joint advocacy positions that reflect the purpose and agreed terms of reference
of the Committee and support the reinstatement of a similar fund. This wording
could then be used by each local board to inform their advocacy discussions
through the annual budget process.
8. In April 2016 input from Local
Boards will be sought on a range of annual plan related matters, including
advocacy positions. Local boards will then have an opportunity to agree any
advocacy priorities for discussion with the Finance and Performance Committee
on 6 and 9 May 2016.
9. This report is seeking the local
board to consider the inclusion of proposed joint advocacy positions as part of
the boards’ individual advocacy positions.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Albert-Eden Local
Board:
a) Note that since 2010, the
Central Facilities Partnership Committee has allocated $10 million, which was
leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45 million
(this community-led approach is consistent with the empowered communities’
philosophy).
b) Note that with the
establishment of the $10 million Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Capex Fund
as part of the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan the Central Facility Partnership Fund
ceased to exist.
c) Agree to include in the Board’s
key advocacy issues the proposed joint advocacy positions:
i) Request the Governing Body to
re-instate a sub-regional fund similar to the Central Facility Partnership
Fund
ii) Request the approval for the
Central Facility Partnership Committee to undertake under its governance
responsibilities the ability to re-invest funds, up to the value of current
commitments, in the event of a current facility partnership commitment
failing to crystallise.
d) Agree to include as part of the
local boards individual achievement reports the inclusion of the collective
outcomes of the central Facilities Partnership Committee.
|
Comments
10. Since 2010, the Central
Facilities Partnership Committee has allocated $10 million, which was leveraged
to provide community projects with a total value of $45 million. This
community led approach is consistent with the empowered communities’
philosophy.
11. On 3 August 2015 members of the
previous Central Facilities Partnership Committee held a workshop chaired by
Waitematā Local Board and Committee Chair, Shale Chambers. Whilst the
primary function of the Committee was agreed to be one of governance over
existing approved projects and feasibility studies it was also recognised that
a re-established Committee would provide a good vehicle for developing joint
advocacy around community partnership issues and opportunities, which is
reflected in the agreed Terms of Reference of the Committee.
12. Central boards represented at the
workshop also held a collective view that the success of the fund, as evidenced
by the ratio of Auckland Council’s contribution (approx. $10 million) to the
total value of the projects completed (approx. $45 million) warranted advocacy
around re-establishing the fund in the future.
13. In November 2015 all central
Local Boards resolved and then a number discussed with the Finance and
Performance Committee, as part of the annual plan discussions, selected
advocacy positions.
14. A review of the advocacy
positions taken by each central local board, which are related to the purpose
of the Central Facilities Partnership Committee has been undertaken to provide
an overview of what current advocacy positions have been made.
15. Three central local boards to
date have included an advocacy position which requests the Governing Body to
re-instate the Central Facilities Partnership Fund.
16. Two local boards included this
advocacy position in their presentation to the Finance and Performance
Committee in November 2015.
|
Local Board
|
Advocacy Position
|
Advocacy Description
|
Advocated to Finance & Performance Committee in
November
|
|
Waitematā
|
Central Facilities Partnership Fund
Re-instate the Central Facilities Partnership Fund
|
Since 2010 the Central Facilities Partnership Committee
allocated $10 million which was leveraged to provide community projects with
a total value of $45m. This community led approach is consistent with the
empowered communities’ philosophy. With the establishment of the $10m Local
Board Discretionary Capex Fund , the Central Facility Partnership Fund has
now ceased
|
Yes
|
|
Orakei
|
Central Facilities Partnership Fund
|
Since 2010, the Central Facility Partnership Committee
allocated $10 million which was leveraged to provide community projects with
a total value of $45m. This community-led approach was consistent with the
empowered communities’ philosophy. With the establishment of the $10m
Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Capex Fund, the Central Facility Partnership
Fund has now ceased.
The Board requests that a sub-regional fund similar to the
Central Facility Partnership be reinstated.
|
Yes
|
|
Albert Eden
|
Central Facilities
Partnership Fund
Re-instate the Central Facilities Partnership Fund
|
Since 2010, the Central
facilities Partnership Committee allocated $10 million which was leveraged to
provide community projects with a total value of $45 million. This
community-led approach was consistent with the empowered communities’
philosophy. With the establishment of the $10m LDI Capital Expenditure
(CAPEX) Fund, the Central Facility Partnership Fund has now ceased.
|
Yes
|
|
Puketapapa
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
|
Maungakiekie-Tamaki
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
|
Waiheke
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
|
Great Barrier
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
17. There is now an opportunity to
achieve a collective approach across the central local boards as part of the
upcoming annual budget process.
18. The Committee agreed in March
2016 to develop and propose to the member Local Boards joint advocacy
positions, which reflect the purpose and agreed terms of reference of the
committee and supports the reinstatement of a similar fund as the Central
Facility Partnership Fund.
a) Requests the re-instatement of a
sub-regional fund similar to the Central Facility Partnership Fund
b) Requests approval for the Central
Facility Partnership Committee to undertake under its governance
responsibilities the ability to re-invest funds, up to the value of current
commitments, in the event of a current Central Facility Partnership commitment
failing to crystallise.
19. The committee also requested that
Local Boards individually include within their individual achievement reports
the collective outcomes that have been created as a result of the central
Facilities Partnership Committee as a way of highlighting the success to date
of this ceased fund.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
20. Individually each central local
board has agreed to the Terms of Reference for the re-established Central
Facility Partnerships Committee.
21. The Terms of Reference states as
a key purpose of the Committee is to develop and articulate joint
facility-based advocacy positions and programmes.
Māori
impact statement
22. The Central Facilities
Partnership scheme is a general programme that supports facilities which are
accessible to a wide range of groups including Maori.
Implementation
23. As part of the annual plan
process Local Boards will be considering and finalising their advocacy positions
in April 2016.
24. Further discussions between local
boards and the Finance and Performance Committee on advocacy maters will be
undertaken on 6 and 9 May 2016.
25. These meetings provide further
opportunity to articulate any agreed joint advocacy positions at these times.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Trina Thompson - Senior Local Board Advisor -
Waitemata
|
|
Authoriser
|
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
