|
Ōrākei
Local Board
07 May 2020
|
|
Local
board decisions and input into the Annual Budget 2020/2021
File No.: CP2020/05420
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
seek approval for local financial matters for the local board agreement 2020/2021,
which need to be considered by the Governing Body in the Annual Budget
2020/2021 process.
2. To
seek feedback on the proposed regional topics in the Annual Budget 2020/2021.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
3. Our
Annual Budget contains 21 local board agreements which are the responsibility
of local boards to agree with the governing body. These agreements set out
local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures.
4. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 21 February to 22 March
2020 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 and local board priorities to be included in the local board
agreements (Consultation part 1).
5. Since
this consultation was undertaken, the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted significant
pressure on the council’s financial position, which will have flow on
effects for the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year. The council
is now considering what those impacts are likely to be, and plan to ask Aucklanders
for their views on certain aspects of Auckland Council’s proposed
‘emergency budget’ in response to the financial impacts of COVID-19
(Consultation part 2).
6. Local
boards are required to receive the feedback on the proposals in consultation
part 1, which are not affected by the changes being considered by the council
and therefore will not be subject to further consultation and make decisions on
them. This must be done before consultation part 2 can get underway, so the
scope of consultation part 2 is clear.
7. This report seeks decisions on local financial matters for
the local board agreement, including:
a) any
new/amended Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rates
b) any
new/amended local targeted rate proposals
c) proposed
Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capital projects outside local boards’
decision-making responsibility
d) release of
local board specific reserve funds.
8. The council received feedback in person at community
engagement events and through written forms, including online and hard copy
forms, emails and letters.
9. This report summarises consultation feedback on the
proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021, including on local board priorities for
2020/2021.
Feedback on Ōrākei Local Board priorities for 2020/2021
10. The local board consulted on the following priorities:
· Priority
1: Prioritising our natural environment working with the community, including
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to improve
water quality in Ōkahu Bay and to develop an integrated plan for Pourewa
Valley.
· Priority
2: Continue advocating for transport initiatives, including the Gowing Drive
linkage to the Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive Shared Path, and wider safety
improvements.
· Priority
3: Community and park facility upgrades will continue, along with our
commitment to ensuring our heritage assets are protected.
· Priority
4: We will support regional events, and seek funding for projects to support
these locally, such as America’s Cup 2021.
· Priority 5: The Glen
Innes Business Association is proposing to expand the boundary of the Business
Improvement District (BID) across the boundary into the Ōrākei Local
Board area. If the boundary expansion is successful the Glen Innes BID
programme will represent about 190 business ratepayers and owners, with a
proposed BID targeted rate of $250,000 from 1 July 2020. The BID expansion has
now been delayed for one year, although feedback has been considered.
11. 138 submissions were received on Ōrākei Local
Board priorities for 2020/2021, showing that most people either support most
(53 per cent) or support all (33 per cent) of the local board’s
priorities.
Feedback on
regional proposals in the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 from the
Ōrākei local board area
12. This report seeks local board views on the proposed regional Annual
Budget topics including:
· the
changes to rates and fees, key proposals:
o waste
management targeted rate
o refuse
collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City
o Waitākere
rural sewerage service and targeted rate.
· the
draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan
2020/2021
· other
budget information.
13. Local board views on these regional matters will be
considered by the Governing Body (or relevant committee) before making final
decisions on the Annual Budget 2020/2021.
14. Out of the 4,765 submissions received on the regional
proposals in the Annual Budget 2020/2021, 215 submissions were from people
living in the Ōrākei local board area.
15. The waste management targeted rate proposal was supported by 91
respondents, while 36 did not support and 15
indicated ‘other’. Most respondents considered the proposal was the
fairest solution, although concerns were raised on whether this model would
lead to people not recycling or disposing of recycle rubbish inadequately.
There were also concerns about cost.
16. The refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau
City proposal was supported by 89 respondents, while 34 did not support and 15
marked ‘other’. Respondents considered that this proposal would
reduce the amount of landfill overall, although some had concerns that people
would dump their rubbish on their neighbours’ bins, that too many
targeted rates would be confusing and that this proposal raised equity issues
due to cost.
17. The Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted
rate proposal was supported by 73 respondents, who agreed that continuing the
service through a targeted rate approach would be the most appropriate
solution. 32 respondents were not supportive of the proposal and would prefer
that the service be ended. Seven respondents did not support the proposal as
they argued that the service should be subsidized by all general ratepayers.
18. Feedback received for the draft Tūpuna Maunga o
Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021 reflected concern
over the removal of trees in Owairaka (6 feedback points), impact of land
development on wairua and heritage of Ohinerau, Mt Hobson and Te Kopuke/
Titikopuke Mt St John (2 feedback points) as well as land management concerns
(2 feedback points).
19. Auckland Council also consulted on the Council-Controlled
Organisations (CCO) Review at the same time. The feedback received on this will
be presented at a later date.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Ōrākei
Local Board:
a) receive consultation feedback on the
proposed Ōrākei Local Board priorities for 2020/2021.
b) receive consultation feedback on regional proposals in the Annual
Budget 2020/2021 from people or organisations based in the Ōrākei
local board area.
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’ allocated decision-making responsibility.
f) recommend the release of local board specific reserve funds to the
Governing Body.
g) provide feedback on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021.
|
Horopaki
Context
20. Local board
agreements form part of the Auckland Council’s Annual Budget and set out
local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures.
21. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 21 February to 22 March
2020 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 and local board priorities to be included in the local board
agreements. This is now referred to as consultation part 1.
22. Since this
consultation was undertaken, the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted significant
pressure on the council’s financial position, which will have flow on
effects for the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year. Work to date
on the proposed Annual Budget will need to be adjusted to consider the new
financial realities facing Auckland.
23. The financial
report presented to the Emergency Committee during April 2020 indicated
potential reductions in cash revenue of $350-650 million for financial year
2020/2021, depending on the length and extent of the disruption caused by
COVID-19. The Emergency Committee requested staff provide further information
to the Governing Body on the impacts of the various scenarios modelled against
a rate increase of between 0 per cent and 3.5 per cent. They also resolved that
further public consultation on the Annual Budget would include considering
whether to adopt a 2.5 per cent rather than 3.5 per cent general rates increase
for the 2020/2021 financial year, among a suite of other measures aimed at offering
support to all ratepayers, including businesses, facing hardship due to the
impacts of COVID-19.
24. The council
is planning to ask Aucklanders for their views on certain aspects of Auckland
Council’s proposed ‘emergency budget’ in response to the
financial impacts of COVID-19. It is anticipated this will be carried out from
late May until mid-June 2020. This will be in addition to the Annual Budget
2020/2021 consultation we have already carried out from February to March 2020.
This is referred to as consultation part 2.
25. Consultation
part 2 is unlikely to revisit any of the specific proposals in consultation
part 1. Therefore, the local boards and the Governing Body are required to
receive the feedback on these proposals and make decisions on them. This must
be done before consultation part 2 can get underway so it is clear what
decisions have already been made, and what decisions will be made after
consultation part 2. In addition, local boards will be required to provide
formal views to the Governing Body to inform consultation part 2 and further information
will be made available to local boards when it becomes available for this to
occur.
26. Further, some
of the proposed changes to fees and charges required a Special Consultative
Procedure (SCP) and the requirements for this were met in consultation part
1. It is important to complete this statutory process, especially where
consultation part 2 will not be relevant to the decisions on these fees and
charges.
27. This report includes analysis of the consultation feedback on the
Ōrākei Local Board priorities for 2020/2021, and on the regional
proposals in the Annual Budget 2020/2021 from people or organisations based in
the Ōrākei local board area.
Local financial matters for the local
board agreement
28. This report
allows the local board to agree its input and recommend other local financial
matters to the Governing Body in May 2020. This is to allow time for the
Governing Body to consider these items in the Annual Budget process.
Local targeted rate and Business Improvement District (BID)
targeted rate proposals
29. The Glen Innes
Business Association is proposing to expand the boundary of the Business
Improvement District (BID) across the boundary into the Ōrākei Local
Board area. If the boundary expansion is successful the Glen Innes BID
programme will represent about 190 business ratepayers and owners, with a
proposed BID targeted rate of $250,000 from 1 July 2020. The BID expansion has
now been delayed for one year, although feedback has been considered.
Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)
30. Local boards
are allocated funding annually to spend on local projects or programmes that
are important to their communities. Local boards can approve LDI capital
projects up to $1 million, projects over that amount require approval from the
Governing Body.
31. Local boards
can recommend to the Governing Body to convert LDI operational funding to
capital expenditure for 2020/2021 if there is a specific need to do so.
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.
Local board input on regional plans
32. 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 the proposed Annual Budget.
33. 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.
Council-controlled organisation (CCO)
review
34. An
independent panel was appointed by Auckland Council to examine three areas: (1)
the CCO model, roles and responsibilities, (2) the accountability of CCOs, and
(3) CCO culture. Local boards had the opportunity to provide input into this in
March 2020.
35. Auckland
Council also consulted on the review of CCOs during the same period as the
Annual Budget, from 21 February to 22 March 2020.
36. After
receiving feedback, the panel will report on key issues, community and
stakeholder feedback to the council in May 2020.
37. The panel
will provide a final report and recommendations to the council in July 2020.
Types of feedback
38. Overall
Auckland Council received feedback from 4765 people in the consultation period.
This feedback was received through:
· Written
feedback – 3972 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters
· In
person – 793 submissions through 58 Have Your Say events and community
events.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Feedback received on Ōrākei
Local Board priorities for 2020/2021
39. The local board consulted on the following priorities:
· Priority
1: Prioritising our natural environment working with the community,
including Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to improve water quality in
Ōkahu Bay and to develop an integrated plan for Pourewa Valley.
· Priority
2: Continue advocating for transport initiatives, including the Gowing
Drive linkage to the Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive Shared Path, and wider
safety improvements.
· Priority
3: Community and park facility upgrades will continue, along with our
commitment to ensuring our heritage assets are protected.
· Priority
4: We will support regional events, and seek funding for projects to
support these locally, such as America’s Cup 2021.
· Priority
5: The Glen Innes Business Association is proposing to expand the boundary
of the Business Improvement District (BID) across the boundary into the
Ōrākei Local Board area. If the boundary expansion is successful the
Glen Innes BID programme will represent about 190 business ratepayers and
owners, with a proposed BID targeted rate of $250,000 from 1 July 2020. The BID
expansion has now been delayed for one year, although feedback has been
considered.
40. Key themes across all feedback received (through written
and in person channels) were:
· Priority
1: To continue focusing on water quality and stormwater management (8
feedback points), prioritise the implementation of the Pourewa Valley
masterplan (4 feedback points), clean beaches (3 feedback points), and protect
the environment (2 feedback points). In addition, concern was raised that
investment in environment could affect rate increases (1 feedback point).
· Priority
2: To increase cycling/pedestrian connections across the local board (8 feedback
points) and to implement the Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive Shared Path (4 feedback
points). Concern was raised about parking capacity at train stations (3
feedback points).
· Priority
3: To address the lack of community facilities in Remuera and uneven
distribution of facility provision in Kohimarama (2 feedback points), complete
the Meadowbank Community Centre (1 feedback point) and continue development of
the Waiatarua Reserve Enhancement Plan (1 feedback point).
· Priority
4: To consider concerns that contributing funding towards local and
regional events such as America’s Cup would be a detriment to the local
area and be viewed as an unnecessary expense (3 feedback points).
· Priority
5: To consider the impact of the BID expansion on local communities (1
feedback point). Confusion was expressed as to the need for a BID expansion
into the Ōrākei area (1 feedback point).
Feedback received
41. 138 submissions were received on Ōrākei Local
Board priorities for 2020/2021, showing that most people either support most
(53 per cent) or support all (33 per cent) of the local board’s
priorities.
42. The Ōrākei Local Board held one community
drop-in event.
Feedback on other local topics
43. Key themes across feedback received on other local topics
include:
· Community
Facilities: Establish a community centre in Remuera and place stronger
emphasis on heritage protection in Remuera (5 feedback points), complete and
appropriately fund existing projects over creating new projects (4 feedback
points), build a new toilet block in Selwyn Reserve (2 feedback points) and
renovate 11 Mt Hobson Lane (1 feedback point).
· Parks,
Sports, Recreation: Maintain and increase off-leash areas in Waiatarua Reserve
(3 feedback points). Madills Farm should be maintained as a recreation space
for all users and activities, not just sports such as football predominantly
undertaken by the Eastern Suburbs Football Club (3 feedback points).
· Arts,
Culture, Heritage: Restore and preserve Remuera Railway Station (2 feedback
points) and allocate funding to local heritage preservation (1 feedback point).
· Planning
and Transport: Pedestrian and cyclist safety should be prioritised when
upgrading footpaths and creating new connections (6 feedback points). In
addition, Ellerslie should be prioritised as a transport hub and have provision
for a public pool (3 feedback points).
· Infrastructure
and Environmental Services: Restore and protect Wilson’s Beach Jetty
(1 feedback point) and protect Ohinerau/Mt Hobson (1 feedback point). Eliminate
sewage overflows into Pourewa Creek (1 feedback point).
Information on submitters
44. The tables and graphs below indicate what demographic
categories people identified with. This information only relates to those
submitters who provided demographic information.
Age breakdown of submitters
|
Age
|
Male
|
|
Female
|
Gender
Diverse
|
|
< 15
|
0
|
|
0
|
0
|
|
15-24
|
6
|
|
7
|
0
|
|
25-34
|
4
|
|
6
|
0
|
|
35-44
|
9
|
|
9
|
0
|
|
45-54
|
18
|
|
19
|
0
|
|
55-64
|
29
|
|
23
|
0
|
|
65-74
|
21
|
|
16
|
1
|
|
75 +
|
10
|
|
3
|
0
|
|
Total
|
97
|
|
83
|
1
|
Figure 1 Figure
2
Ethnic breakdown of submitters
Figure 3 Figure
4
Overview of feedback received on the
Annual Budget from Ōrākei Local Board area
45. The proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 sets out our
priorities and how we're going to pay for them. The regional consultation on
the proposed Annual Budget focused on changes to rates and fees, the key
proposals were:
· waste
management targeted rate
· refuse
collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City
· Waitākere
rural sewerage service and targeted rate.
46. The submissions received from the Ōrākei 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.
Waste management targeted rate
47. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to increase the
waste management targeted rate.
Question
1: Waste management targeted rate
The
cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and
plastics) has increased due to international market conditions.
To pay
for this we propose to charge only those who use the service by increasing the
targeted rate by $19.97 a year or $0.38 a week (the total cost changing from
$121.06 to $141.03 incl. GST).
If we
do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates
for all ratepayers, including those who don’t get a kerbside collection
service.
The graphs
below give an overview of the responses from the Ōrākei Local
Board area.
48. Of the
respondents who provided reasons for their support of the proposal, most agreed
that the user-pay model was fair (12 feedback points) and highlighted the
importance of an effective recycling system to protect the environment (4
feedback points). Some mentioned that although they were in favour, they would
struggle to pay for the service (2 feedback points).
49. Those who
provided reasons for not supporting the proposal expressed concerns that the
user pay model would lead to people not recycling (8 feedback points), that it
was too expensive (6 feedback points), that some people would dump rubbish in
others’ bins or in parks (3 feedback points), that better solutions
should be found, including ‘pay as you throw’ (3 feedback points)
and that it would penalise those who recycle (1 feedback point). They also
argued that everyone should be recycling so a targeted rate was illogical (1
feedback point).
50. Some of those
who indicated ‘other’, expressed that the Council should work with
retailers to reduce packaging at the source (5 feedback points) and expressed
concerns on the efficiency of current recycling systems in general including
sending rubbish overseas for recycling (5 feedback points). Some respondents
were in support for having more green waste bins (1 feedback point) and
increasing the frequency of recycling rubbish collection (1 feedback point).
Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City
51. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to increase the
refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City targeted rate.
Question
2: Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City
In the
old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish
through a targeted rate. In other parts of the city, residents pay for their
collection via Pay As You Throw. The targeted rate for the Auckland City and
Manukau City Council areas no longer meets the cost of collection.
To cover
this extra cost we propose increasing the targeted rate in these areas by
$14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from
$129.93 to $144.16 incl. GST), and an additional $6.68 a year or $0.13 a week
for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191 to $211.91 incl.
GST).
If we
do not do this, we would have to increase general rates for all ratepayers,
including those living outside these two areas who would subsidise residents of
old Auckland and Manukau cities.
The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the
Ōrākei Local Board area.
52. Of those who
provided reasons for supporting this proposal, most said that it would reduce
the amount of landfill (8 feedback points), that it was a fair system (6
feedback points), that the cost was reasonable (1 feedback point) and that this
was an efficient solution (1 feedback point).
53. Those who did
not support the proposal were concerned that this model would incite people to
dump rubbish in their neighbours’ bins (5 feedback points), that rates
should be uniform across Auckland (5 feedback points), that the proposal raised
equity concerns (4 feedback points), that the price was too high (4 feedback
points) and that too many targeted rates would be confusing (2 feedback
points).
54. Of those who
indicated other, comments included concerns for overseas-managed rubbish
separation (2 feedback points), and two requests for Auckland-wide compost
collection services offered by Auckland Council.
Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate
55. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to increase the
Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate.
Question
3: Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate
Last
year we consulted on removing the septic tank pumpout service funded by a
targeted rate. While feedback indicated a willingness to go ahead with the
removal of this service in the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board
areas, residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area said they wanted
to keep the service. The cost of delivering this service is higher than the
current targeted rate of $198.43.
Our
proposal, for those in the Waitākere Ranges local board area who want the
service, is to recover the full cost by increasing the targeted rate to between
$260 and $320 a year (incl. GST). This increase would apply from July 2021.
If we
do not do this, the council could end the service, or continue to subsidise the
cost of the service to septic tank users in the Waitākere Ranges local
board area from all general ratepayers, including those who don’t use the
service.
The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the
Ōrākei Local Board area.
56. Of the submitters who provided comment on their support
for a targeted rate, frequent comments included that this issue was not
pertinent to them and they should therefore not be charged (17 feedback points)
others argued that, if locals considered they needed the service, they should
be able to keep it (4 feedback points).
57. Of those submitters that did not support the proposal and
provided feedback, some suggested that the service should continue and that all
Aucklanders should subsidise the cost (5 feedback points). Otherwise, other
comments included resolving the issue through private contractors (3 feedback
point).
58. Other feedback included requests for Council support on
more composting toilets (2 feedback points).
Other feedback
59. Aucklanders were asked what is important to them and if
they had any feedback on any other issues. This could include the key topics of
how we charge for pool fencing inspections and adjusting our fees and charges:
60. Fees
and charges: While most respondents providing feedback on the proposed pool
fencing inspection charges preferred to continue with the existing model (28
feedback points), some respondents were supportive (16 feedback points). Across
all feedback topics, respondents were largely against any increase in fees,
charges, or rates.
61. Regional
environmental protection: Respondents’ feedback on the environment
reflected support for the protection of flora and fauna (5 feedback points), a
need to investigate better waste divestment systems including composting and
enhancement of recycling systems (4 feedback points), requests to consider the
environmental impact of urban development (3 feedback point) and demand for
education opportunities to learn more about environmental protection (3
feedback points). One respondent also commented that the Council should work to
reduce its greenhouse emissions.
62. Water:
Respondents requested improvements on water quality regionally (6 feedback
points), improvements on water supply (2 feedback points) and finding solutions
to better grey water collection (1 feedback point).
63. Transport:
Some respondents requested more and cheaper parking (4 feedback points) and to
address road safety for cars (3 feedback points). On public transport,
respondents’ comments reflected a need for cheaper, more frequent and
reliable public transport (7 feedback points). On active modes of
transportation, there was support for better pedestrian and cycling safety and
connectivity (8 feedback points), including between St Heliers and the CBD (1
feedback point), as well as more cycleways (2 feedback points). Finally, some
respondents requested less spending on cycleways (2 feedback points).
Feedback on the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau
Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021
64. Feedback was received from the Ōrākei Local
Board area on the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority –
Operational Plan 2020/2021.
65. Submitters were concerned about the removal of trees in
Owairaka and the management of the maunga in general (6 feedback points). There
were also concerns about the impact that land development would have on the
wairua and heritage of Ohinerau, Mt Hobson and Te Kopuke/ Titikopuke Mt St John
(2 feedback points). One respondent opposed the Authority’s intention to
advocate for the transfer of adjoining lands as stated in the Operational Plan.
One commenter was supportive of the values in the plan, as well as the intention
to restore native flora and fauna.
Feedback on other regional proposals with a local impact
66. All feedback has been discussed in previous sections.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
67. The decisions
recommended in this report are procedural in nature. New targeted rates and the
release of reserve funds will not have any climate impacts themselves.
68. Some of the
proposed projects these would fund may have climate impacts. The climate
impacts of any projects Auckland Council chooses to progress with as a result
of this, will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements.
69. Some of the
proposed projects these would fund will be specifically designed to mitigate
climate impact, build resilience to climate impacts,
and restore the natural environment.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
70. The Annual Budget is an Auckland Council Group document and
will include budgets at a consolidated group level. Consultation items
and updates to budgets to reflect decisions and new information may include
items from across the group.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
71. 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.
72. Local boards play an important role in the development of the Annual
Budget. Local board agreements form part of the Annual Budget. Local board
nominees have also attended Finance and Performance Committee workshops on the
Annual Budget.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
73. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on
Māori. Local board agreements and the Annual Budget are important tools
that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Māori.
74. 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 the wider Māori community.
75. The analysis included submissions made by mana whenua and the wider
Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.
76. Ongoing conversations between local boards and Māori will
assist to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can
influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s
decision-making processes.
77. Some of the
proposed projects these would fund may have impacts on Māori. The impacts
on Māori of any projects Auckland Council chooses to progress with as a
result of this, will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting
requirements.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
78. This report
is seeking local board decisions on financial matters in local board agreements
that need to then be considered by the Governing Body.
79. 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 me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
80. Local boards
are required to make recommendations on these local financial matters for the
Annual Budget by 15 May 2020, to enable the Governing Body to make decisions on
them when considering the Annual Budget in May.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
81. Local boards
will approve their local board agreements and corresponding work programmes.
82. Recommendations and feedback from local boards will be provided to
the relevant governing body committees for consideration during decision making
at the Governing Body meeting.
83. The dates of these meetings are yet to be determined as the impacts
of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown are still being considered.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are
no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Nick Palmisano - Local Board Advisor - Ōrākei
Ollin Perez Raynaud – Local Board Engagement
Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Ōrākei Local Boards
|
