Agenda of Manurewa Local Board

Manurewa Local Board

10 May 2018

Business Improvement District (BID) Programme Compliance Report to Manurewa Local Board for Financial Year 2016/2017

File No.: CP2018/05193

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide information to the Manurewa Local Board on compliance with Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) by Manurewa Business Association and Wiri Business Association in the Manurewa Local Board area for the financial year ending June 2017.

2. To provide information which the local board can consider when deciding whether to recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate for this BID programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Auckland Council’s Business Improvement Districts programme supports business associations by collecting a targeted rate from commercial properties within a defined geographic area. The funds from the targeted rate are then provided by way of a grant to the relevant business association (BID).

4. The BIDs are incorporated societies that are independent of council. For council to be confident that the funds provided to the BIDs are being used appropriately, council requires the BIDs to comply with The Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi), known as the BID Policy.

5. The BID Policy was developed to encourage improved governance of BID committees and staff to improve financial management, programme delivery and transparency to their members.

6. The BID programmes covered by this report are operated by the Manurewa Business Association and the Wiri Business Association in the Manurewa Local Board area. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by these business associations to council’s BID programme team to date.

7. Staff recommend that the Local Board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate sought by the Manurewa Business Association and the Wiri Business Association in the Manurewa BID in the Manurewa Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) recommend to the governing body to strike the targeted rates for inclusion in the 2018/2019 Annual Plan/Budget for the following Business Improvement Districts (BIDs):

· $142,470 for the Manurewa Business Association

· $670,000 for the Wiri Business Association.

Horopaki / Context

8. Council adopted the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) in 2016. This policy outlines the principles behind the council BID programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, and terminating BIDs; prescribes operating standards and guidelines; and sets accountability requirements. Please see Attachment A for a review of key elements of the BID programme.

9. BID targeted rates are applied to all commercially-rated properties within a designated area around a town centre or commercial precinct. Those funds are transferred to the business association operating the BID programme.

10. There are currently 48 BID programmes throughout Auckland which represent more than 25,000 businesses and represent a combined $17.5 million in targeted rates investment. Please see Attachment B for current and proposed targeted rates budgets for all BIDs.

11. Under Auckland Council governance arrangements, local boards have several decision-making responsibilities. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body.

12. Recommendations of this report are put into effect with the Governing Body’s approval of the 2018/2019 Annual Plan/Budget and striking of the targeted rates.

13. This report is a requirement of the Auckland Council BID Policy (2016).

Compliance with BID Policy

14. The BID Policy is the means for council to ensure accountability for targeted rate funding, and encourage good governance, by requiring regular reporting specifically by providing to council the following documents, and staying in touch with their local board at least once a year:

· current strategic plan – evidence of achievable medium to long-term opportunities

· audited accounts - assurance that the BID is managing its members’ targeted rates funds responsibly

· annual report on the year just completed – evidence that programmes are addressing priority issues that benefit ratepayers

· business plan for the coming year – detailed one-year programme, based on the strategic plan, to be achieved and resourced

· indicative budget for the following year - the council annual plan requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the annual plan process which sets all rates

· board charter – establishes guidelines for effective board governance and positive relationships between the association and its members

· annual accountability form – certification that these requirements have been met

· programme agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID and council that embodies basic parameters of the council/ BID relationship.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. The council BID team monitors compliance with the BID policy on an on-going basis, and provides governance advice to BIDs as needed or requested.

16. As BIDs are operated by private independent societies, their programmes and services are provided according to members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent corporate status, the policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. Staff therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

17. The recommendation of this report is supported by evidence of full compliance with the policy by the Manurewa BID in the Manurewa Local Board area. Please see Attachment C for details of compliance for this BID.

18. As the Manurewa BID in the Manurewa Local Board area has complied with the BID policy for the year ending June 2017, the Local Board should recommend the striking of the targeted rate if they are satisfied that the BID is substantially complying with the BID policy.

19. The Wiri Business Association has yet to submit its accountability form which had deadline set out in the Policy (12 March 2018). Please see Attachment D for details of compliance for this BID.

20. Late submission of the accountability form is not considered grounds to justify not recommending to strike the targeted rate.

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

21. Recommending that the Governing Body strike the targeted rate for the Manurewa BID and the Wiri BID in the Manurewa Local Board area means that these BID programmes will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in their districts, and will provide services in accordance with their members’ priorities as stated in their Strategic Plans.

22. By continuing these services and programmes, the Manurewa town centre and the Wiri commercial area should better serve residents and visitors, and support business growth.

23. The Manurewa Local Board approved a similar recommendation for these BIDs last year, as did the seventeen other local boards that have BIDs in their areas. (Resolution MR/2017/58)

24. A number of local boards provide additional funding to local BIDs but accountability for that funding is set by funding agreements between the local board and the BID. Those requirements are apart from the requirements of the BID policy so are not covered in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25. This decision will have no adverse effects on, or particular benefits to, the Maori population.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26. There are no financial implications for the local board. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that district. Council’s financial role is only to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association on a quarterly basis.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27. There is the possibility of reputational risks to council if ratepayer funds are misused, but this is rare. Otherwise, there are no direct financial risks to the local board or council that could result from this recommendation to approve the targeted rates.

28. The requirements of the BID policy are intended to help minimise the potential for BIDs to misuse funds by requiring the BIDs to plan for the intended use of funds, report on its activities to its members, and to have its accounts audited.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

29. If the local board accepts the recommendation of this report, it will recommend to the Governing Body that the targeted rates for this BID be struck as stated in the Recommendations as part of its approval of the 2018/2019 Annual Plan/Budget.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Key Elements of Business Improvement District (BID) Programme	11
b ⇩	Targeted Rates Comparison all Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) 2017/2018 and 2018/2019	13
c ⇩	Business Improvement District (BID) Policy Compliance Summary for Manurewa BID	15
d ⇩	Business Improvement District (BID) Policy Compliance Summary for Wiri BID	17

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Steven Branca - BID Partnership Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

10 May 2018

Feedback on Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

File No.: CP2018/06145

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 proposed Rates Remission and Postponement Policy provides for:

· the 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 recipients receiving the same support (excluding GST) as a grant guaranteed for three years

· the 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. Staff 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 staff 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 provides for owners of no more than two serviced apartments with long term fixed rental leases with 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. Staff 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. Staff recommend adopting the remissions as proposed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) endorse 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) endorse 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) endorse 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 staff 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 staff. 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 APTR

· 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 staff 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. Staff will 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 staff comments are set out in the table below.

Theme	Feedback Points	Staff 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	Staff 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	Staff 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	Staff 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 four 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. Staff 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. Staff 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 APTR be adopted as proposed.

Alternative Options

38. Staff 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 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 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 board area is in Attachment C. In other areas, support may be provided to through grants, discounted rentals, and the direct provision of facilities and services by council. Within the three year transition period, staff 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 on the Draft Rates Remission and Postponement Policy summarised by Local Board	27
b ⇩	Draft Rates remission and postponement policy	29
c ⇩	Value of legacy schemes by local board area: (Remissions for community/sporting are split by regional and local. Excludes council properties)	39
d ⇩	List of all community and sporting remissions by local board area - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - Acting General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

10 May 2018

Local board decisions and input into the 10-year Budget 2018-2028, draft Auckland Plan 2050 and draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 - Manurewa

File No.: CP2018/05553

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 Manurewa Local Board:

a) receive the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and draft Auckland Plan 2050 consultation feedback report.

b) approve its advocacy initiatives, including its key advocacy project, for inclusion (as an appendix) to its 2018/2019 Local Board Agreement.

c) recommend any new or amended Business Improvement District targeted rates to the Governing Body.

d) recommend any new or amended local targeted rate proposals to the Governing Body.

e) recommend that the Governing Body approves any proposed Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capital projects, which are outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility.

f) recommend the release of local board specific reserve funds to the Governing Body.

g) recommend $0 of 2017/2018 Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) operating expenditure to be deferred to 2018/2019 to the Governing Body.

h) provide feedback on the 10-year Budget 2018-2028.

i) provide feedback on the draft Auckland Plan 2050.

j) provide feedback on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

k) note that the following redacted submissions will be made available through the Auckland Council website in May, until then the submissions are available on request by emailing akhaveyoursay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

i) submissions on the Manurewa Local Board priorities

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

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. A report summarising all submissions from across the region to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 is available on the Auckland Council website: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/hearings/find-hearing/Pages/Hearing-documents.aspx?HearingId=202. The Waste hearings panel will consider this report when they meet from 30 April – 11 May.

12. Across the region, 5,374 people attended 100 engagement events, including 3 in the local board area. Feedback was received through written, event and social media channels.

13. Consultation feedback on the Manurewa Local Board priorities for 2018/19 and on regional proposals in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and Auckland Plan 2050 from people or organisations based in the Manurewa Local Board area are set out in Attachment A.

14. The feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board before they agree their local board agreement in early June.

15. Redacted submissions will be made available through the Auckland Council website in May, until then redacted submissions are available on request by emailing akhaveyoursay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local financial matters for the local board agreement

16. 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

17. This triennium 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.

18. 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.

19. 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. See Attachment B.

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

20. 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)

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. The feedback form contained at least one question relating to each issue. Consultation feedback received from the Manurewa 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.

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

Draft Auckland Plan 2050

29. 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.

30. 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 Manurewa Local Board area on the outcome areas in the draft Auckland Plan 2050 are summarised in Attachment A.

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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.

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

35. Consultation feedback received from the Manurewa Local Board area on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is summarised in Attachment D.

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

Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

37. 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.

38. 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

39. 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.

40. 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 workshops on key topics and special briefings have been arranged.

41. 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.

42. 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

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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.

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

47. 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

48. 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.

49. 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

50. 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

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

52. 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 Auckland Plan 2050 consultation feedback report for Manurewa Local Board	61
b ⇩	Manurewa Local Board Advocacy Initiatives and Feedback on Regional Issues	79
c ⇩	Manurewa Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funded projects for deferral	97
d ⇩	Manurewa feedback on Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP)	99

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Rachel Wilson - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

10 May 2018

10-year Budget 2018-2028 and Auckland Plan 2050 consultation feedback report for Manurewa Local Board

1. Purpose

This report summarises feedback relating to the Manurewa Local Board received through the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and Auckland Plan 2050 consultation. This includes:

· feedback on the Manurewa Local Board priorities for 2018/19

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

The feedback received will inform the Manurewa Local Board’s decisions on allocation of their local budgets in their local board agreement for 2018/2019. It will also inform the Manurewa Local Board input and advocacy on regional budgets and proposals that will be agreed at their business meeting on 10 May and subsequently discussed with the Finance and Performance Committee on 17/18 May.

2. Executive Summary

This report summarises consultation feedback on the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 (including on local board priorities for 2018/19) and the Auckland Plan 2050.

The council received feedback in person at community engagement events, through written forms (including online and hard copy forms, emails and letters) and through social media.

Feedback on Manurewa Local Board priorities for 2018/2019

The local board consulted on the following 5 priorities:

· Priority 1: Advocate to the Governing Body to fund improvements at Manurewa War Memorial Park, including an upgrade of the playing fields and community facilities.

· Priority 2: Implement the Totara Park Masterplan to enhance the park’s character as a countryside destination while accommodating outdoor uses starting with improvements to existing facilities.

· Priority 3: Improve our retail centres:

o Progress work to create a vibrant Manurewa Town Centre precinct for travelling, working, socialising and living, with a focus on improving the streetscape, improving pavements and introducing more flora.

o Partner with Clendon’s residents and local business owners to support community events, build pride and improve public safety.

· Priority 4: Provide funding to support the development of a multi-purpose, creative youth friendly space in the Manurewa Town Centre that supports and nurtures youth development networks.

· Priority 5: Advocate to the Governing Body to improve the response to and monitoring of illegal dumping so our public and community spaces are clean, attractive and welcoming.

Overall, 43 percent of respondents support the local board’s priorities, 40 percent partially support, and 17 percent do not support.

Feedback on regional proposals in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 from the Manurewa Local Board area

Issue 1: Transport

A slim majority (52 percent) of respondents do not support the proposed regional fuel tax, 41 percent support it, and 7 percent selected other.

Issue 2: Natural Environment

A strong majority (67 percent) of respondents support a water quality targeted rate, with 26 percent opposed and 7 percent selecting other.

Slightly more respondents (43 percent) support introduction of a natural environment targeted rate than opposed it (42 percent), with the majority of those supporting opting for the lower rate (26 percent for Option A and 17 percent for Option B). Fifteen percent selected other.

Issue 3: Rates and charges

Forty seven percent of respondents do not support the general rates increases proposed, 41 percent support and 12 percent selected other.

Issue 4: Other changes and budget information

The majority of other feedback received on the 10-year Budget focused on dissatisfaction with changes to waste service charges and calls for more action on illegal dumping and improved recycling initiatives.

Feedback on the Auckland Plan 2050 from the Manurewa Local Board area

Outcome area 1: Belonging and participation

· 59 percent of respondents support the focus areas proposed, 27 percent partially support, and 14 percent do not support them

Outcome area 2: Māori identity and wellbeing

· 70 percent of respondents support the focus areas proposed, 15 percent partially support, and 15 percent do not support them.

Outcome area 3: Homes and places

· 52 percent of respondents support the focus areas proposed, 29 percent partially support, and 19 percent do not support them.

Outcome area 4: Transport and access

· 72 percent of respondents support the focus areas proposed, 16 percent partially support, and 12 percent do not support them.

Outcome area 5: Environment and cultural heritage

· 64 percent of respondents support the focus areas proposed, 26 percent partially support, and 10 percent do not support them.

Outcome area 6: Opportunity and prosperity

· 55 percent of respondents support the focus areas proposed, 31 percent partially support, and 13 percent do not support them.

Shaping our growth

· 55 percent of respondents support the proposed approach, 29 percent partially support, and 16 percent do not support it.

3. Context

Auckland Council consulted on its 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and the Auckland Plan 2050 between 28 February and 28 March 2018.

The 10-year Budget 2018-2028 sets out our priorities and how we're going to pay for them. The Auckland Plan 2050 sets our long-term direction and looks at the important challenges we need to address.

The 10-year Budget also includes information on each local board’s priorities for 2018/19. These priorities have been informed by the development of the Manurewa Local Board Plan 2017.

Auckland Council also consulted on the Regional Pest Management Strategy and the Waste Management and Minimisation Strategy at the same time. The feedback received to these plans will be presented at a later date.

Types of feedback

Overall Auckland Council received feedback through the following channels:

· Written feedback – 26,556 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters with 801 from Manurewa.

· In person – the council interacted with a total of 5,374 people through 39 have your say events and 61 community events. Manurewa held one have your say event and two community events.

· Social media – 114 comments were received through Facebook and Twitter. There was one comment regarding Manurewa.

4. Feedback received on Manurewa Local Board priorities for 2018/19

The Manurewa Local Board consulted on the following 5 priorities:

· Priority 1: Advocate to the Governing Body to fund improvements at Manurewa War Memorial Park, including an upgrade of the playing fields and community facilities

· Priority 3: Improve our retail centres:

o Partner with Clendon’s residents and local business owners to support community events, build pride and improve public safety.

· Priority 4: Provide funding to support the development of a multi-purpose, creative youth friendly space in the Manurewa Town Centre that supports and nurtures youth development networks.

· Priority 5: Advocate to the Governing Body to improve the response to and monitoring of illegal dumping so our public and community spaces are clean, attractive and welcoming.

Key themes across all feedback received (through written, event and social media channels) were:

· local planning

· waste management

· transport.

A summary of the feedback received through each channel is provided below.

Feedback received through written submissions

There were 801 submissions received on Manurewa Local Board priorities for 2018/19, showing that the majority of people generally supported the local board’s priorities as presented in graph 1 below.

Graph 1: General response to all priorities

· Results show that the majority (43%) of submitters generally supported the local board’s priorities.

· 40% of respondents partially supported and a further 17% did not support the local board’s priorities.

· Local planning was the key theme raised from the 43% of submitters who generally supported the board’s key priorities.

· Most comments received from the 40% of submitters who partially supported the local board’s priorities referred to upgrading retail centres, homelessness, illegal dumping and traffic congestion.

· Of the 17% of submitters who did not support the local board’s key priorities, local planning was also the key theme mentioned.

Graph 2 below highlights submitters’ support for each of the board’s key priorities.

Graph 2: Overall support for each of the local board’s key priorities

· The graph above indicates submitters’ support for each priority with ‘improve illegal dumping’ receiving the most support (80%) and the remaining four priorities receiving similar support in the 70% range.

· Table 1 below shows the number of comments received for each priority.

Table 1: Number of comments received against each priority

Priority	Support	Do not support	Partially	Total number of comments received
Totara Park Masterplan	70	25	32	127
Manurewa and Clendon retail centres	71	28	20	119
Youth space development	68	27	33	128
Improve illegal dumping	92	16	26	134
Manurewa War Memorial Park upgrades	58	24	24	106

· Totara Park Masterplan

o Most comments received from submitters who did not support this priority stated other issues such as traffic congestion and homelessness that were more significant.

o Similarly, the majority of respondents who partially supported made remarks about other pressing issues such employment opportunities and road infrastructure that are more important.

· Manurewa and Clendon retail centres

o The majority of the comments received from respondents who did not support this priority mentioned that it should be left to the private owners and retailers to fund instead of using ratepayer funding to fix these issues.

o Comments received from submitters who partially supported were generally around upgrading and beautifying the retail centres.

· Youth Space development

o Most submitters who did not support the development of a youth space raised concerns about spending ratepayer money and the need to utilise existing local facilities and schools.

o Of the comments received from those who partially supported, most of them were related to the management of this space so it is not a hangout space for crime or gangs.

· Improve illegal dumping

o Most comments received from respondents who did not support this priority were related to council policy and requests to revert to the old inorganic system.

o Correspondingly, requests to use the old inorganics system and introducing enforcement penalties were the main comments received from submitters who partially supported Totara Park Masterplan.

· Manurewa War Memorial Park upgrades

o Common responses received from submitters who did not support this priority highlighted other issues that were more important including homelessness and housing.

o The majority of comments received from those who partially supported were related to upgrading all parks and facilities, not just War Memorial Park.

Feedback received through events

The Manurewa Local Board held 1 have your say event and 2 community events where people could provide feedback in person. These were:

· Have your say – Saturday 10 March, Manurewa Local Board

· Drop in – Saturday 17 March, Nathan Homestead

· Drop in – Tuesday 27 March, Te Matariki Clendon Community Centre.

Table 2 below displays the number of comments received against each topic across the 3 events.

Table 2: number of comments received against each topic

Topics	Number of comments received
Homelessness	2
Youth space/initiatives	3
Waste management	8
Transport	5
Totara Park Masterplan	3
Manurewa and Clendon retail centres	2
Funding requests	1
Levels of service	1
War Memorial Park	1
Belonging/pride	1
Park, Sports and Recreation	4

· The top three topics that received the most feedback were waste management (8 comments), transport (5 comments) and parks, sports and recreation (4 comments).

· Submitters commented on addressing illegal dumping and the desire to bring back the old inorganics system under the waste management topic.

· Under the transport topic people commented on traffic congestion and public transport affordability.

· Upgrades of sporting facilities were the key comments raised under the parks, sport and recreation topic.

Mana whenua feedback

Three mana whenua authorities submitted on the Manurewa Local Board’s priorities (table 3).

Table 3: Mana whenua support for Manurewa local board’s key priorities

Priority	Ngati Tamaoho	Ngati Paoa	Waikato-Tainui
Totara Park Masterplan	Yes	Yes	Not stated
Manurewa and Clendon retail centres	Yes	Yes	Not stated
Youth space development	Yes	Yes	Not stated
Improve illegal dumping	Yes	Yes	Yes
Manurewa War Memorial Park upgrades	Yes	Yes	Not stated

Mana whenua did not provide comments relating to the Manurewa Local Board’s local priorities.

Feedback received through social media channels

One comment was received from Facebook, which related to local community services.

Information on submitters

The tables and graphs below indicate what demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information.

Of the 709 of people who provided demographic information displayed in table 3, 424 were female, 281 were male and 4 were gender diverse. Table 4 shows 357 people were between the ages of 15 and 34, reflecting an increase in the number of younger people having a say. Graph 3 illustrates that 363 identified as Māori followed by European (294), Pacific (194), Asian (100), other (19) and African, Middle Eastern/Latin (5).

Table 3: Gender demographics

Gender	Number	%
Female	424	60%
Male	281	39%
Gender diverse	4	1%
Total	709	100%

Table 4: demographic submitters

Age	Male	Female	Gender Diverse	Total	% of feedback
14 or younger	33	53	0	94	13%
15-24	65	136	1	217	29%
25-34	56	72	0	140	19%
35-44	33	58	1	98	13%
45-54	30	47	0	77	10%
55-64	25	36	0	65	9%
65-74	24	13	1	41	5%
75 or older	9	7	0	19	3%
Total	275	422	3	751	100%

Graph 3: Ethnic group submitters identified with

5. Overview of feedback received on the 10-year Budget from Manurewa Local Board area

The 10-year Budget 2018-2028 sets out the council’s priorities and how it is 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.

The written submissions received from the Manurewa Local Board area on these key issues is summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

Issue 1: Transport

Aucklanders were asked their opinion on whether they would support a regional fuel tax to help pay for improvements to the transport system.

Question 1: We want to improve our transport system. As the population grows, congestion (and the pollution it creates) is getting worse, safety is declining and businesses are struggling to move freight and people. We are proposing that a regional fuel tax of 10 cents per litre (plus GST) be used to raise more funding for transport projects and services.

What is your opinion on the proposal to introduce a regional fuel tax to help pay for improvements to the transport system?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Support	178
Do not support	230
Other	32
Total	440

A slim majority of respondents do not support the regional fuel tax, with the most common concern raised being unaffordability/equity impacts for lower income residents, who already feel stretched by existing tax/rates policy and the cost of living in Auckland. In addition, many noted their lack of adequate alternatives to private vehicle travel and were not clear what revenue raised from the tax would be spent on. Some thought alternative funding tools would be better, including a congestion tax, while others thought the council should address what they perceived to be a wasteful allocation of existing council funding, before introducing new taxes.

Respondents who supported the regional fuel tax did so providing the revenue raised benefits those who pay. However, there was a wide variety of perspectives about what type of transport projects would achieve this.

Those who responded ‘other’ commented about unaffordability/equity impacts for lower income residents, poor alternatives to private vehicle travel, the need for revenue raised to benefit road users, and various alternative funding measures.

Issue 2: Natural environment

Aucklanders were asked whether they would support a water quality targeted rate

Question 2: Our harbours, beaches and streams are being polluted by overflows from ageing sewerage and stormwater systems that can’t cope with heavy rainfall and from contaminants washed into natural waterways. We want to improve our infrastructure to address this problem. Under current budgets this would take 30 years to achieve. We propose to introduce a new targeted rate to increase our funding of water infrastructure and speed up delivery of cleaner harbours, beaches and streams to 10 years. Our proposed targeted rate would cost the average residential ratepayer $66 per year ($1.30 per week), although this will vary based on your property value.

What is your opinion on this proposed targeted rate to speed up the delivery of cleaner harbours, beaches and streams?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Support	492
Do not support	191
Other	49
Total	732

A strong majority of respondents support a water quality targeted rate and consider the average annual cost to be reasonable given the importance of the issue. Some respondents raised concerns that the Manukau Harbour is not receiving adequate attention in comparison to other parts of the region, and others expressed frustration the issue hasn’t been addressed before becoming a problem.

Respondents who did not support the proposal sighted concerns including its financial impact on lower income residents, a belief that this issue is core council business, that reprioritisation of existing council funding could negate the need for a targeted rate, frustration the issue wasn’t addressed earlier, and a view that those who contribute most to the problem should pay proportionately, with references to central Auckland residents, new housing developments and industry. People who responded with ‘other’ made similar comments to those outlined above.

People were also asked if they supported a natural environment targeted rate. Two options (A and B) were provided for the natural environment targeted rate.

Question 3: Auckland’s rapid growth is putting pressure on the environment, as is the spread of pests, weeds and diseases that are threatening many of our native species. Approximately two-thirds of Auckland’s local native species are under threat of extinction.

Our proposal is to invest more in environment initiatives and to fund this through a targeted rate (based on your property value) at one of two levels described below.

Option A – a targeted rate of an average rate of $21 per year per residential ratepayer. This increase would allow us to make limited improvements to environmental protection, mainly focusing on kauri dieback disease.

Option B – a targeted rate of an average rate of $47 per year per residential ratepayer. This increase would allow us to spend more on tackling kauri dieback disease, and allow us to better protect our native species and ecosystems.

What is your opinion on a proposed targeted rate to invest more to protect our environment?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Option A - ($21 p.a.)	106
Option B - ($47 p.a.)	68
Do not support	169
Other option	63
Total	406

Slightly more respondents (43 percent) supported introduction of a targeted rate than opposed it (42 percent), with the majority of those supporting opting for the lower rate – Option A. Commentary on Option A focussed on concerns about affordability for lower income residents given the range of other rates increases proposed, a desire for transparency to ensure proceeds are spent wisely, and frustration that the issue hasn’t been addressed earlier. Both supporters of Option A and B felt that protecting the environment is important and noted the cultural significance of kauri.

For respondents who opposed the rate the most common reasons sighted included unaffordability for lower income residents, a feeling that the council should already be able to fund this work and if it can’t should look to better allocate expenditure before raising rates, and a view that central government should pay because the issue isn’t limited to Auckland. Some respondents considered tackling Kauri dieback to be a waste of resources as the problem is too far gone, while others questioned the focus on Kauri dieback all together.

Comments for ‘other’ included a view central government should pay, a desire for more public education and community involvement, and support for increasing funding above that proposed to better address environmental issues like myrtle rust.

Issue 3: Rates and charges

People were asked about a proposed rates increase of 2.5 percent for the first two years and 3.5 percent for years three to 10.

Question 4: For this 10-year Budget we are proposing an average general rates increase of 2.5 per cent for the first two years and then 3.5 per cent for years three to 10. This will be used to fund our growing city. Without this level of rate increase, we would have to reduce existing service levels and defer or cut some currently planned projects.

What is your opinion on this proposed rates increase?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Support	164
Do not support	185
Other	48
Total	397

Of the 47 percent of respondents who do not support the proposed rates increases, the dominant reason stated was perceived wastage and inefficiencies in council spending and a desire for a focus on core services. Secondary to this was concern that the cumulative impact of proposed general and targeted rates increases is unaffordable for lower income residents. Some respondents questioned why a general rates increase is necessary to fund growth given growth in new ratings units, while others felt any increase in general rates should be in line with inflation.

Those who supported rates increases did so provided the proceeds are used efficiently for core council services and felt priority should be given to improving infrastructure and maintenance service levels. Some respondents also commented on the need to distribute council funding evenly across the region, including south Auckland, and to end a perceived bias towards central Auckland.

Respondents who selected ‘other’ commented on the need for more information on what the proceeds from the rates increases would be spent on, a desire to see inefficient and wasteful spending curtailed, concerns about welfare impacts for those on lower incomes, and a view rates increases should not exceed inflation rates.

Secondly people were asked about whether online accommodation providers that meet particular thresholds should pay business rates and the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate.

Question 5: We are proposing that online accommodation providers (e.g. Airbnb properties) who let out their whole property (not just a room) for a certain number of days per year should pay business rates and the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate (if the property is within a certain zone). This would mean they are treated the same way as other accommodation providers.

What is your opinion on this proposal?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Support	256
Do not support	102
Other	25
Total	383

A clear majority of respondents support this proposal and feel it’s a fair policy to ‘even the playing field’ for accommodation providers, although some questioned how it will be effectively policed.

Those who opposed the proposal did so because they felt online accommodation providers aren’t operating to the same commercial degree as traditional accommodation providers, the proposal is an unjustified revenue raising initiative, or the difficulties in implementing the policy renders it unworkable. Those who responded ‘other’ had yet to form a view on the policy, but noted the difference between casual and commercial usage of online providers.

Issue 4: other changes and budget information

Aucklanders were asked if they had any other feedback on matters in the consultation document.

Question 7: Please provide any other feedback on other matters in the consultation document or supporting information, such as changes to waste service charges (targeted rate to fund food waste collection service and standardisation of user-pays refuse collection), Tūpuna Maunga Authority Draft Operational Plan or the proposal to disestablish Auckland Council Investments Limited.

The vast majority of other feedback received focussed on changes to waste service charges and illegal dumping. Respondents clearly felt illegal dumping to be a serious and growing problem for Manurewa, with some directly attributing changes to waste services for exacerbating the issue. Many wanted the return of inorganic collections and advocated for better recycling initiatives as well as larger bins.

6. Overview of feedback received on the Auckland Plan 2050 from Manurewa Local Board area

The Auckland Plan 2050 sets the council’s long-term direction and looks at the important challenges it needs to address in the following outcome areas:

· 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.

There was a question in the feedback form that related to each outcome area. The questions and text below are directly from the feedback form. The feedback from the Manurewa Local Board area is set out under each question.

Question 1: An inclusive Auckland

In a fast-growing city of increasing diversity and social change, people may or may not feel included or enjoy positive life experiences. The Auckland Plan proposes an inclusive Auckland where people live together with trust and mutual respect and everyone has the opportunity to participate to their full potential.

Do you think the six focus areas identified in Belonging and Participation will achieve this?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Support	209
Do not support	48
Partially	97
Total	354

There is broad support for the focus areas identified, particularly fostering greater inclusiveness and focus area 6 (“focus investment to address disparities and serve communities of greatest need”). The 14 percent who do not support this thought the focus areas are too vague, and questioned what these aspirations mean in practice and how they would be achieved.

Those who responded ‘partially’ tended to support some of the focus areas but not others, with general support for focus area 6, and a lack of support for focus area 4 (“Recognise Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi as the bicultural foundation for a multi-cultural Auckland”), with the reasons sighted being a view that emphasising a bicultural Auckland identify marginalises other cultural groups. Respondents also felt the focus areas to be overly ‘politically correct’, and thought it represents a departure from addressing core council services.

Question 2: Advance Māori well-being

The strengths and contributions Māori bring to Auckland will fuel economic growth and advance Māori well-being. With nearly a third of all Māori in Auckland aged under 15 years old, the Auckland Plan proposes investing more in tamariki and rangatahi to advance Māori well-being.

Do you think the seven focus areas identified in Māori Well-being and Identity will achieve this?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Support	474
Do not support	98
Partially	101
Total	673

There is strong support for the focus areas identified, particularly the aim to improve Māori youth outcomes. Some respondents questioned how these aspirations will be effectively implemented and noted it will be important for Māori to be at the decision-making table and become more self-sufficient to drive this work forward.

The 15 percent who do not support this generally thought there shouldn’t be a special focus on improving Māori outcomes over other cultural groups, or that this work isn’t core council business.

Comments from the 15 percent who responded ‘partially’ included general support for educational initiatives, a view Māori need to take more responsibility for implementation of these outcomes, and a belief other cultural groups need adequate support too, given Auckland’s multiculturalism.

Question 3: Affordable homes

Lack of affordable housing is creating stress for many Aucklanders. It is driving some key workers out of Auckland and limiting our ability to attract and retain talent. The Auckland Plan proposes that all Aucklanders deserve healthy, affordable homes with secure tenure in well-designed places, whether they own or rent their homes.

Do you think the five focus areas identified in Homes and Places will achieve this?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Support	196
Do not support	73
Partially	111
Total	380

Just over half of respondents support the proposed focus areas, with commentary centred on the need to improve income growth as well as housing affordability. Some respondents noted the need to ensure adequate infrastructure (transport, schools, healthcare etc.) is in place to support housing growth.

Those who did not support the focus areas proposed a variety of explanations for Auckland’s housing challenges and ways to address it, many centred on how to best distribute population growth and the type and quality of new housing developments pursued. Some also disagreed with focus area 4 (“Invest in and support Māori to meet their specific housing aspirations”) and felt no one cultural group should be singled out.

The 29 percent who partially support the focus areas felt ‘affordable’ housing developments to date aren’t affordable enough, expressed a desire for good quality new builds and urban environments that meet Aucklanders needs, and particularly supported focus area 3 (“Improve the built quality of existing dwellings, particularly rental housing”), while disagreeing with focus area 4.

Question 4: Moving easily around Auckland

People lack choice in how they get around and it can take a long time to get where they need to go. To better connect people and places, the Auckland Plan proposes an integrated transport system that accelerates progress on walking, cycling and public transport and makes better use of existing networks.

Do you think the seven focus areas identified in Transport and Access will achieve this?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Support	482
Do not support	84
Partially	107
Total	673

There is strong support for the focus areas proposed, particularly the ambition to accelerate progress on public transport and walking and cycling.

Those who do not support this viewed investment in cycling infrastructure to be excessive and ineffective given perceived patronage, while others felt public transport will inevitably struggle to meet Aucklanders’ needs given the nature of travel patterns and urban density.

Respondents who partially supported acknowledged the difficulty in creating an effective public transport system in Auckland but felt it was important to do so. Other comments equally supported and criticised an increased focus on cycling.

Question 5: Protecting and enhancing our environment

Unprecedented growth has required Auckland to provide for essential development, which has had an impact on our environment and cultural heritage. The Auckland Plan proposes utilising every opportunity to protect and enhance Auckland's environment as growth and development happens.

Do you think the six focus areas identified in Environment and Cultural Heritage will achieve this?

Response	Number of submissions
Support	226
Do not support	35
Partially	90
Total	351

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

A clear majority support the focus areas proposed with particular support for protecting Māori cultural heritage sites, and widespread acknowledgement of the importance of preserving the region’s environmental assets for future generations.

The quarter of respondents who partially support, expressed their scepticism about the likelihood of encouraging their fellow residents to become stewards of the environment, but supported educational initiatives to try. Others noted their support for heritage protection.

Those who do not support generally had a lack of faith that the council is capable of meaningfully addressing environmental issues.

Question 6: Equipping people for future jobs

Rapid technology advances will create challenges, opportunities and change across many industries and jobs. The Auckland Plan proposes Aucklanders will need to adapt to the coming changes by investing in education, training and skills development for all.

Do you think the five focus areas identified in Opportunity and Prosperity will achieve this?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Support	190
Do not support	45
Partially	108
Total	343

A small majority of respondents support the focus areas proposed, particularly improving educational outcome for youth and ensuring equitable access to education across cultures.

The 31 percent of respondents who partially support tended to view this area as being the responsibility of central government, expressing a desire for council to focus on core business instead. Many respondents also disagreed with focus area 3 (“Advance Māori employment and enable Māori business and iwi organisations to be significant drivers of Auckland’s economy”), because they felt it inequitable and divisive to treat one culture differently to others given the region’s multiculturalism.

Those who do not support also thought this work is the responsibility of central government, not council.

Question 7: Shaping our growth

Auckland has to provide for around 740,000 more people in the next 30 years, which would mean another 320,000 dwellings and up to 270,000 extra jobs. The Auckland Plan proposes to manage long-term population growth by prioritising development in existing urban areas and establishing new communities and new business land in future urban areas. Investment in Auckland’s infrastructure will need to keep up with the pace and scale of growth.

Do you think the proposed approach for enabling growth will effectively provide for Auckland’s future?

The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Manurewa Local Board area.

Response	Number of submissions
Support	186
Do not support	55
Partially	98
Total	339

Just over half of respondents support the proposed approach to growth, with comments focusing on the need for complementary infrastructure and high quality urban densification.

Respondents who partially support the approach either thought the focus should be on more densification or more greenfield development, with the latter raising concerns that social deprivation would increase with densification. In contrast, others are concerned that valuable agricultural land will be used up for housing, with implications for food supply. Many commented on the need for high quality supporting infrastructure, particularly transport.

The 16 percent who do not support the approach thought population growth should either be halted while infrastructure catches up, or directed elsewhere in the country. Some also raised concerns about social deprivation arising from greater densification.

Manurewa Local Board

10 May 2018

Manurewa Local Board Advocacy Initiatives

Advocacy initiatives

Initiative

Description

Advocating to

One Local Initiative:

War Memorial Park

Create Manurewa War Memorial Park as a multi-purpose shared space with improved utilisation of its playing fields and provision of greater access to community facilities.

Manurewa War Memorial Park is a well-loved and utilised park but it needs an upgrade. The community gave us strong feedback that it supports a focus on developing this park as a multi-purpose shared space with improved utilisation of its playing fields and greater access to the park’s community facilities.

There are several components to the project including conducting a needs assessment, generation of a park masterplan, sand carpeting the playing area, adding more playing field lighting and building a multi-purpose community facility. The indicative cost of this upgrade would be around $12 million.

Governing Body

Illegal dumping

The Manurewa Local Board area has experienced a significant increase in illegal dumping and this has been evidenced with data from the Waste Solutions team. The board is therefore advocating for the following:

1) That south Auckland be a

priority for a community recycling centre.

2) A variation to the inorganic collection. Residents and businesses are calling for the return of the traditional inorganic collection.

3) Support for a change to the Crimes Act 1961 to target commercial and entrepreneurial illegal dumpers.

4) Application of the Lean Model of continuous improvement to create efficiencies and identify savings within existing budgets.

5) Support for the development of a rubbish reporting GPS app that interacts with Auckland Council’s CRM reporting tool. This app will allow anyone to take a photo of illegal dumping and will log it using GPS co-ordinates.

6) An increase in community engagement and participation in waste management by providing high quality, accessible and relative waste management education.

In order to improve and reduce illegal dumping the board supports retaining a weekly cycle for ‘pay as you throw’ pick-ups

Governing Body

Manurewa Local Board Feedback on Regional Issues

The Manurewa Local Board feedback has been informed by public consultation submissions and comments received from Manurewa residents. It has also taken into account the feedback provided by mana whenua and mataawaka. Manurewa has a vibrant and diverse community and this has been represented by the range of people who provided feedback.

Of the 709 people who provided demographic information, 424 were female, 281 were male and 4 were gender diverse. In addition, 357 people were between the ages of 15 and 34, reflecting an increase in the number of younger people having a say. Of the submitters who provided ethnicity information, 363 identified as Māori followed by European (294), Pacific (194), Asian (100), other (19) and African, Middle Eastern/Latin (5).

The board has been very encouraged by the significant increase in the number of submissions from Māori as well as young people. The voices of these two population groups are typically under-represented in the Manurewa Local Board area.

Key Issue / Plan

Summary of Feedback

10-year Budget

1. Transport - Regional Fuel Tax

· Fifty two percent of Manurewa residents do not support the introduction of the proposed RFT. Of the 41 per cent that do support it, this is conditional on the extra revenue contributing to transport priorities in the Manurewa area.

· The board is supportive of this community position. Of those who did not support the RFT the most common concern raised was lack of affordability, and equity impacts on lower income residents.

· Research shows commentary from the Ministry of Transport and Treasury which notes that the RFT “could result in lower income households contributing a higher proportion of their income to the tax compared to higher income households”. It also notes that these households are less likely to own newer more fuel efficient or electric vehicles.

· In Manurewa, public transport, active modes and working at home are all significantly below regional averages, as is the level of self-containment (the proportion of residents who work in their local board area). Indeed, Manurewa has the second-lowest level of self-containment in the region and the highest private vehicle usage in the region at 85 per cent.

· Based on 2013 census data there is a significantly high share of worker trips to the airport from the south and its abutting suburbs (approximately an 18 kilometre radius). Private vehicles account for almost 93 per cent (12,264) of these trips. The public transport share is low at about 2 per cent (215 bus trips). This reflects:

o the limited availability of easy public transport services

o the nature and geographical distribution of employment in the area with a high proportion of shift working

o the dispersed nature of work sites located away from public transport routes on offer.

1. Transport - Regional Fuel Tax (cont.)

· The board therefore has concerns about the value for money of the light rail proposal, noting it won’t materially improve southern commuters’ access to the airport precinct, and questions whether there are more cost-effective alternatives.

· Instead of an RFT, the board would like to see the Lean Model of continuous improvement applied to Auckland Transport operations to create efficiencies and identify savings within existing budgets.

· The board supports any RFT revenue generated to be equitably allocated across Manurewa, including improvements to public transport provision.

2. Natural Environment - Water Quality Targeted Rate

· The board supports the proposed targeted rate, provided the proceeds are allocated equitably to Manurewa.

· The board requests that an equitable portion of the targeted rate (based on capital values) be allocated for natural environment water quality be diverted and added to the board’s budget to target /distribute to the sites where it needs to be spent.

· The board supports the Manukau Harbour Forum’s inclusion in the restoration and protection of the coast and environment.

· The board supports Ngāti Tamaoho feedback that additional funding sources should be sought. “partly because of the increasing range of threats to water; partly because of its importance to the wellbeing of people and the environment and fundamentally because of its cultural significance”.

· The Manurewa Local Board Plan 2017 acknowledges that for mana whenua, cultural and spiritual wellbeing are inextricably linked to the quality of the water and land from which they draw sustenance.

3. Natural Environment - Natural Environment Targeted Rate

· The board supports the targeted rate of $47 per annum provided the proceeds are allocated equitably to Manurewa.

· The community and the board has concerns about affordability and the cumulative impact of ‘targeted rates’ increases proposed in this Long-term plan and the impact on the welfare of our people

· Consultation says the community requests more transparency on how this rate will actually be spent.

· The board requests that an equitable portion of the targeted rate (based on capital values) allocated for pest management be diverted and added to local board budgets to enable targeted responses in necessary sites.

· The board recommends budget also be directed towards the elimination of all pests including toxic plants from all waterways.

· The board agrees with Ngāti Tamaoho comment on the “importance of preventative measures (for example to protect the Hunua Ranges from the risk of Kauri dieback) because however expensive it may be it is cheaper than the cost of redress later”.

· The board also supports mataawaka feedback that “the environment needs to be as sustainable as the rate of growth for the Auckland population and that adequate resourcing be provided”.

· The board requests that education programmes be made available for communities to be able to understand and respond to the effects of kauri dieback and its impact on other tree species such as totara.

4. Rates and Charges – proposed rates increase

· Whilst the board supports the need for a 3.5% increase to ‘cover the bills’, the Manurewa community does not support a rates increase with the rationale that the council is not prioritising rates spending on core services.

· Community feedback expressed concern about the lack of transparency of expenditure that occurs year by year and noted that spending in south Auckland is considerably less than funds invested into central city projects.

· Both the community and the board have concerns about affordability and the cumulative impact of ‘targeted rates’ increases proposed in this Long-term plan and the impact on the welfare of our people.

5. Rates and Charges –Accommodation provider Targeted Rate for online accommodation providers

· The community supports an Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate (APTR) for the online accommodation sector who intends to operate property in a commercial capacity.

· The board notes that the community may not be fully aware of the implications that this rate may have on property owners who do not intend to operate in a fully commercial capacity.

· The board recommends the council to do more work around unintended consequential impacts on property owners before implementing this rate.

6. Other budget information

· The board would like to see all local boards to have greater governance responsibility and influence over capex funds, to enable the facilitation of discretionary projects, in the spirit of shared governance.

· Concerns about illegal dumping and waste management were also commented on by the community in their feedback.

Auckland Plan 2050

Outcome area 1: Belonging and participation

· The local board is concerned that there is little in the Auckland Plan relating to additional investment in sport and recreation

- a critical component in uniting communities.

· The Manurewa Local Board Plan 2017 acknowledges people in Manurewa are actively connecting everywhere, every day. Manurewa has a wide range of community places where people gather to celebrate, take part in their favourite past times, exercise and compete, work together on community projects or socialise with friends and family.

· The board supports Ngāti Paoa sentiments:

o to reduce the number of liquor shops in the south

o the integration of council community services with Māori Warden services,

o for better understanding, education and comprehension of the Treaty amongst other communities

o that the Treaty of Waitangi be the corner stone to all council policy

o to establish and support iwi homeless services.

Outcome area 2: Māori identity and wellbeing

· The Manurewa Local Board is in full support of the direction and focus areas of Māori identity and wellbeing. Manurewa has a significant number of Māori residing in the area, both mana whenua and mataawaka, and we look forward to seeing strong gains for our Māori community.

· We would like to stress the importance of the Auckland Plan acknowledging and reflecting through action, the diversity and intricacy of Māori experience, identity and sense of belonging.

· The plan needs to be visible in its approach to assist and respond to those Māori who can’t align to their own whakapapa – both those who don’t know where they come from, and those who have lost touch with their ability to connect back to their tribal areas.

· For Māori who live in Tāmaki Makaurau, and are well immersed in their whakapapa, it is important to acknowledge that their tribal identity will often precede other identities.

Outcome area 3: Homes and places

· The Manurewa Local Board supports the Auckland Plan’s aspirations to accelerate the development of quality homes affordable to a range of Aucklanders. We trust that this will address the current issue of house prices remaining out of reach for most low-income earners in south Auckland, which is also threatening intergenerational stability. To support this, we would like to see speedy action on the development of infrastructure that supports the volume of homes being built. 'Affordable ' must offer real hope to low income households and facilitate access to decent accommodation for people who find themselves homelessness.

· The delivery of affordable housing must include public space around those dwellings.

· The board supports the intention to improve the quality of existing dwellings, particularly rentals, and to see the investment and support for Māori continue.

· It is vital that urban spaces are well designed and cared for, for all to enjoy. In this context, the board anticipates that Manurewa will not be left with large apartments and flats being built and then disregarded, and that newly built environments retain the integrity and style of the local area.

Outcome area 4: Transport and access

· The Manurewa Local Board believes the Transport and Access themes are on track and workable. Important to us is how they are applied equally across the region, including decent cycleways across the south that are safe and encouraging for people to use, and go beyond the hazardous green bicycle lanes on the sides of busy highways.

· The south continues to require public transport investment given the increased growth that is currently being experienced.

· The board will always advocate for an increase in user friendly and accessible public transport that offers real alternatives to as many people as possible, while contributing to the reduction of private vehicles on the road. This includes affordability for young people and families and the use of universal design principles to increase accessibility.

· We would like to see an improvement in the security and safety of park and ride facilities, to further increase the uptake of public transport.

· The board supports the prioritisation of the Mill Road project as paramount to keeping traffic moving easily across the southern region.

Outcome area 5: Environment and cultural heritage

· The local board supports the six focus areas of environment and heritage and expects that the Auckland Plan will truly take account of the whole of the Auckland region when considering environmental and cultural heritage priorities. There are areas of the Waitemata Harbour that are in excellent condition and we hope this is an aspirational goal for the Manukau Harbour also.

· The board also encourages the plan to address further swimsafe locations in the south, thus creating equitable access to beaches across the region.

· The board supports the request from Ngāti Paoa to establish a guardian of the harbours co-governance regime that enables the joint management of the clean-up and restoration of Auckland’s harbours tributaries fresh waterways and catchments.

· The board supports the Te Ora O Manukau statement that the environment needs to be as sustainable as the growth for the Auckland population and that we need to ensure that there is adequate resourcing to support the cleaning up of our environment equivalent to the investment in the growth of Auckland.

Outcome area 6: Opportunity and prosperity

· The Manurewa Local Board believes that the focus areas identified in Opportunity and Prosperity will support Manurewa to adapt to rapid technology changes. However as an area that houses the third largest Pacific population in Auckland (over 25,020 and 33% of our total population) we would like to see Focus Area 3 (advance Māori employment and support Māori business and iwi organisations to be significant drivers of Auckland’s economy) and Focus Area 5 (increase educational achievement, lifelong learning and training, with a focus on those most in need) extended to our Pacific people.

· The board strongly supports Focus Area 5 because success in education is fundamental to the wellbeing of people, their families and the wider community. Focus Area 5 also relates to Focus Area 3 because a more highly educated workforce boosts productivity and economic wellbeing.

· However Pacific people are still significantly behind in many social areas, particularly education and employment:

- in 2015, the labour force participation rate for Pacific Peoples was at 63.5% while the participation rate for Māori was 67.2% - both which are still lower than the participation rate (69.2%) for all people

- in March 2017, a significantly high proportion of Māori (19.5%) and Pacific youth (17%) were not in employment, education or training (NEET)

- despite some improvements in educational outcomes, Māori and Pacific people still have the highest proportion of people with no qualifications.

If we want opportunity and prosperity for ALL, the Auckland Plan needs to deliver outcomes for Pacific people too. When our Pacific people are thriving, Auckland is thriving.

Development strategy

· The local board agrees with the Auckland Plan intention that people should be able to work and play where they live and supports a continuous review of the development strategy to ensure its relevance to a growing and diverse population.

· The local board also supports expansion of the rural urban boundary to free up land which will create affordable housing whilst maintaining retention of fertile market garden areas.

· It is important to ensure that existing communities experiencing brownfield intensification are supported with infrastructure to match population growth, for example hospitals, stormwater, retirement villages, schools etc.

The regions must benefit, as the city does, from Urban Design, Panuku and ATEED investment and support.

Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

Overall views on Waste outcomes

What we have now is not currently working for the south - from the roll out of the new red bins to the implementation of a new inorganic collection programme.

1. The local board is requesting a return to the traditional inorganic collection as the paramount solution to what has become a daily occurrence of illegal dumping throughout the region. The vision is to educate residents to recycle and provide the resources required for recyclables and inorganics to be disposed of. This is taking time. A return of the traditional annual inorganic collection is needed to support this transition.

2. Support for a change to the Crimes Act 1961 to target commercial and entrepreneurial illegal dumpers. Recommend that ministers be petitioned to amend Part 10 (which deals with Crimes against the rights to Property) of the Crimes Act 1961.

3. Applying the Lean Model to evidence the true cost of illegal dumping to better inform solution based decision making.

Accurate statistical data and corresponding financial reporting is absent when decision making on reported illegal dumping and inorganic collections. The organisation is not geared up to present complete costs of each transaction associated with the disposal of illegal dumping

4. A GPS app for reporting rubbish is being developed and requires sponsorship to enable it to interact with Auckland Council’s reporting tool. This app will allow anyone to take a photo of illegal dumping and log its location via GPS. This can be sent through various media to Auckland Council. It removes the barrier of calling the call centre or completing a standardised template on the Auckland Council website. Both interactions take time and cost money.

5. Encourage businesses to reduce the number of plastic bags that are used.

6. In our community, education is an important tool towards improving Waste Management. Improvement in this area should be applied by targeting environmental/recycling programmes in local schools, marae, community organisations and the business sector and is paramount to the ongoing implementation and success of the Waste Minimisation and Management Plan.

Waste from businesses and commercial activities

· Housing intensification has led to increasing volumes of construction and demolition industries. Infrastructure is needed to enable businesses to separate, sort and recover resources instead of sending them to landfill.

· The board supports a deconstruction approach which incorporates the recycling of recovered materials that are effectively diverted from landfill.

· The board also supports changes to the Crimes Act 1961 (to amend part 10) to enable commercial builders to be prosecuted for irresponsible dumping and waste management.

Community recycling centres

Container deposit scheme

· It is proving to be an impossible task expecting residents to transition to ZERO 2040 without providing the tools that enable success.

· Policy restrictions coupled with no access to recycling plants and financial barriers to disposal of inorganic waste are presenting the community with a lived experience of unhygienic streets littered with significant dumping of household inorganic waste that present a health and safety risk to residents, young and old.

· The board supports advocating to central government to increase the waste levy and review how it is applied.

· The board supports the implementation of product stewardship schemes and advocating to central government to put in place legislation for a container deposit scheme whereby a refundable deposit is built into the purchase price of drinks which could greatly increase the recycling rate and reduce litter. To be implemented at the same pace as the Fuel tax

· The local board supports maximising recycling or social enterprise opportunities such as providing free drop off at recycling centres for paper, glass, tins particularly where local recycling centers are not available. Is there an option to provide recycling bins or wire crates similar to clothing recycling bins? It would also make it easier for people in our communities who do not have a vehicle to enable them to drive to recycling centres located outside their board areas.

· Manurewa residents have difficulty in disposing of waste excluded from the criteria and weight limits set by Auckland Council’s policy for inorganic collection. The local board would like to see the return of the previous inorganic collection or a variation of it.

· Targeting environmental/recycling programmes in local schools, marae, community organisations and the business sector would support achieving ZERO waste 2040.

· The board would like to see additional investment into the waste minimisation and innovation fund to provide opportunities and support to local organisations such as Te Awa Ora Trust, a Manurewa-wide social enterprise which includes Talking Trash (recycling, up-cycling and re-using) to work in this space educating, training and creating employment opportunities for local people.

Hauraki Gulf Islands waste management

· The board supports the implementation of the Tikapa Moana Hauraki Gulf islands draft waste Plan to respond to developing on-island waste solutions.

Manurewa Local Board

10 May 2018

Draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 – Briefing Report on feedback received from the Manurewa Local Board Area

Purpose

To summarise feedback received from residents of the Manurewa Local Board area on the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

Executive Summary

Overall, 112 submissions were received on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 from the Manurewa Local Board area. This represented five per cent of the total submissions received. Responses suggested that the majority of submitters supported the overall direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan with:

· 80 per cent supporting expanding council’s focus to non-domestic waste

· 84 per cent supporting working with businesses to reduce construction and demolition, plastic and organic waste

· 84 per cent supporting the expansion of the council’s network of Community Recycling Centres

· 84 per cent supporting advocacy for product stewardship and container deposit schemes

Submitters also included comments on key topics of interest, such as, the problems of illegal dumping, support for a food scraps collection and a focus on education, particularly for children.

Context

This report is provided to the Manurewa Local Board summarising the consultation feedback received on the draft Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 from the Manurewa Local Board area. The report covers the key consultation topics raised, primarily, through feedback form.

This report only covers formal submissions received by 28 March 2018. Late or informal submissions have not been included in the analysis due to time constraints.

The final Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 will be approved by Environment and Community Committee on 12 June 2018.

Overview of submissions

At the close of the submission period on 28 March 2018, 6,758 submissions had been received online and in hard copy form. Ninety six submissions were provided in the form of videos and drawings.

Of these written submissions, 4,605 were pro formas from the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance. The pro forma submissions from the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance did not answer feedback form questions and did not include an address. Their responses are, therefore, not included in the statistics for the Manurewa Local Board area shown below.

Submissions by Board Area

The breakdown of submissions by board area is shown below in Table 1. Of these, 112 (five per cent) were from Manurewa Local Board area.

Table 1: Breakdown by local board area

Local board	Number of submitters	Percentage of submitters
Albert-Eden Local Board	172	8%
Devonport-Takapuna Local Board	97	5%
Franklin Local Board	57	3%
Great Barrier Local Board	7	0%
Henderson-Massey Local Board	99	5%
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board	114	5%
Howick Local Board	173	8%
Kaipātiki Local Board	97	5%
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board	51	2%
Manurewa Local Board	112	5%
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board	100	5%
Ōrākei Local Board	85	4%
Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board	50	2%
Papakura Local Board	68	3%
Puketāpapa Local Board	35	2%
Rodney Local Board	190	9%
Upper Harbour Local Board	57	3%
Waiheke Local Board	75	3%
Waitākere Ranges Local Board	96	4%
Waitematā Local Board	130	6%
Whau Local Board	88	4%
Regional	1	0%
Not Supplied (non ARA)	174	8%
Outside Auckland	25	1%
*Not Supplied ARA	4,605

Breakdown by submission type - Regional

As Tables Two and Three show, submissions were received in various forms, including the feedback form (on-line and written), long-form submissions, pro forma submissions and informal submissions including videos and drawings.

Table 2 – Regional breakdown by formal submission type

Formal submission type	Number of submissions	Percentage of submissions
Council’s submission feedback form (online and hard copy)	1,834	27%
Long form submissions	80	1%
Pro forma - Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance	4,605	68%
Pro forma submissions (non-Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance)	239	4%
Total	6,758*	100%

Table 3 – Regional types of informal submissions

Informal submission type*	Number of comments
Videos and drawings	96
Other informal submissions	1,478
Have your say event feed back	449
Total	2023

Responses to Consultation Questions for the Manurewa Local Board area

The consultation feedback form asked respondents to answer seven questions. Responses to each from residents of the Manurewa Local Board area are summarised below in Tables Four and Five.

Table 4. Priority outcomes for residents of the Manurewa Local Board area

Question	Response	% submissions local board	% submissions regional
1. Auckland Council is responsible for managing and minimising waste across the region. When we make decisions about waste, which outcomes are most important to you. (Please select up to 3 options.)	Delivering value for money for ratepayers and Aucklanders	12%	14%
	Reliability of collection services	14%	9%
	Reducing waste to landfill and carbon emissions	24%	26%
	Reducing environmental and marine pollution	18%	26%
	Tidy public places	20%	13%
	Creating jobs in resource recovery and processing industries	10%	9%
	Other	2%	3%

Results showed that the highest priorities for residents of the Manurewa Local Board area were reducing waste to landfill and carbon emissions and tidy public places. The lowest priority was creating jobs in resource recovery and processing industries.

Table Five. Support for key directions in draft plan

Question	Response	% submissions local board	% submissions regional
2. In the last plan, we focused mostly on our services to households, which handle around 20 per cent of the waste that goes to landfill. Now we want to expand our waste minimisation efforts to include the 80 per cent of waste that comes from businesses and commercial activities. What do you think of this approach and why?	Strongly agree	47%	57%
	Agree	33%	27%
	Neutral	7%	5%
	Disagree	3%	2%
	Strongly disagree	6%	5%
	Don’t know	5%	2%
3. The three largest categories of commercial waste going to landfill are construction and demolition waste, plastics, and organic waste (food, green and other types of organic waste). We want to work with businesses to try new approaches to reduce this waste. What do you think of this approach and why?	Strongly agree	53%	60%
	Agree	31%	27%
	Neutral	8%	4%
	Disagree	1%	1%
	Strongly disagree	6%	7%
	Don’t know	2%	1%
4. We want to make it easy for people to make better choices locally about how they dispose of unwanted items, so those items can be reused or recycled. Five Community Recycling Centres are up and running and we have plans to provide seven more by 2024. What do you think of this approach and why?	Strongly agree	55%	59%
	Agree	29%	27%
	Neutral	6%	5%
	Disagree	2%	1%
	Strongly disagree	7%	7%
	Don’t know	2%	1%
5. We want to encourage central government to introduce product stewardship schemes. This includes a container deposit scheme where drink containers such as plastic, glass bottles and cans include a refundable deposit when returned for recycling. This would encourage more recycling and help to shift the costs of recovery from council and ratepayers to the producers and consumers of beverages. What do you think of this approach and why?	Strongly agree	58%	61%
	Agree	26%	23%
	Neutral	5%	4%
	Disagree	2%	2%
	Strongly disagree	5%	8%
	Don’t know	5%	2%
6. The Hauraki Gulf Islands have unique waste management and minimisation requirements. The Tikapa-Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Draft Waste Plan sets a vision and outlines a practical approach to waste management and minimisation for the communities of Waiheke, Aotea Great Barrier, Rakino and Kawau Islands. What do you think about the approach outlined in this plan and why?	Strongly agree	25%	27%
	Agree	26%	24%
	Neutral	14%	16%
	Disagree	1%	1%
	Strongly disagree	3%	4%
	Don’t know	31%	28%

Additional comments about the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan:

In addition to the responses above, some of the key themes arising from submissions in the Manurewa Local Board area are highlighted below with some typical comments:

Illegal Dumping

· I am disappointed that I see so much illegal dumping and that the basic services are still not being delivered. I would like to see Council maintain the focus on getting the basics right and looking after the residents of Auckland.

· Some people and businesses are dumping rubbish. This will in time become culturally unacceptable. The current inorganics system has some flaws. When a tenant moves out, it can be a time of stress and chaos. it can be the default option that the tenants put their old furniture out on the street or nearby, effectively dumping. They may not see any option financially or time wise. Perhaps we can design an end of lease collection service so that people have a free accessible services.

· This huge and growing city will always have a portion of the population who are in rental accommodation and therefore transient. I think there would be some merit in each ward or suburb (maybe some combined) in having an area set aside for dropping off bags of clothing/bedding and bed bases and mattresses and sofas in particular. I think this is the most illegally dumped rubbish over the whole region because it is too costly to take to a transfer station and you also have to be able to tow a trailer- tow ball attached to car. There must be product in this rubbish that can be recycled or shredded for reuse in other product. I.E. plastics, wood, foam rubber, polyfil that could be re-used? This is probably the most difficult product to dispose of from a household.

Food Scraps Collection

· I want a food waste bin at my house.

· There needs to be food/green bin: grass etc., illegal dumping of grass is constant.

· Make every house have a waste bin.

Education – particularly for children

· The neighbourhood needs a lot more education about recycling.

· Encourage and share these plans into the schools so that children can teach their households.

· Educate our kids to help them understand waste for their kids and so on.

Manurewa Local Board

10 May 2018

Draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan, draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and draft Contributions Policy

File No.: CP2018/06600

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report seeks formal local board feedback on the draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan, the draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and the draft Contributions Policy 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) sets out a ten-year capital and operating programme for transport in Auckland. It covers transport activities delivered by Auckland Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Auckland Council and KiwiRail.

3. The draft RLTP has been developed in collaboration with the NZTA. Legislation requires that the RLTP is revised every six years and reviewed after three years. It has been agreed that the level of change associated with Auckland’s growth warrants a full revision of the RLTP.

4. The RLTP will be consulted with the public between 1 and 14 May.

5. Alongside the RLTP, Auckland Council is consulting the public on a draft Regional Fuel Tax (RFT) proposal. The council consulted on a fuel tax to fund transport improvements as part of the 10-year Budget. The regional fuel tax, if introduced, would add 10 cents a litre (plus GST), and generate approximately $1.5 billion over 10 years for transport projects in Auckland. At the time, the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) were still under review so the projects proposed to be funded by a regional fuel tax could not be identified. The draft RFT proposal sets out the programmes and projects that the regional fuel tax would fund.

6. The draft RFT proposal is conditional on the enactment of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill which is currently passing through the Parliamentary process.

7. The Council is also consulting on a draft Contributions Policy 2018. The draft Contributions Policy proposes an increase in development contributions to reflect additional investment, including for parks.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board give formal written feedback on:

a) the draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan

b) the draft Regional Fuel Tax Proposal

c) the draft Contributions Policy.

Horopaki / Context

Regional Land Transport Plan

8. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 requires that the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) prepare an RLTP every six years, which sets out the region’s transport priorities for the next ten years, and must contribute to the purposes of the Land Transport Management Act and be consistent with the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS).

9. At its meeting of 24 October 2017 the Auckland Transport Board agreed that the level of change associated with Auckland’s growth warrants a full review of the RLTP. Since the 2015 RLTP was prepared, Auckland’s population growth has increased at a much faster pace than was envisaged. By 2028, the population of Auckland is expected to be around two million people – four years earlier than projected in 2015. Significant investment in transport infrastructure and services will be required to meet the increasing needs of these additional people both to service new housing required to match growth and to service many more customers.

10. The draft RLTP, included in Attachment A, has been developed in collaboration with the NZTA and was considered by the Regional Transport Committee (a committee comprised of the Auckland Transport Board and a representative of the NZTA convened to adopt the RLTP) on 1 February 2018, and was subsequently approved by the Chair and Deputy Chair under delegation.

11. Preparation of the draft RLTP and consultation were delayed as the GPS and ATAP were still under review, leading to some uncertainty about project priorities. Both the GPS and ATAP have now been released, and have informed the draft RLTP.

Regional Fuel Tax

12. In preparing the 10-year Budget 2018-28, the Council considered a range of funding options for its activities. The consultation on the 10-year Budget signalled that in order to achieve the level of investment that Auckland needs to address its transport issues, new funding mechanisms for transport were required. An RFT of 10 cents per litre plus GST was proposed, subject to central government providing a legislative basis for such a tax.

13. While the RFT, as a funding mechanism, was the subject of consultation, there was no ability to identify the projects that might be funded from the RFT at that time, due to the review of the GPS and ATAP.

14. The government has initiated the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. If passed, this will enable Auckland to levy a regional fuel tax of up to 10 cents per litre, plus GST, from 1 July 2018..

15. A draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal, included in Attachment B, has been developed based on the requirements of the draft legislation. While the legislation is still to progress through the full Parliamentary process, the transitional provisions in the legislation mean that Auckland Council can develop a draft proposal, consult with the public, and submit to the responsible Ministers (the Minister of Finance and Minister of Transport) for consideration, once the legislation has been passed.

Contributions Policy

16. Development contributions enable the Council to charge developers for a portion of the cost of growth infrastructure needed as a result of development. The current Contributions Policy expires on 30 June 2018. The policy needs to be amended to reflect changes to capital expenditure in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and the RLTP.

17. Over the next ten years, the council needs to fund additional infrastructure to enable the construction of 120,000 dwellings to house an expected 300,000 additional Aucklanders. The 10-year Budget also allowed for an increase in investment in parks.

18. The proposed Contributions Policy 2018, included in Attachment C, proposes an increase in both urban and greenfield prices to reflect this additional investment.

19. Central government has recently introduced the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill which would restore the Council’s ability to use development contributions to fund public swimming pools and libraries. It is not certain when this legislation will be passed so provision for the inclusion of public swimming pools and libraries has not been included in the draft Contributions Policy 2018. Once the legislation has been passed the Council can consider amending the policy to include the growth component of any qualifying expenditure or to prioritise within the expenditure programme for community infrastructure.

20. The timetable for this process is very compressed. Public consultation on the draft RLTP, draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and draft Contributions Policy will run for two weeks between 1 May and 14 May.

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

21. The RLTP sets out a ten-year regional programme. Early engagement with local boards has taken place to ensure that projects of particular interest to local communities could be taken into account in the prioritisation process by which the programme was developed.

22. This report provides the opportunity for local boards to give formal feedback on the capital and operating programmes, and any other aspects of the RLTP, including projects of particular interest to local communities. In particular, feedback from local boards is sought on whether the RLTP places the appropriate emphasis on the priority areas.

23. The draft RFT proposal reflects the priority projects in the RLTP, along with a few specific local board priorities.

24. The draft proposal signals the Council’s intent to exclude Great Barrier Island from the regional fuel tax, in line with council’s submission on the draft legislation and subject to the legislation being amended accordingly. The consultation will also signal council’s advocacy in support of rebates being enabled for fuel that is purchased for off-road use, an issue which has been raised by a few local boards.

25. The draft Contributions Policy price varies by location depending on the cost of infrastructure required to support development in an area. The capital expenditure programme to be funded by development contributions was included in the draft 10-year budget and local boards can provide feedback on the proposed programme through the LTP process.

26. Local boards have been invited to attend a briefing on the draft RLTP on 30 April 2018, followed by a full day of informal hearings-style sessions on 7 May 2018 with representatives of the Auckland Transport Board to give verbal feedback. This report enables boards to provide formal feedback to inform further decision-making on the RLTP.

27. The draft Regional Fuel Tax Proposal and draft Contributions Policy will also be covered in the briefing. Formal feedback from local boards will be considered by the Governing Body and/or the Finance and Performance Committee when making their decisions on the Regional Fuel Tax and the 10-year Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

28. Many components of the RLTP are of importance to and impact on Māori. The RLTP is one of the tools that can enable and can demonstrate responsiveness to Māori. Early engagement with mana whenua took place throughout the region during the development of the draft.

29. The introduction of a regional fuel tax will negatively impact some lower socio-economic communities who do not have access to alternative transport options and rely on their private vehicles. Māori tend to represent a high proportion of these communities, however, many of the projects that will be funded by the regional fuel tax are targeted at improving transport access to jobs and education for these communities as well as providing greater public transport alternatives. In the longer term, this should have a positive impact for these communities.

30. The impact on Māori for the changes to development contributions will be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers. The Council’s Māori Cultural Initiatives Fund provides grants to support marae and papakāinga development and can be used to fund development contributions. The Contributions Policy treats Kaumatua housing the same as retirement villages, which generally place lower demands on council services.

31. There is a need to continue to build relationships between the Council, transport agencies, mana whenua, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing engagement will assist the Council and agencies in understanding priorities for Māori, and can encourage Māori participation in decision-making processes.

32. Appropriate engagement on the RLTP, RFT Proposal and Contributions Policy are planned for the consultation period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

33. The financial implications of the draft RLTP, RFT Proposal and Contributions Policy are set out in those documents. There are no specific financial implications from seeking local board feedback.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

34. This report seeks local board feedback on draft regional proposals, which is part of the local board role. There are no specific risks from this process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

35. Possible changes to the RLTP, RFT Proposal, and Contributions Policy will be considered following public consultation.

36. The RFT Proposal will be considered by the Governing Body for adoption and submission to Government on 31 May.

37. Decisions on the Contributions Policy will also be made on 31 May, with the final policy document planned to be adopted on 27 June.

38. The final RLTP document will be considered by the Auckland Transport Board for approval prior to 30 June 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) for consultation	109
b ⇩	Draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal	191
c ⇩	Draft Contributions Policy	215

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

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

Chairperson	Angela Dalton
Deputy Chairperson	Rangi McLean
Members	Joseph Allan
	Stella Cattle
	Sarah Colcord
	Angela Cunningham-Marino
	Ken Penney
	Dave Pizzini