|
Resolution
number MR/2017/277
MOVED by Chairperson A Dalton, seconded by Deputy
Chairperson R McLean:
That the Manurewa
Local Board:
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 also increases and is commensurate.
ii)
the current remission scheme is
inequitable because not all former legacy council areas had such 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 the 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) support
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)
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. At the same
time the draft Sports Facility Investment Plan looks for increased revenue
opportunities while moving away from removal of rates remissions and
postponements.
CARRIED
|
