|
Waiheke Local
Board
04 May 2017
|
|
Annual
Budget 2017/2018
File No.: CP2017/06945
Purpose
1. This
report seeks decisions and input from local boards on a range of annual budget
related matters, including locally driven initiatives (LDI), advocacy, regional
financial policy issues and other rate proposals.
Executive
summary
2. This report seeks decisions and input from local boards on a range
of annual budget related matters, including:
a) making
decisions on:
i. final
LDI budgets by project, within funding envelopes;
ii. advocacy.
b) providing
any feedback on regional issues, including:
i. rates
increases;
ii. rating
stability (regarding proposals that both businesses and
residential ratepayers receive the same rates increase);
iii. paying
for tourism promotion;
iv. paying
for housing infrastructure (proposed changes to the Revenue and Financing
policy to allow for the use of targeted rates,
alongside existing growth charges, to fund infrastructure for new houses);
v. paying
council staff a living wage;
vi. other
changes for 2017/2018 (regarding waste management and
charges, the mass transit network, SkyPath
implementation, collaborations on reducing homelessness and the rural fire
service).
c) making
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;
iv. proposed
LDI opex to capex conversions;
v. release
of local board specific reserve funds;
vi. LDI
opex projects for deferral to 2017/2018.
3. This report also seeks governing body approval
for additional LDI funding of $12,671 to offset the additional costs imposed
under the empowered communities model overhead calculation.
4. Local
board views on these matters will be considered in discussions between the
local boards and the Finance and Performance Committee on 9 May; and by the
governing body prior to adopting the Annual Budget 2017/2018.
|
Recommendations
That the Waiheke Local Board:
a) make
decisions on final 2017/2018 LDI budgets by project,
within funding envelopes;
b) agree
their advocacy initiatives for inclusion in the 2017/2018 Local Board
Agreement;
c) agree one key priority for the organisation to work on (and
potentially a common issue);
d) provide
any views it may have on regional financial policy issues;
e) recommend
any proposed LDI capital projects, which are outside local boards’
decision-making responsibility;
f) recommend $20,000 of 2016/2017 LDI
opex to be deferred to 2017/2018;
g) request additional LDI funding of $12,671 to
offset the additional costs imposed under the empowered communities model
overhead calculation on the basis that the board’s LDI funding is fixed
and adversely impacted by this increase.
|
Comments
Consultation
5. Consultation
on the Annual Budget 2017/2018 took place from 27 February – 27 March
2017. The results from the consultation have been
analysed and summarised, and provided to local boards to assist with decision-making
(see Attachment A).
Locally
Driven Initiatives (LDI)
6. Local
boards are requested to agree the level of funding by project for each group of
activity. The expected delivery outcomes are further detailed in work
programmes which will be reported against throughout 2017/2018.
7. Local
boards can 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 2016/2017 projects that meet the criteria for deferral to
2017/2018.
8. Key
information of the funding of each activity and the LDI funded projects that
meet the criteria for deferral is provided in Attachments B and C.
9. The LDI budget for
Waiheke Local Board is based on historic legacy council budgets, which does not
take into account the level and change of support now provided to Local Boards.
10. In 2015/2016 the Community
Development, Arts and Culture Department (now Arts, Community and Events)
allocated overhead costs to Local Boards based on staff costs that related to
delivery of local programmes.
11. With the introduction of the
‘Empowered Communities model” and resulting new roles, the overhead
has been re-calculated. For Waiheke, there has been an increase of $12,671,
which represented 1.8% of their 2015/2016 LDI Funding.
12. These costs should be treated
in the same manner as the asset-based overhead costs as they relate to staff
salaries for which the board has no discretion. Due to the LDI opex calculation
including funding for community overheads, this remains non-discretionary until
such time as the funding policy allocation is re-visited as there is no
additional funding identified in Year 3 of the Long-Term Plan.
13. Given the significant impact
this increase has on the level of LDI funding available to the Waiheke Local
Board for local initiatives, this paper advises the board to exercise its right
of negotiation and request an increase of $12,671 to the 2017/2018 LDI Fund as
part of the annual negotiation process.
Advocacy
14. This triennium a three year approach is proposed for considering
initiatives that local boards wish to progress that are unable to be funded by
LDI. Such an approach seeks to better utilise the annual budget, Long Term Plan
(LTP) and local board plan processes to progress and advise on a narrower range
of local board initiatives, in a more comprehensive way.
15. The
proposed new approach involves:
· as
part of the Annual Budget 2017/2018 process, local boards begin narrowing their
priorities to predominately one key advocacy initiative, and one initiative
held in common with other local boards, for further research and consideration;
· Council
departments provide local boards with information to help inform their position
on these initiatives (in essence, developing a business case for them);
· based
on this information, local boards develop the case for their advocacy further
by testing ideas with the community in the local board plan process and other
engagement;
· local
boards discuss priority initiatives with the Finance and Performance Committee
through the annual budget and LTP processes, supported by organisational advice
on the key initiative.
16. Local
boards resolved on their key advocacy initiatives in December 2016 (Attachment
D), for potential inclusion in their Local Board Agreements. Local boards
were requested to further consider and refine these at workshops post
consultation, and look to identify:
· one key initiative,
and potentially one initiative held in common with other local boards, for
business case development and to progress through the annual budget, local
board plan and LTP processes;
· other advocacy
initiatives to be included in the Local Board Agreements, as key matters of
importance to the local board.
17. Local
boards may now wish to agree on these advocacy priorities.
18. Discussions
with the Finance and Performance Committee will take place on 9 May.
Regional
issues
19. Regional
issues consulted on as part of the 2017/2018 annual budget process include
rates increases, rating stability, paying for tourism promotion, paying for
housing infrastructure, paying council staff a living wage and other changes
for 2017/2018 (regarding waste management and charges, the mass transit
network, SkyPath implementation, collaborations on reducing homelessness and
the rural fire service).
20. Local
boards may wish to provide feedback on these issues for consideration by the
Finance and Performance Committee.
Local targeted rate and BID targeted rate proposals
21. 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
22. Local
board decisions and feedback are being sought in this report.
23. Local
boards play an important role in the development of the annual budget, and
provide views and information at key stages as council continues through the
annual budget process.
Māori
Impact Statement
24. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the
annual budget 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.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
25. Feedback from the local boards will be provided to the Finance and
Performance Committee and governing body for consideration and adopting the
Annual Budget 2017/2018.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Annual Budget 2017/2018 consultation feedback report
|
11
|
|
b⇩
|
LDI schedule for 2017/2018
|
23
|
|
c⇩ 
|
List of LDI projects to be carried forward
|
25
|
|
d⇩
|
Advocacy issues FY18
|
27
|
|
e⇩
|
Previous advocacy issues
|
29
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Janine Geddes - Senior Local Board Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier &
Waiheke
|
|
Waiheke Local
Board
04 May 2017
|
|
Annual Budget 2017/2018 consultation feedback report for
Waiheke Local Board
Purpose
1. This
report summarises all feedback received through the Annual Budget 2017/2018
consultation on Waiheke Local Board proposals. It also summarises feedback on
the regional proposals from people or organisations based in the Waiheke local
board area.
2. The
purpose of this report is to inform the Waiheke Local Board of the views of
their local community on the annual proposals. This will build on the
board’s understanding of community priorities and preferences as
established in the development of the Waiheke Local Board Plan 2014.
3. The
feedback received will inform the Waiheke Local Board decisions on allocation
of their local budgets in their local board agreement for 2017/2018. It will
also inform the Waiheke Local Board discussions with the Finance and
Performance Committee on 9 May on advocacy and local priorities in relation to
the regional budgets and proposals.
Executive Summary
4. Out
of the 8058 submissions received on the Annual Budget 2017/2018, 54 were
submissions from people living in Waiheke Local Board area or concerning
Waiheke Local Board local proposals.
5. The
Waiheke Have your say event held on 9 March 2017 was attended by 10 members of
the public and 86 items of feedback were received.
6. Due
to relatively low numbers of feedback it is difficult to identify key trends
however there was balanced opinion of many of the board’s proposals and
advocacy areas.
7. Waiheke
Local Board local proposals consulted on for 2017/2018
a. Progressing
initiatives identified within the Matiatia masterplan;
b. Progressing
initiatives identified within the Pathways (Greenways) plan;
c. Continuing to
advocate for quality roading, footpath and cycling network to a standard
consistent with the rest of Auckland, taking into account Waiheke character;
d. Completing an
Artworks complex needs assessment;
e. Continuing to
progress marine protection and waterway research;
f. Developing an
integrated approach to ecological restoration and pest management across the
island;
g. Progressing options
for tourism infrastructure funding;
h. Continuing to
investigate housing issues on Waiheke;
i. Supporting a
governance review which has good outcomes for Waiheke;
j. Reinstatement
of the Rural Urban Boundary;
k. Continuing to
progress the development of a community swimming pool.
8. Regional
proposals consulted on for 2017/2018
Issue 1: Rates
increases
a. Feedback
shows our community generally support the charge kept as is – a 2.5 per cent average
rates increase.
Issue 2: Rating stability
b. Feedback shows our
community support businesses receiving the same rates increase as residential
ratepayers in 2017/2018. Analysis of comments indicates that most
submitters who ticked disagreed, supported a higher business increase.
Issue 3: Paying for tourism promotion
c. There
was general support for the proposal to fund tourism promotion from a targeted
rate on accommodation providers rather than general rates.
Issue 4: Paying for housing infrastructure
d. There was
general support for the proposal to change our funding policy to allow
infrastructure for new housing developments to be funded by targeted rates,
rather than ratepayers across Auckland.
Issue 5: Paying council staff a living wage
e. There
was strong support for the proposal to implement a living wage policy for all
council staff, funded from savings within the existing budgets.
Context
9. This
report is being provided to the Waiheke Local Board summarising the local
consultation feedback received on the annual budget. Council received feedback
in person at community engagement events, through written forms (including
those submitted online) and through social media.
10. Feedback
on Waiheke Local Board local proposals and on regional proposals from the
Waiheke Local Board area was received through:
· Written feedback – 48 feedback
forms
· In person – Feedback was received
through our Have your say event on 9 March 2017
· Social media – six feedback points
were received through social media channels
11. The
following provides information on the demographic of the written submissions
received:
Submission type:
12. Feedback
received on the local proposals
13. Feedback
on local proposals
14. Progressing
initiatives identified within the Matiatia masterplan
· High priority.
· Masterplan
hasn’t been finalised yet so it’s hard to comment.
· Ensure any
proposals include full community consultation.
· Use the wharf tax
to fund Matiatia masterplan implementation.
· Utilising the car
rental business leased area for parking.
15. Progressing
initiatives identified within the Pathways (Greenways) plan
· Greenways plan
hasn’t been finalised yet so it’s hard to comment.
· Mako / Church Bay
Road requires walking network improvements.
· Is cycling
something the board should be advocating when the roads are so unsafe.
· Concerns the
Greenways project will compromise areas of high biodiversity areas.
Request F&B representation on development of Greenways Plan.
16. Continuing
to advocate for quality roading, footpath and cycling network to a standard
consistent with the rest of Auckland, taking into account Waiheke character
· High priority.
· Develop a locally
created transport plan for the Island and implement it.
· Ensure Auckland Transport
listen to the public it serves and are accountable for their decisions and
actions.
· Swales instead of
kerb and channelling.
· Putiki Road issues
- work needed now.
· Basic
infrastructure needs to be in place before little network connection projects.
17. Completing
an Artworks complex needs assessment
· Strongly support - consistent with the original stated
priority to invest in the "renewal of existing assets".
· Low priority, been done before and spending not
likely to result in any improvement.
· A needs assessment should canvas all options including
new art gallery.
· Support for the assessment, Artworks Gallery would like
to be involved.
· Please complete a needs assessment for the Waiheke
Community Art Gallery.
· Improve the common areas of the building housing the
gallery. Consider setting aside space for a Waiheke Gallery Permanent Art
Collection.
· Approach the (Artworks) needs assessment as a tourism
complex / information centre / environment centre / Arts complex.
· Add the Arts into the priority list. Performing
arts will start performing as both a valuable community asset and as a tourist
option to drive people to our island (through offering packages via ATEED and
tour operators incorporating both local businesses and Artworks Theatre).
18. Continuing
to progress marine protection and waterway research
· Marine protection
should be of higher priority than tourism.
· Marine reserve -
Location needs to be carefully considered. Needs to be well away from
recreational swimming and fishing and boating areas in heavy use.
· Strongly support
marine reserves around Waiheke.
· Not the role of
the Waiheke LB, therefore no priority.
· Boatie needs to be
taken into account of in regards to marine reserves.
· Marine protection -
areas around northern beaches that could be appropriate for marine
reserves. Need to put a stake in the ground where there is minimal
opposition. There are places that aren't in anyone's back yard.
These should be prioritised.
· We are an
essential part of the Marine Park. We know what the faults are and we are
part of a bigger picture. We want a pristine environment. We are
left to pick up the pieces. We are missing the bigger picture, there is
nothing sparkling about the Gulf anymore.
19. Developing
an integrated approach to ecological restoration and pest management across the
island
· High priority, in addition to what is planned, of
developing an integrated approach to ecological restoration and pest management
across Waiheke Island.
· Address roadside weed control also which is currently
both expensive and out of control.
· Not a primary role of the Waiheke LB, therefore low
priority.
· Kauri Dieback should be a priority, why has it fallen
off, no funding and no advocacy to regional council. Waitakere and Great
Barrier Local Board provide funding for Kauri Die back projects.
· Make Waiheke Pest Free. Onetangi Beach Ratepayers
Ass bait extension. Extended to whole of Waiheke. Back on to
Government programme.
· Pest Free should be part of the ecological blueprint of
Waiheke.
· Ecological protection, restoration and weed and pest
management. We have really good aviation birds, forests that are
suffering. Need to think about protecting what we have. F&B
have been leading discussions with the board re wildlife signage, dog access,
blue penguins and grey faced petrels. Include protection in that
priority.
20. Progressing
options for tourism infrastructure funding
· Alter the wharf tax system and give the money to the
Local Board to use on tourism infrastructure.
· We need to actively discourage increased tourism.
The nature of our island has changed enough already.
· Marine protection should be of higher priority. Tourism
can take a back seat.
· Waiheke is marketed as a jewel in Auckland's crown but
its success is causing problems with pollution of our beaches and fisheries .
· ATEED has scrapped Info stand at Matiatia, has resulted
in confused tourists asking local shop keepers. Waiheke spirit is personal, one
on one.
· Not a primary role of the local board, therefore low
priority.
· Would be good to see the figures on wharf tax, how much
is it and where is it spent.
· Wharf tax is a key issue and needs to be resolved and
allocated to local improvements.
· Tourism push is too much, it has affected our island too
greatly.
· Is there a levy or local tax that can be returned to the
local board.
· Council is far too
orientated towards tourism, which destroys our beautiful island and does not
care about the locals, who live here all year round and have to suffer the
consequences, i.e un-affordable rents and house prices, restaurant prices, too
much traffic etc. etc.
NB There
are further comments relating to local tourism under the regional proposal
feedback section (paragraph 40).
21. Continuing
to investigate housing issues on Waiheke
· Not a primary role
of the Waiheke LB, therefore low priority.
· Housing should be
of higher priority than Tourism.
· Housing is a huge
issue on the island. There needs to be a minimum building WOF for rental
properties. There are lots of tourists now coming to the island and there
aren't going to be any people working in services as they have nowhere to live.
22. Supporting a
governance review which has good outcomes for Waiheke
· Priority.
23. Reinstatement
of the Rural Urban Boundary
· High priority.
24. Continuing
to progress the development of a community swimming pool.
· Request a
facilitated consultation process with the community, with regards to the
development of an indoor community pool.
· Priority is all
year swimming pool for teaching, accident rehabilitation, elderly and disabled
physical well-being, social well-being etc.
· I strongly support
a swimming pool for our children to learn to swim in, otherwise tragic
drownings in an island community are inevitable. This summer, the only public
pool on the island at the school has been closed for maintenance so no children
have had lessons.
· Only supported by
a faction of the community and highly unlike to obtain funding, and therefore
low priority.
Additional feedback not related to priorities
25. Infrastructure
· Infrastructure
spending on basics like drainage needs urgent attention.
· The Waiheke Local
Board continues to waste ratepayers' money by neglecting basic infrastructure.
· We pay full
Auckland rates and do not get sewage and town water, our share of council
spending should be increased on roading and drainage, as well as public
parking, especially at Matiatia.
· Sewage and
stormwater.
· Infrastructure
spending on basics like drainage needs urgent attention.
· Major road
drainage issues from flooding need fixing at Onetangi.
26. Recreation
facilities
· Boat ramp.
Why is there no allocation in the budget for a much needed additional boat ramp
on the northern side of the island for all weather/tide launching. Sandy
Bay is dangerous.
· Boaties needs also need to be considered.
· Is there going to be a needs assessment for sports and
recreation needs? - need to ensure all community are involved and there are
many different interests.
27. Open
space
· The board needs to
continue with its work to ensure that the landfill material unlawfully placed
in the main branch of the Rangihoua tributary at the south-east corner of
Rangihoua Park is removed from the park.
· Little has been
done about Reserve Management Plans.
28. Governance
· Take notice of
what the local board suggests. They know what is best for Waiheke. Do not
ignore them.
· This question is
insulting given the lack of influence that our local board has with the council
- which has a history of opposing local wishes.
· Waiheke should be
supported in its bid to break away from Auckland Council. Our community's
values are totally different from city people.
· A marina at
Kennedy Point is strongly opposed by Waiheke residents and should be refused
consent.
· Marina is needed
on Waiheke to service the demand from tourists.
· Abandoning the
hugely popular community fruit trees project is a mistake.
· The funding would
not cover half of the priorities list.
· Support for enabling houseboats in identified areas in
the Unitary Plan.
· The Board needs to
prioritise the developing issues from greater number of visitors to the island
as well as the increasing number of new businesses starting up. The board
need more decision-making for business activity, e.g. Jetskis and and Segway.
· Board needs to ensure there is a strategy around the
development of the District Plan - this is the blueprint document, we need to
ensure board members are on the panel.
· Create a blueprint for Waiheke - this is the
Waiheke we want, and the constraints around the roading, urban design, marine
environment. There is no Waiheke character overlay that will intesect
with planners, transport etc.
· Seems to make no difference what the public think in
regards to District Plan and planning. E.g Essentially Waiheke was
done and never made a statutory document. Ensure Essentially Waiheke is
included as a statutory document within the District Plan.
· Don't keep failing to notify 98% of consent applications.
This is supposed to be a democracy, not a bureaucracy.
29. Waste
· The board also
needs to prioritise returning the waste services to community ownership so that
the disastrous performance in diversion can be addressed.
Overview of feedback
received on regional proposals from Waiheke Local Board area
30. The
consultation on the proposed annual budget focused on five key issues,
Issue 1: Rates increases,
Issue 2: Rating stability,
Issue 3: Paying for tourism promotion,
Issue 4: Paying for housing infrastructure and
Issue 5: Paying council staff a living wage.
31. The
written feedback received from the Waiheke Local Board area on these key
consultation topics is summarised below, along with an overview of any other
areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.
Issue 1: Rates
increases
32. Aucklanders
were asked if we have the balance right with a 2.5 per cent average rates
increase or should we have a higher rates increase (3.5 per cent) and do more
or a lower rates increase (2 per cent) and do less.
Question 1: Delivering our planned investments
and services will require an average rates increase of 2.5 per cent for
2017/2018. A higher rates increase would enable us to do more, while a lower
rates increase would mean we can do less. What do you think?
33. The
graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Waiheke Local Board
area.
34. Comments
relating to rates increase – regional proposal
· Using more money
to create and maintain large park and recreation facilities instead of turning
the space into housing.
· Reduce council
salaries and streamline bureaucracy.
· Stop funding
events, promoting tourism or other non-essential services.
· Focus on core
business such as maintaining infrastructure (roads, sewerage etc) and ensuring
decent transport services.
Issue 2: Rating stability
35. Aucklanders
were asked if businesses should receive the same rates increase as residential
ratepayers in 2017/2018.
Question 2: The council has been adjusting the share of general
rates between businesses and residential ratepayers over time. This has
resulted in businesses having a smaller increase than residential ratepayers.
We are proposing that for 2017/2018 both should receive the same rates
increase. What do you think?
36. The graphs
below give an overview of the responses from the Waiheke Local Board area.
37. Comments
relating to rating stability – regional proposal
· Businesses can
factor the rates into their expenses or operating costs
· Running a business
is a life option. Higher rates must be factored into a business plan or
operating costs. Residing is a life must. We all need to live in
safe, secure homes. Residents must pay less than businesses.
· Residential rates
are already high and we have taken a hit year after year with people on fixed
income struggling as interest rates are low. I think commercial should bear
rise this time, as with so many more people coming to Auckland in recent years
they must be in a better position and can be absorbed as an expense at tax
time, which residential can't do.
· Businesses need
all the assistance they can get.
Issue 3: Paying for tourism promotion
38. Aucklanders
were asked if they agree or disagree with the proposed targeted rate on
accommodation providers to fund tourism promotion rather than from general
rates.
Question 3: The council spends $20‐30 million on tourism promotion and
major events each year. We are proposing to fund this from a targeted
rate on accommodation providers rather than general rates. What do you think?
39. The graphs
below give an overview of the responses from the Waiheke Local Board area.
40. Comments
relating to tourism promotion – regional proposal
· Tourism taxes are
used through Europe, and is appropriate here.
· Accommodation
providers and businesses are the winners from tourism.
· Residential rate
payers should not be expected to pay for an activity which puts added pressure
on their facilities and infrastructure.
· Council should
invest more in city street maintenance, pavements, sewage, public spaces and
public toilets (basic infrastructure) rather than events.
· A targeted rate
should not penalise accommodation providers, other stakeholders involved in
serving our tourists should also be targeted, i.e. the extra should come from
the tourists.
· Ratepayers should
not pay for advertising for businesses.
· Tourism is not of
'significant' benefit to the Waiheke community and infrastructure can’t
cope with numbers.
· Many Waiheke
visitors are from the Auckland region, and are therefore paying from rates and
an extra tariff. This proposal will greatly impact the way we do
business.
· Consider an entry
or landing tax instead.
Issue 4: Paying for housing
infrastructure
41. People were
asked if they supported changing our funding policy to allow infrastructure for
new housing developments to be funded by targeted rates alongside existing
growth charges, rather than ratepayers across Auckland.
Question 4: The council is proposing to change our funding
policy to allow infrastructure for new housing developments to be funded by
targeted rates, rather than ratepayers across Auckland. What do you think?
42. The graph
below gives an overview of the responses from the Waiheke Local Board area.
43. Comments
relating to housing infrastructure – regional proposal
· Infrastructure for
new housing developments should not be funded by rates at all. It should be
funded by the developers.
· Tend to believe
that housing is a central government issue rather than local council. Keep
local council housing by all means particularly for vulnerable people.
· Stop landbanking
from foreigners or people owning land purely for capital gain.
· Need to protect
horticultural land in Pukekohe and council needs to change the Unitary Plan to
reflect this. We cannot become a country that imports our fresh vegetables.
This land needs to be kept out of the hands of developers.
· Disincentive to
development, not developers fault there's been underinvestment in the past and
lack of planning.
· The wider
infrastructure which interconnects the new area to others is part of the whole
city so should be paid for by the whole city.
· Any housing policy
should take into consideration natural resources and existing infrastructure.
While there is a housing crisis, empty houses and holiday homes could be
charged a higher rate.
Issue 5: Paying council staff a living
wage
44. People were
asked if they support the council to implement a living wage policy over the
council term ending October 2019 to ensure all council staff can afford typical
living costs. This would be funded from savings within the existing budgets.
Question 5: The council is proposing to implement a living wage
policy over the council term ending October 2019 to ensure all council staff
can afford typical living costs. This would be funded from savings within the
existing budgets. What do you think?
45. The graph
below gives an overview of the responses from the Waiheke Local Board area.
46. Comments
relating to paying council staff a living wage - regional proposal
· Reduce management
salaries to enable a living wage.
· We want to
encourage young people with innovative ideas into council positions not drive
them away because they can't afford to live in Auckland.
· Proposal is an
insult to ratepayers on lower or fixed incomes who are faced with higher and
higher rates every year. It is not up to these ratepayers to pay more than
necessary for Council staff to have a living wage.
· Living wage should
come out of current salaries budget.
