Agenda of Māngere-ŌtāhuhuLocal Board

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

09 May 2018

Local board dicisions and input into the 10-year Budget 2018-2028m draft Auckland Plan 2050 and draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

File No.: CP2018/06416

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve local financial matters for the local board agreement 2018/2019, which need to be considered by the Governing Body in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 (the 10-year Budget) process.

2. To seek feedback on regional topics in the 10-year Budget, the draft Auckland Plan 2050 and the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Auckland Council’s 10-year Budget contains 21 local board agreements which are the responsibility of local boards. These agreements set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures. This report seeks decisions on local financial matters for the local board agreement, including:

a) advocacy on local priority projects

b) any new/amended Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rates

c) any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

d) proposed Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

e) release of local board specific reserve funds

f) LDI opex projects for deferral to 2017/2018.

4. Auckland Council consulted with the public from 28 February – 28 March 2018 to seek community views on four plans. This report seeks local board views on three of these plans:

· Regional 10-year Budget issues: including the key issues of transport, natural environment, rates and charges and other budget information

· Draft Auckland Plan 2050: including six proposed outcome areas and the development strategy

· Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018: including on the key proposals.

5. Decisions on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan will be made later in the year. Local boards will have the opportunity to provide input into this plan before then.

6. Local board views on these regional plans will be considered by the Governing Body (or relevant committee) before making final decisions on the plans.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) receives the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and draft Auckland Plan 2050 consultation feedback report (Attachment A).

b) notes that the following redacted submissions are available through the following Auckland Council website here.

· submissions on the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board priorities

· submissions on regional proposals in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and draft Auckland Plan 2050 from people or organisations based in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area.

c) approves its advocacy initiatives, including its key advocacy project, for inclusion (to be tabled) to its 2018/2019 Local Board Agreement (Attachment D).

d) recommend that the governing body approves a targeted rate set as a uniform charge per separately used or inhabited part of a property, on residential properties in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area, for the purpose of fully subsidising entry to swimming pools for persons 17 years and over, and that the rate for 2018/2019 is estimated to be $31.94 including GST.

e) recommends to the Governing Body that $221,680 of 2017/2018 Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) operating expenditure to be deferred to 2018/2019 (attachment C).

f) provides feedback on the 10-year Budget 2018-2028.

g) provides feedback on the draft Auckland Plan 2050.

h) provides feedback on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 (Attachment B).

Horopaki / Context

7. Local board agreements form part of the Auckland Council’s 10-year Budget and set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures. This report details local board decisions and recommendations that need to be made in early May to allow them to be considered by the Governing Body in the 10-year Budget process.

8. Each year local boards also advocate to the governing body for funding for projects that cannot be accommodated within their local budgets. These advocacy initiatives are attached to the local board agreement.

9. Local boards are responsible for providing local input into regional strategies, policies and plans. Local Board Plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that guide both the development of local board agreements and input into regional plans.

10. Auckland Council publicly consulted on four plans from 28 February – 28 March 2018:

· 10-year Budget (which includes both regional issues and local board key priorities)

· Draft Auckland Plan 2050

· Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

· Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan.

11. Across the region, 5,374 people attended 100 engagement events. Feedback was received through written, event and social media channels.

12. Consultation feedback Redacted submissions are available through the following Auckland Council website here.

13. Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local financial matters for the local board agreement

14. This report allows the local board to agree its advocacy and recommend other local financial matters to the Governing Body in early May. This is to allow time for the Governing Body to consider these items in the 10-year Budget process (decisions made in June).

Local board advocacy

15. This trienium a three year approach is being taken to progress initiatives that are unable to be funded by local board budgets. The approach aims to better utilise the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and local board plan processes to progress and advise on a narrower range of local board initiatives, in a more comprehensive way.

16. As part of the Annual Budget 2017/2018 process, local boards began narrowing their priorities to one key advocacy project. Council departments provided local boards with information to help inform their position on these initiatives. Local boards then consulted their communities on their key advocacy project in the local board plan and/or the local board agreement process. Local boards will discuss their key advocacy project with the Finance and Performance Committee through the 10-year Budget process, supported by organisational advice.

17. Local boards are requested to approve their advocacy initiatives, including their key advocacy project, for consideration by the Governing body and inclusion (as an appendix) to the 2018/2019 Local Board Agreement.

Local targeted rate and Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rate proposals

18. Local boards are required to endorse any new locally targeted rate proposals or BID targeted rate proposals in their local board area (noting that any new local targeted rates and/or BIDs must have been consulted on before they can be implemented).

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

19. Local boards are allocated funding annually to spend on local projects or programmes that are important to their communities. This funding is for ‘Locally Driven Initiatives’ or LDI. Local boards can approve LDI capital projects up to $1 million, projects over that amount need approval from the Governing Body.

20. Local boards can recommend to the Governing Body to convert LDI operational funding to capital expenditure for 2018/2019 if there is a specific need to do so. Or Governing Body approval may be needed for the release of local board specific reserve funds, which are funds being held by the council for a specific purpose.

21. Local boards can defer LDI projects where there was an agreed scope and cost but the project/s have not been delivered. The local board may wish to resolve 2017/2018 projects that meet the criteria for deferral to 2018/2019. Key information on the LDI funded projects that meet the criteria for deferral is provided in Attachment C.

Local board input on regional plans

22. Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the context of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland Council. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on three plans, the 10-year Budget, draft Auckland Plan 2050 and the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Regional issues in the 10-year Budget

23. The 10-year Budget sets out Auckland Council priorities and how we're going to pay for them. The regional consultation on the proposed 10-year Budget focused on four key issues:

· Issue 1: Transport

· Issue 2: Natural Environment

· Issue 3: Rates and charges

· Issue 4: Other changes and budget information.

24. The 10-year Budget also included key priorities for each local board area. Decisions on local board priorities will be made when local board agreements are considered in June.

25. The feedback form contained at least one question relating to each issue. Consultation feedback received from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area on key regional issues in the 10-year Budget are summarised in Attachment A, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

26. Local boards may wish to provide feedback on these regional issues for consideration by the Governing Body.

Draft Auckland Plan 2050

27. The draft Auckland Plan 2050 sets Auckland Council’s long-term direction and considers how we will address our key challenges of high population growth, shared prosperity, and environmental degradation. It covers:

· Outcome area 1: Belonging and participation

· Outcome area 2: Māori identity and wellbeing

· Outcome area 3: Homes and places

· Outcome area 4: Transport and access

· Outcome area 5: Environment and cultural heritage

· Outcome area 6: Opportunity and prosperity

· Development strategy – How Auckland will grow and change over the next 30 years.

28. The feedback form contained a question relating to each outcome area as well as a question on the development strategy. Consultation feedback received from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area on the outcome areas in the draft Auckland Plan 2050 are summarised in Attachment A.

29. Local boards may wish to provide feedback on these outcome areas for consideration by the Planning Committee on 5 June 2018.

Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

30. The Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 has been reviewed. The new plan proposes to continue working towards Auckland Council’s vision of Zero Waste to landfill by 2040. Auckland Council will continue to deliver a range of services to households, and to work with mana whenua, communities, and industry to achieve waste reductions.

31. The new draft plan proposes to:

· Work with the commercial sector to find ways to reduce and divert waste from landfill

· Prioritise the three largest waste streams - construction and demolition, plastic and organic waste

· Continue to establish community recycling centres

· Ask central government to introduce container deposit schemes for plastic/glass bottles and cans and product stewardship schemes for hard to dispose products like tyres and e-waste

· Address the needs of the Hauraki Gulf islands through the Tikapa Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Draft Waste Plan.

32. This report asks for local board input to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

33. Consultation feedback received from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is summarised in Attachment B.

34. Local boards may wish to provide feedback on this plan for consideration by the Environment and Community Committee.

Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

35. Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) was last reviewed in 2007. Significant changes have occurred since the strategy was last reviewed, both in terms of the pests themselves and changes to the Biosecurity Act. Auckland Council is now reviewing the existing RPMS and producing a new plan to align with the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015. The new plan will provide a statutory and strategic framework for the effective management of pests in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

36. Decisions on this plan are expected later in the year and local board input will be sought prior to decision-making.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /

Local impacts and local board views

37. Local board decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. Local boards have a statutory role in providing local board feedback on regional plans.

38. Local boards play an important role in the development of the 10-year Budget. Local board agreements form part of the 10-year Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Finance and Performance committee workshop on key topics and special briefings have been arranged.

39. Local boards have also been involved in, and made a significant contribution to, the refresh of the Auckland Plan during 2017. This involvement included representation at Planning Committee workshops, local board cluster workshops and individual board business meetings and workshops. Local boards passed resolutions in August and October 2017 which helped to inform the draft plan.

40. Local boards provided input into the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan through formal resolutions to business meetings in November 2017. This feedback has been incorporated into the draft plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

41. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the 10-year Budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Māori.

42. The Auckland Plan and its contribution to Māori well-being is of interest to Māori. Six hui with mana whenua were held during 2017, focusing on the key challenges and opportunities facing Auckland, and how the plan can best address these. Engagement with mataawaka was carried out through working with Māori organisations. These organisations used their networks to provide feedback to inform the draft plan. The Independent Māori Statutory Board provided formal feedback on early drafts of the plan including the proposed measures.

43. Local board plans, which were developed in 2017 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.

44. Attachment A includes analysis of submissions made by mana whenua and mataawaka entities who have interests in the rohe/local board area.

45. 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.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

46. This report is asking for local board decisions on financial matters in local board agreements that need to then be considered by the Governing Body.

47. Local boards are also providing input to regional plans. There is information in the consultation material for each plan with the financial implications of different options.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

48. Local boards need to make recommendations on these local financial matters for the 10-year Budget by 10 May, in order for the Governing Body to be able to make decisions on them when considering the 10-year Budget in June.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

49. Local boards will approve their local board agreements and corresponding work programmes in June.

50. Recommendations and feedback from local boards will be provided to the relevant governing body committees for consideration during decision making as outlined in the table below.

Decision dates for regional plans

Plan	Decision-maker	Scheduled meeting
10-year Budget	Governing Body	27 June 2018
Auckland Plan 2050	Planning Committee	5 June 2018
Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018	Environment and Community Committee	12 June 2018

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	10-year Budget 2018-2028 and draft Auckland Plan 2050 consultation feedback report	15
b ⇩	Draft Waste Management and Minimisation 2018 consultation feedback report	45
c ⇩	LDI funded projects that meet the criteria for deferral	51
d ⇩	Advocacy List	53

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Rachel Wilson - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

09 May 2018

Feedback on Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

File No.: CP2018/06437

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide analysis of public feedback on the review of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and to seek the views of the local board on the proposed policy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Replacement of legacy schemes for natural heritage and community and sporting organisations with grants

2. The Rates Remission and Postponement Policy proposal provides for:

· transfer of current budget for legacy remission schemes to the operating group with relevant expertise (e.g. remissions budget for Natural Heritage will transfer to Environmental Services while those for local community facilities will transfer to the relevant local board as asset based service funding)

· current recipient receives same support (exc GST) as a grant guaranteed for three years

· development of an integrated approach to supporting outcomes for natural heritage, and community and sporting activities across the region.

3. 112 submitters opposed the proposal and 28 supported it. 91 submitters, including the Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust (QEII) and Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, wanted remissions retained for land with a QEII covenant. 27 responses cited the uncertainty of on-going support. 24 thought grants would require more administration. 9 respondents stated they would be worse off as they were not GST registered.

4. Currently there is significant regional variation in the level of support available and how it is provided (for example, remissions, grants, subsidised rentals). Depending on location, some properties are receiving multiple forms of council funding. This leads to inequity and a lack of transparency in the use of council funding.

5. This proposal aligns this legacy funding with council’s broader funding for these activities. The proposal is a transitional step that enables the relevant council groups to integrate this legacy funding into regionally consistent support schemes.

6. Officers recommend that the proposal be adopted with the following amendments:

· budget increased by $10,000 to cover the cost of GST for recipients not GST registered

· direct officers to work with sector groups on the development of an integrated approach to council support for these activities.

Introduction of a remission for the accommodation provider targeted rate (APTR)

7. The proposed remission provided for owners of no more than two serviced apartments with long term fixed rental leases to hotel operators to receive a remission of the APTR. The remission would be reduced in equal steps over ten years. 39 submitters supported and 30 were opposed to the proposal. 13 thought the APTR should not be charged while 11 wanted the remission scheme to be more generous.

8. Officers recommend adoption of the APTR remission scheme as proposed.

Amendments to regional remissions

9. 6 submitters were supportive of aspects of the regional schemes, and none were opposed. Officers recommend adoption as proposed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) endorses the proposal to:

i. transfer current budget for legacy remissions schemes for natural heritage and community and sports organisations to the operating group with relevant expertise

ii. transfer current budget for postponements for Great Barrier Island businesses to Great Barrier Island Local Board

iii. grant the current recipient the same support guaranteed for three years

iv. develop an integrated approach to supporting outcomes for natural heritage, and community and sporting activities across the region

b) endorses the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy in Attachment B to this report, which includes the following amendments to the existing policy:

i. introduction of a remission scheme for the Accommodation Provider Targeted rate.

ii. amendments to the remission for residents of residents of licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga housing to remove references to retirement villages and the Interim Transport Levy

iii. amendments to simplify the remission for rates penalties

iv. removal of the legacy remissions schemes for natural heritage and community and sports organisations and postponement for Great Barrier Island

c) endorses the amendments to the postponement for Manukau Sport Clubs to restrict the scheme to current applicants and to close off the scheme after three years.

Horopaki / Context

10. Council is required to review and consult on its Rates Remission and Postponement Policy every six years. The policy was last reviewed in 2012.

11. The policy offers eleven legacy remissions and postponement schemes that were carried over from the previous councils. These schemes only apply in the district of the originating council. They providing varying levels of support for:

· community and sporting organisations

· rating units protected for natural or historic or cultural conservation purposes

· commercial properties on Great Barrier Island.

12. A summary of the level of funding provided by these remission schemes by local board is in Attachment C. Attachment D provides a list of community and sporting organisations receiving support by local board area.

13. The policy also includes seven regional schemes that provide financial assistance or address anomalies in how rates are applied.

14. When the APTR was adopted in 2017 the council asked officers to consider applications for remissions for properties with long term fixed rental agreements with hotel operators and forward contracts that didn’t include provision for price adjustments. These were considered under the Remission of Rates for Miscellaneous Purposes scheme.

15. A review of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy was undertaken by officers. Local Boards provided feedback on the draft Rates Remission and Postponement Policy at their December meetings. The draft policy for consultation was agreed by the 27 February meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee.

16. Consultation was open to the public from 13 March to 13 April. Notification of the consultation was targeted to:

· current recipients of legacy remission and postponement schemes

· ratepayers currently charged the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate

· administrators for retirement villages currently receiving the remission for licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga.

· relevant key stakeholders including the Queen Elizabeth II Trust and Forest and Bird.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17. Analysis of feedback and officers responses has been separated into the key issues on which feedback was received. A summary of feedback by local board is in Attachment A.

Legacy remission and postponement schemes

Proposal

18. The proposal retained the current budget for each legacy scheme and transferred administration and budget to the operating group with the relevant expertise. Decision making for regional activities would fall under the relevant operating group delegation and local asset based services with local boards.

19. Support would be provided in the form of a grant rather than a remission. Current recipients would receive a grant (exc GST) at the same level as the existing remission for a period of three years adjusted for any changes in their rates.

20. Officers would report back on the integration of these grants with a wider approach to supporting these activities, developed with sector groups, within the three year transition.

21. The draft policy retained the postponement of rates for two Manukau golf clubs for a period three years after which it would expire. At the end of the three years any postponed rates would remain as a liability on the property, to be paid on sale or transfer of the property.

Feedback

22. 153 submitters provided feedback on the proposal for legacy schemes for natural hertage and community and sports organisations. Responses are summarised in the table below:

Feedback on Legacy Remission	Number of submitters who:
Feedback on Legacy Remission	Responded	Commented	Hold a remission
Supports proposal	28	13	15
Opposes proposal	112	105	58
Other comment	13	13	10
Total	153	131	83

Feedback related to remissions for natural heritage

23. 105 submitters commented on legacy remissions for natural heritage, with 91 opposed to the proposal. Key themes from feedback and officers comments are set out in the table below.

Theme	Feedback Points	Officers Comments
QEII covenanted land should be non-rateable	37	Land is only non-rateable if owned or used by (for example under a lease) the QEII trust. The QEII Trust is empowered by its establishing legislation to pay the rates on land that has a covenant to the Trust
Will be worse off because not GST registered	9	Officers recommend funding the GST component which would leave recipients in the same position as currently. This will cost $10,000.
Ongoing support (after three years) is uncertain	27	Neither grants nor remissions guarantee on-going support, as policies can be changed. All support should be subject to regular review to ensure value for ratepayers in terms of outcomes achieved.
Grants require more administration	24	Grants can provide long-term support with same administration requirements as current schemes. Properties in Waitakere already receive grants for rates
Grants will not encourage people to covenant land in future	29	The incentive value of remissions is minimal compared to the opportunity cost of covenanting land. Council offers grants that can be used for costs associated with covenanting land.
Remissions recognise value to environment of QEII covenants	49	Grants offer flexibility to increase recognition of the beneficial outcomes achieved.
Remissions recognise the cost of maintaining covenanted land	50	Amount of remission is limited to the amount of rates charged to the land and is not related to the costs of maintenance. Grants provide more flexibility in level of support offered. This issue can be considered when options for future support are developed.
Costs of maintaining QE2 land as identified in Waikato study^{^[1]} which put the cost to owners for establishing a covenant at $64,000, and the annual cost of maintain the land at $6000.	12	Figures in the study were derived from a sample of properties with QE2 covenants, of which 11 were in Auckland. For the Auckland sample, the study records an average cost for establishment as $8,457 in cash and $2,818 in non-cash costs. Annual maintenance costs were $319 cash and $1,062 non-cash.
Removing remissions is inconsistent with RMA and/or Unitary Plan	22	Council uses a variety of mechanisms to meet its obligations under the RMA and Unitary Plan.
Extend remissions to SEAs	9	Significant Ecological Area status does not guarantee enduring protection for native habitats

Feedback related to remissions for community and sporting organisations

24. 36 submitters commented on legacy remissions for community and sporting organisations, of which 15 represented organisations receiving a remission. The following table sets out the key themes from submitters commenting on remissions for community groups.

Theme	Feedback Points	Officers Comments
Ongoing support is uncertain	14	Neither grants nor remissions guarantee on-going support, as policies can be changed.
Grants require more administration	11	Grants can provide long-term support with same administration requirements as current schemes.
Support should be continue because of the benefit the organisation provides to the community	13	Feedback reflects concerns for continuation of support rather than the form in which it is received. It is proposed that options for future support be developed with input from relevant sectors within the three years.
Removing support will have significant financial impact on organisation	12
Supports grants or remissions so long as support maintained	2
Rates cost will need to be met through existing funding agreement with council	1	Harmonising funding mechanisms will reduce administration for some organisations

25. No feedback was received on the proposals for postponements for Manukau Sports Clubs that are provided to two golf clubs. One submitter opposed the transfer of rates postponements to Great Barrier Island businesses to grants as they thought any future loss of support may make essential services financially unviable.

Key Stakeholder Feedback

26. The Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust and Forest and Bird, opposed the proposal to replace legacy remissions with grants for QEII covenanted land. The feedback of the QE II Trust and Forest and Bird reflect the key feedback points above. Federated Farmers considered that transitioning legacy remissions for natural heritage and community and sporting organisations to grants would signal a lack of committment by council to these activities. Both the QE II Trust and Federated Farmers supported consideration by the council of grants in addition to remissions for QEII covenanted land.

Remission for the Accommodation provider targeted rate

Proposal

27. The draft policy proposed a new remission scheme to remit APTR for the following:

· properties used as emergency accommodation, in proportion to the amount of time and the part of the property that is put to this use

· ratepayers who own no more than two serviced apartments, who are paid a fixed rent by a hotel operator (with no profit sharing), and who are unable to pass on the cost of the rate and unable to exit the contract before the start of rating year. (A partial remission will apply where the lease to the accommodation operator expires during the rating year.) This remission will be phased out over 10 years, with the amount of remission available declining by a tenth each year.

28. Remissions under this scheme are expected to cost ratepayers $1.2 million in 2018/2019, with this amount declining over the next ten years.

29. 73 submitters provided feedback with 39 in support of the proposal and 30 opposed. Of those opposed, 5 thought the remission should be more generous. The key themes from feedback are shown in the table below:

Response to Remissions	Feedback Points	Officers Comments
Remission assists those who most need it	2	This feedback reflects the key issues for and against adoption of an APTR remission
Remission supported because can't pass on rate to operator	12
Remission shouldn't be offered - everyone should pay	4
No APTR should be charged	13	6 supported and 6 opposed the proposal
Remission should be available to more properties	8	3 supported, 4 opposed proposal
Full remission should be granted until lease ends	3	1 supported proposal
Should use bed tax or similar charge rather than APTR	7	2 supported, 1 opposed proposal

30. None of the key stakeholder organisations notified of the consultation opted to make a submission.

Amendment to regional schemes

Proposal

31. The proposed changes are:

· rates penalties – simplifying the scheme for easier administration

· license to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga housing – removes references to:

o retirement villages as residents now qualify for central government rates rebates

o Interim Transport Levy (should this levy not be continued.)

· remission for rates transition management policy change properties – this scheme is redundant.

Feedback

32. Two submitters supported the proposed change to the remission for licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga scheme. Grey Power requested that the scheme remain unchanged until the rates rebate process has been established. 4 submitters broadly supported the policy. Grey Power and 4 other submitters wanted greater support for older/retired residents in general.

33. One submitter supported the changes to the penalty scheme.

Conclusions and Recommendations

34. Officers recommend that for the legacy remissions schemes:

· transfer of the current budget to the operating group with relevant expertise

· current recipient receives same support (exc GST) as a grant guaranteed for three years

· development of a standardised approach to support of these outcomes across the region

· an increase in the budget of $10,000 to cover GST cost for recipients not registered for GST.

35. The proposal:

· maintains supports for existing recipients with a three year transition

· aligns responsibility for these grants with relevant areas of council

· allows this support to be considered alongside other sources of funding as regionally consistent support mechanisms are developed

· remove the current legacy remissions schemes.

36. Grants are recommended over remissions as they offer greater transparency and oversight for rates expenditure. The proposal provides a first step in transitioning the issue of equitable council support for natural heritage and community and sporting organisations and recognises that support is currently inconsistent across the region. Currently, some areas may be able access remissions while others receive grants, subsidised rents or are directly supported to deliver services for council. For example, two sports facilities receive remissions and community access grants, while 16 of the 42 recipients of the Green Network Grants for rates also claim the rates remission.

37. Officers also recommend the changes to the regional schemes in the rates remission and postponement policy and the introduction of a scheme for the remission of the accommodation provider targeted rate be adopted as proposed.

Alternative Options

38. Officers considered the following alternatives but do not recommend them. The council could choose to:

· retain the existing schemes - this will continue the current inequities in regional support.

· remove the schemes without a transition -potential for significant impact for current recipients particularly as other forms of council support are not always consistently available across the region.

· extend the remission schemes to cover the entire region - would require further policy work to develop appropriate options and have substantially increased cost. Does not align support with other council funding mechanisms. Level of support determined by rates (driven by property values) rather than outcomes achieved.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

39. Implications for local boards are set out in the report. Under the proposal local boards will be provided with additional asset based service funding to maintain the existing level of support for local community and sports groups in their local board area that currently receive remissions (or postponements in the case of Great Barrier Island).

40. The amount of support provided by the rates remission and postponement policy varies significantly by local board area. (A summary of the amount of remissions, and the individual schemes by local board area is in Attachment C.) In other areas, support may be provided through grants, discounted rentals, and the direct provision of facilities and services by council. Within the three year transition period, officers will report back on options for integrating funding mechanisms across the region.

41. Analysis of feedback by local board area is Attachment A to the report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

42. No significant feedback was received from Māori or Māori organisations. Māori land is eligible for support under the rates remission for Māori freehold land policy. This policy is not under review.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

43. The financial implications are set out in the report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

44. There are no identified risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

45. Local board feedback will reported to the 30 May meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee for the consideration and adoption of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Feedback by local board	65
b ⇩	Proposed Draft Remission Policy	67
c ⇩	Remission value by local board	77
d	Community and Sports Remissions by local board (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

[1] Waikato University: “2017 Investment in Covenanted Land Conservation” prepared for the Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust

Chairperson	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Deputy Chairperson	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua
Members	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich
	Carrol Elliott, JP
	Makalita Kolo
	Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese, JP
	Christine O'Brien