I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Waiheke Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Thursday, 3 May 2018 5.15pm Local Board
Office |
Waiheke Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Cath Handley |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Paul Walden |
|
Members |
Shirin Brown |
|
|
John Meeuwsen |
|
|
Bob Upchurch |
|
(Quorum 3 members)
|
|
Safia Cockerell Democracy Advisor - Waiheke
30 April 2018
Contact Telephone: 021 283 8212 Email: safia.cockerell@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Waiheke Local Board 03 May 2018 |
|
1 Welcome 5
2 Apologies 5
3 Declaration of Interest 5
4 Confirmation of Minutes 5
5 Leave of Absence 5
6 Acknowledgements 5
7 Petitions 5
8 Deputations 5
9 Public Forum 5
10 Extraordinary Business 5
11 Notices of Motion 6
12 Local board decisions and input into the 10-year Budget 2018-2028, draft Auckland Plan 2050 and draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 7
13 Feedback on Rates Remission and Postponement Policy 49
14 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
15 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 83
13 Feedback on Rates Remission and Postponement Policy
d. Community and Sporting remissions by board 83
Kua uru mai a hau kaha, a hau maia, a hau ora, a hau nui,
Ki runga, ki raro, ki roto, ki waho
Rire, rire hau…pai marire
Translation (non-literal) - Rama Ormsby
Let the winds bring us inspiration from beyond,
Invigorate us with determination and courage to achieve our aspirations for abundance and sustainability
Bring the calm, bring all things good, bring peace….good peace.
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
That the Waiheke Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 26 April 2018, as a true and correct record. |
At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Waiheke Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.
At the close of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.
A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
There were no notices of motion.
Waiheke Local Board 03 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
File No.: CP2018/05550
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 / Recommendations That the Waiheke Local Board: a) note that redacted submissions will be made available through the Auckland Council website in May 2018, until then redacted submissions are available on request by emailing akhaveyoursay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz. 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 to the Governing Body that $155,000 of 2017/2018 Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) operating expenditure be deferred to 2018/2019. 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. |
Horopaki / Context
7. Local board agreements form part of the Auckland Council’s 10-year Budget and set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures. This report details local board decisions and recommendations that need to be made in early May to allow them to be considered by the Governing Body in the 10-year Budget process.
8. Each year local boards also advocate to the governing body for funding for projects that cannot be accommodated within their local budgets. These advocacy initiatives are attached to the local board agreement.
9. Local boards are responsible for providing local input into regional strategies, policies and plans. Local Board Plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that guide both the development of local board agreements and input into regional plans.
10. Auckland Council publicly consulted on four plans from 28 February – 28 March 2018:
· 10-year Budget (which includes both regional issues and local board key priorities)
· Draft Auckland Plan 2050
· Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018
· Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan.
11. Across the region, 5,374 people attended 100 engagement events, including one event in the local board area. Feedback was received through written, event and social media channels.
12. Consultation feedback on the Waiheke 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 Waiheke local board area are set out in Attachment A. The feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board before they agree their local board agreement in early June.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice
Local financial matters for the local board agreement
13. 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
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Local boards are requested to approve their advocacy initiatives, including their key advocacy project, for consideration by the Governing body and inclusion (as an appendix) to the 2018/2019 Local Board Agreement.
Local targeted rate and Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rate proposals
17. 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)
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. The feedback form contained at least one question relating to each issue. Consultation feedback received from the Waiheke 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.
25. Local boards may wish to provide feedback on these regional issues for consideration by the Governing Body.
Draft Auckland Plan 2050
26. 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.
27. 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 Waiheke Local Board area on the outcome areas in the draft Auckland Plan 2050 are summarised in Attachment A.
28. 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
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. This report asks for local board input to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.
32. Consultation feedback received from the Waiheke Local Board area on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is summarised in Attachment B.
33. Local boards may wish to provide feedback on this plan for consideration by the Environment and Community Committee.
Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan
34. 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.
35. 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
36. 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.
37. Local boards play an important role in the development of the 10-year Budget. Local board agreements form part of the 10-year Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Finance and Performance committee workshop on key topics and special briefings have been arranged.
38. 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.
39. 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
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Attachment A includes analysis of submissions made by mana whenua and mataawaka entities who have interests in the rohe/local board area.
44. 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
45. 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.
46. 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
47. 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
48. Local boards will approve their local board agreements and corresponding work programmes in June.
49. 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⇩ |
Attachment A: 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and draft Auckland Plan 2050 consultation feedback report |
15 |
b⇩ |
Attachment B: Draft Waste Management and Minimisation 2018 consultation feedback report |
37 |
c⇩ |
Attachment C: Key information on the LDI funded projects that meet the criteria for deferral |
45 |
d⇩ |
Attachment D: Waiheke Have Your Say Event Feedback Mastersheet |
47 |
Ngā kaihaina / Signatories
Author |
Janine Geddes - Senior Local Board Advisor Waiheke |
Authorisers |
Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services Helgard Wagener - Relationship Manager Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards |
Waiheke Local Board 03 May 2018 |
|
Feedback on Rates Remission and Postponement Policy
File No.: CP2018/06020
Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report
1. To provide analysis of public feedback on the review of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and to seek the views of the local board on the proposed policy.
Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary
Replacement of legacy schemes for natural heritage and community and sporting organisations with grants
2. The Rates Remission and Postponement Policy proposal provides for:
· transfer of current budget for legacy remission schemes to the operating group with relevant expertise (e.g. remissions budget for Natural Heritage will transfer to Environmental Services while those for local community facilities will transfer to the relevant local board as asset based service funding)
· current recipient receives same support (excl GST) as a grant guaranteed for three years
· development of an integrated approach to supporting outcomes for natural heritage, and community and sporting activities across the region.
3. One hundred and twelve submitters opposed the proposal and 28 supported it. Ninty-one 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. Twenty-seven responses cited the uncertainty of on-going support. Twenty-four thought grants would require more administration. Nine 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 the 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 provided for owners of no more than two serviced apartments with long term fixed rental leases to hotel operators to receive a remission of the APTR. The remission would be reduced in equal steps over ten years. Thirty-nine submitters supported and 30 were opposed to the proposal. Thirteen 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. Six submitters were supportive of aspects of the regional schemes, and none were opposed. Staff recommend adoption as proposed.
Horopaki / Context
10. Auckland 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 Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate
· administrators for retirement villages currently receiving the remission for licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga
· relevant key stakeholders including the Queen Elizabeth II Trust and Forest and Bird.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice
17. Analysis of feedback and 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 would report back on the integration of these grants with a wider approach to supporting these activities, developed with sector groups, within the three year transition.
21. The draft policy retained the postponement of rates for two Manukau golf clubs for a period three years after which it would expire. At the end of the three years any postponed rates would remain as a liability on the property, to be paid on sale or transfer of the property.
Feedback
22. One hundred and fifty-three 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: |
||
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. One hundred and five submitters commented on legacy remissions for natural heritage, with 91 opposed to the proposal. Key themes from feedback and officers comments are set out in the table below.
Theme |
Feedback Points |
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. The 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 |
The 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. Thirty-six 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 the 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 10 years.
29. Seventy-three submitters provided feedback with 39 in support of the proposal and 30 opposed. Of those opposed, five thought the remission should be more generous. The key themes from feedback are shown in the table below:
Response to Remissions |
Feedback Points |
Officers Comments |
Remission assists those who most need it |
2 |
This feedback reflects the key issues for and against adoption of an APTR remission |
Remission supported because can't pass on rate to operator |
12 |
|
Remission shouldn't be offered - everyone should pay |
4 |
|
No APTR should be charged |
13 |
6 supported and 6 opposed the proposal |
Remission should be available to more properties |
8 |
3 supported, 4 opposed proposal |
Full remission should be granted until lease ends |
3 |
1 supported proposal |
Should use bed tax or similar charge rather than APTR |
7 |
2 supported, 1 opposed proposal |
30. None of the key stakeholder organisations notified of the consultation opted to make a submission.
Amendment to regional schemes
Proposal
31. The proposed changes are:
· rates penalties – simplifying the scheme for easier administration
· license to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga housing – removes references to:
o retirement villages as residents now qualify for central government rates rebates
o Interim Transport Levy (should this levy not be continued.)
· remission for rates transition management policy change properties – this scheme is redundant.
Feedback
32. Two submitters supported the proposed change to the remission for licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga scheme. Grey Power requested that the scheme remain unchanged until the rates rebate process has been established. Four 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 the 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 the 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 accommodation provider targeted rate 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 2018 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 Summary by Local Board |
57 |
b⇩ |
Draft Rates Remission and Postponement Policy |
59 |
c⇩ |
Value of legacy schemes by local board area |
69 |
d⇩ |
Community and Sporting remissions by board - 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 |
Waiheke Local Board 03 May 2018 |
|
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
a)
a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.
13 Feedback on Rates Remission and Postponement Policy - Attachment d - Community and Sporting remissions by board
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. Public inspection of remissions for individual rating units is not permitted under s38(1)(e) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.. |
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. |
[1] Waikato University: “2017 Investment in Covenanted Land Conservation” prepared for the Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust