|
Resolution
number HB/2017/211
MOVED by Deputy Chairperson J Fitzgerald, seconded by
Chairperson J Parfitt:
That the Hibiscus
and Bays Local Board provides the following feedback on the options to
address the legacy council rates remission and postponement policy review:
a)
does not support
the recommended Option One, to integrate with the contestable grants scheme
due to the following concerns:
i. there is no assurance
to local boards that the funding provided to local boards through the grant
scheme will be increased in line with rates increases so that the proportion
of rates relief available to eligible parties will also increases and be
commensurate.
ii. the current remission
scheme is inequitable because not all former legacy council areas had a
scheme in place and integrating this with the contestable grants scheme does
not address this inequity.
b)
considers
that the recommended Option One does not address outstanding equity issues
because:
i. where community halls
and other facilities are owned and maintained by local communities, they
provide a service to the community without cost to council.
ii. the current remissions
policy goes a small way to address the differential between community
operated facilities and those facilities that are fully council funded in
other areas, by providing rates relief to communities who would otherwise
receive no funding; this is fair given the service the community operated
facilities provide.
iii. adjusting the remissions policy
to require that groups apply for an annual grant is inequitable in light of
the funding available in other areas, and worsens the situation instead of
improving it by removing the certainty for communities and making their
funding subject to annual decision-making.
iv. if the equity issues are to be
properly addressed, all community halls and other facilities, which rely on
rates remissions, should be fully funded on the same basis as those halls and
facilities in other legacy council areas.
c)
request
an additional option be investigated for the development of a region-wide scheme,
which may have some local decision-making, that supports community and
sporting organisations and natural and historic heritage assets as all
current options identified seek to deal with legacy schemes rather than
setting a holistic policy to achieve agreed outcomes through this investment.
d) supports option two in the
interim to retain the legacy remission and postponement schemes (status quo)
until further investigation is undertaken on the option of a region-wide
scheme, noting the following comments:
i. section 98 of the
Auckland Council Community Grants Policy states that rates rebates, rates
remissions and rates postponements are out of scope for the Community Grants
Policy.
ii. the grant system being
suggested is only for a three-year period which means that there is no
certainty for those community groups owning and operating halls that the
arrangement would continue beyond that three year period.
iii. the proposal states “this
will be smoothed over time by the Local Board Funding Policy” but it is
unclear how legacy areas where the rates remission type of arrangement was in
place will be impacted or affected in the future and how this improves upon
current inequities.
iv. the limitations with the Smarty
Grants system already has many community groups expressing concerns on how
onerous it can be to apply for a grant and the local board expresses its
concern regarding the use of this process for rates remissions.
v. reiterates concerns raised
previously by the northern local boards that they are either forced to use
Locally Driven Initiatives budgets to fill gaps in funding for community
houses, centres and facilities, or going without and leaving community assets
unfunded, where other legacy areas are fully funded via Assets Based Services
funding.
vi. it is unclear whether this Rates
Remission and Postponement Policy Review is taking into account the Sports
Facility Investment Plan, which is looking to take a systematic approach to
regional investment in a network of sport facilities and moving away from an
ad hoc and inconsistent investment across legacy councils and as the draft
Sports Facility Investment Plan looks for increased revenue opportunities
while moving away from removal of rates remissions and postponements.
e) supports an option to develop a
holistic region-wide policy to address rates remissions and postponements to
reconcile the current legacy arrangements.
f) notes that the
responsibility for the administration of the rates remission and postponement
policy implementation is not clear as it sits outside local board decision
making.
g) agree that attachment D to the
agenda report remain confidential.
CARRIED without dissent
|
