|
Resolution
number RD/2017/200
MOVED by
Chairperson B Houlbrooke, seconded by Member B Bailey:
That the Rodney Local Board:
a)
provide the following feedback
on the options to address the legacy council remission and postponement
schemes:
i)
does not support the recommended option
one, to integrate with the contestable grants scheme due to the following
concerns:
a) it is not the local board’s role to be involved in rating
and rates remissions; this is best dealt with consistently at a regional
level.
b) if administered through the grant scheme there is no assurance to
local boards that the funding provided to local boards is increased in line
with rates increases so that the proportion of rates relief available to
eligible parties also increases and is commensurate.
c) consider that 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.
d)
considers that the proposed 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.
ii) supports Option 2 to retain
the legacy remission and postponement schemes
(status quo) and provide the following comments:
a)
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.
b) 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.
c)
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.
d)
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.
e)
The local board 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.
f)
The draft Sports Facility Investment
Plan is looking for increased revenue opportunities while moving away from
rates remissions and postponements. It is requested that the Rates Remission
and Postponement Policy Review take this into account.
iii)
supports an option to develop a
holistic region-wide policy to address rates remissions and postponements to
reconcile the current legacy arrangements.
b)
agree that Attachment D to the report
remain confidential.
CARRIED
|
