|
Papakura Local
Board
06 May 2020
|
|
Local board decisions and input into the
Annual Budget 2020/2021
File No.: CP2020/05203
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 Papakura Local Board priorities for 2020/2021
10. The
local board consulted on the following priorities:
· Priority
1: Continue providing funding towards events that bring the community together
such as Movies in the Park, Carols in the Park, Santa Parade and Papakura
Street Festival
· Priority
2: Building a new playground at Kauri Heart Park and a new play space at
Hingaia park.
· Priority
3: Continue to provide quality parks and playgrounds, libraries, community and
recreation facilities
11. Ninety-eight
submissions were received on Papakura local board priorities for 2020/2021,
showing that the majority of people (54%) support most of the local
board’s priorities.
Feedback on
regional proposals in the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 from the Papakura
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 2522 submissions received on the regional proposals in the Annual Budget
2020/2021, 98 submissions were from people living in the Papakura local board
area.
15. Waste
management targeted rate: a strong majority of respondents (73 percent) support
the proposed waste management targeted rate, 22 percent did not support, and 5
percent selected other.
16. Refuse
collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City: a clear majority of
respondents support the refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau
City targeted rate increase (64 percent), with 27 percent opposed and 9 percent
selecting other.
17. Waitākere
rural sewerage service and targeted rate: fifty seven percent of respondents
supported the increase targeted rate proposed, 27 percent did not support (end
service) and a further 16 percent disagree with the proposal (continue as is).
18. No
feedback was received on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau
Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021.
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 Papakura Local Board:
a) receive consultation feedback on the
proposed Papakura 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 Papakura 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 $350-650m 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 rates 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.
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
Papakura Local Board priorities for 2020/2021, and on the regional proposals in
the Annual Budget 2020/2021 from people or organisations based in the Papakura
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. Local boards are required to endorse any new local 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)
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 – 3828 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters
· in
person – through 58 Have Your Say and community events.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
39. The
Papakura Local Board consulted on the following priorities:
· Priority 1: Continue providing funding towards events
that bring the community together such as Movies in the Park, Carols in the
Park, Santa Parade and Papakura Street Festival
· Priority
2: Building a new playground at Kauri Heart Park and a new play space at
Hingaia park.
· Priority
3: Continue to provide quality parks and playgrounds, libraries, community and
recreation facilities.
40. Key
themes across all feedback received (through written and in person channels)
were:
· Environment
· Youth
initiatives
· Parks,
sport and recreation
Feedback received
41. Ninety-eight
submissions were received on Papakura Local Board priorities for 2020/2021,
showing that the majority of people support most (54%) local board’s
priorities as shown in graph 1 below.
Graph 1:
Support for Papakura local board’s priorities
· Results
show that the majority (54%) of submitters supported most of the local
board’s priorities and a further 28% of respondents supported all the
priorities
· 14%
of submitters did not support most of the priorities and a further 4% did not
support any of the priorities
· Most
comments received from the 54% of submitters who supported most of the
board’s priorities referred to more investment towards youth initiatives,
environment, upgrading playgrounds and community halls. Other remarks noted a
perceived lack of investment and quality services in Papakura compared to other
parts of Auckland
· Comments
relating to more playgrounds, youth initiatives and celebrating diverse
cultures were the main remarks from the 28% of respondents who supported all
the priorities
· Responses
recorded from submitters (14%) who did not support most of the priorities
citied better focus on core council services, improve quality of parks and
increase investment for youth initiatives
· Those
who did not support any of the priorities (6%) commented on prioritising car
parking spaces next to train stations
42. The
Papakura Local Board held 1 Have Your Say event on Friday 6 March at Central
Park. Feedback was received from 31 people.
Table 1:
Response to local board priorities
|
Response
|
Count
|
|
Support all
|
29
|
|
Support most
|
2
|
|
Do not support most
|
0
|
|
Do not support any
|
0
|
· Feedback
from respondents who either supported all or most of the local board’s
priorities indicated approval for town centre initiatives. Requests for
improved community safety and more community events such as fireworks display,
and music festivals were received.
Feedback on other local topics
43. Key
themes across feedback received on other local topics include:
· Local
community services: most comments from submitters felt there should be more
focus on supporting young people
· Local
parks, sport and recreation: responses highlighted the need to improve walking
and cycling infrastructure, upgrades of playgrounds and play spaces to bring
community together
· Local
planning: respondents who commented suggested prioritising funding towards
roading infrastructure, the environment and other planning services to
supplement growth
· Local
arts, culture and events: feedback received voiced requests for more investment
towards youth initiatives and events
· Local
environmental management: comments received believed there should be more
funding and priority towards addressing environmental issues and services
Requests for local funding
44. Requests
for local funding included:
· Request
1: Bruce Pulman Park: Two funding applications were received. A facility
operating grant of $150,000 per annum for Pulman Arena and a capital grant of
up to $600,000 for the rubberising of outdoor courts.
· Request
2: Papakura Museum: increase funding for Papakura Museum to cover additional
30% of museum operating expenses
Information on submitters
45. The
tables and graphs below indicate what demographic categories people identified
with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic
information.
Table 2: Gender demographic of submitters
|
Gender
|
Count
|
|
Female
|
50
|
|
Male
|
40
|
|
Gender
diverse
|
0
|
Graph 3: Age demographic of submitters
Graph 4: Ethnic breakdown of submitters
· Of the 90 people who
provided demographic information, 50 were female, 40 were male and 0 were
gender diverse, as shown in table 2. Graph 3 also shows that the age group with
the highest submission rates were those between 15 – 24 and 55 – 64.
Fifty percent of the submissions came from respondents who identified as
European, followed by Maori (32%), Asian (16%), Pacific (10%) and other (1%).
Overview of feedback received on the
Annual Budget from Papakura Local Board area
46. 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.
47. The
submissions received from the Papakura 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
48. 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.
49. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Papakura
Local Board area.
Graph 5: Response to waste management targeted rate
· A strong majority
of submitters support the proposal and considered the increase to be acceptable
given the importance of the issue. Respondents also supported a pay as you
throw system as an equitable approach for those who do not use the service
while others encouraged council to find longer term solutions to prevent future
rates increases.
· Those who opposed
the proposal recommended improvements to the current system such as recycling
buy back schemes and other incentivisation programmes, while some felt the
increase will encourage illegal dumping. Respondents who replied with
‘other’ generally supported the increase and considered other
measures such as charging per individual as opposed to per household, and
ensuring businesses are accountable for waste they produce.
Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau
City
50. 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.
51. The
graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Papakura Local Board
area.
Graph 6: Response to refuse collection in former Auckland City and
Manukau City
· There is strong
support for the proposal to increase refuse collection in the former Auckland
and Manukau City areas, with most respondents generally agreeing those in the
affected areas to pay for the service as reasonable. Others suggested applying
a consistent ‘pay as you throw’ system across the Auckland region
and finding solutions to prevent illegal dumping.
· Submitters who did
not support this proposal believed all areas of Auckland should pay as you
throw, provided alternative methods to address the issue such as the creation
of private companies to collect waste, and others suggesting to share the cost
across the region to lessen the financial impact on low income households.
Those who responded with ‘other’ made similar comments to endorse a
uniform approach across the region.
Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted
rate
52. 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.
53. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Papakura
Local Board area.
Graph 7: Response to Waitakere rural sewerage service targeted
rate
· Of the 57 percent
of respondents who supported this proposal, many felt this did not affect them
and agreed that Waitakere residents should cover the full cost of this service
and not have it subsidised from ratepayers outside Waitakere.
· Those who did not
support the proposal (27% for council to suspend the service) felt users should
take full responsibility of the cost privately as other rural areas do.
· The 16 percent of
submitters who did not support the proposal (continue to subsidise costs) were
concerned about the environmental impacts and risks if septic tank users could
not afford to go private and considered it a responsibility for all ratepayers.
Other feedback
54. 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.
55. The
table below gives an overview of the responses from the Papakura Local Board
area.
Table 3:
Responses to other fees and charges
|
|
Swimming pool inspection charges
|
Auckland Botanic Garden international visitor fee
|
|
Support
|
2
|
1
|
|
Do not support
|
4
|
5
|
|
Other
|
2
|
1
|
· Swimming
pool inspection charges: most comments opposing the proposal preferred the
status quo of a 3-year charge and raised concerns around administration costs.
Those in favour of the proposal felt it was fair system, particularly when
change of home ownership occurs
· Auckland
Botanic Garden international visitor fee: submitters who commented generally
disagreed with the proposal and considered the charge to be excessive, other
also suggesting any revenue generated be reinvested into the Botanic Garden.
Feedback on the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau
Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021
56. No
feedback was received from the Papakura Local Board area on the draft
Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan
2020/2021.
Feedback on other regional proposals with a local
impact
57. Feedback
was received from the Papakura Local Board area on other regional proposals.
58. The
table below shows the areas covered by this feedback.
Table 4:
Responses to other regional proposals
|
Theme
|
Count
|
|
Transport
|
10
|
|
Water
|
3
|
|
Regional Community Services
|
4
|
|
Regional planning
|
3
|
|
Revenue and Finance
|
5
|
· Transport: respondents commented on improving roading, walking and
cycling infrastructure, and alleviating traffic congestion.
· Water: submitters commented on improving public wastewater
stations and drainage maintenance issues.
· Regional
community services: submitters supported
ongoing maintenance of parks and libraries; others commented on upgrading
various speedway venues across Auckland.
· Regional
planning: respondents endorsed better
public health facilities in south Auckland and monitoring dog off leash areas
in public spaces.
· Revenue
and finance: most responses opposed
future rates increases and others requested to remove targeted rates around
compost collection.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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
62. 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
63. 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.
64. 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
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. The analysis included submissions made by mana whenua and the wider
Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.
68. 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.
69. 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
70. This report
is seeking local board decisions on financial matters in local board agreements
that need to then be considered by the Governing Body.
71. 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
72. 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
73. Local boards
will approve their local board agreements and corresponding work programmes.
74. 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.
75. The dates of these meetings are yet to be determined as the impacts
of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown are taken into account.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Beth
Corlett (Advisor Plans & Programmes, Local Board Services)
Shelvin Munif-Imo (Engagement Advisor,
Local Board Services)
|
|
Authoriser
|
Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura
|
