Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 19 March 2020	9
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board minutes attachments - 19 March 2020	21

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 May 2020

Attendance at local board meetings during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period

File No.: CP2020/04536

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend an amendment to the local board’s standing orders in order to provide for attendance of non-members at local board meetings via audio or audio-visual link.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report updates the local board on the temporary arrangements for local board meetings enabled by the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 and provides options for implementing similar arrangements for non-members.

3. The COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 temporarily amends the existing legislative restrictions for local government on remote attendance for elected members and minimum quorum at local board meetings. This now enables meetings to proceed by audio-visual link, changes how meetings can be open to the public, and how members of the public receive the agenda and minutes.

4. The current local board standing orders do not provide for non-members, specifically members of the public and Māori, to give input via audio or audio-visual link. A copy of the current local board standing orders can be found at the following link: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/about-auckland-council/how-auckland-council-works/meetings-council-bodies/Documents/standing-orders-upper-harbour-local-board.pdf

5. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires that a person other than a member of the local board may participate by means of audio link or audio-visual link if the standing orders of the local authority permit this and if the chair is satisfied that all conditions and requirements in the standing orders are met (Clause 25A(2), Schedule 7, LGA). Local board standing orders do not currently allow for this.

6. Auckland Council will be using Skype for Business for local board meetings. If approved, attendance by members and non-members will be facilitated by phone (audio only) or Skype video (audio-visual) via the Skype for Business app.

7. An amendment to standing orders to enable electronic attendance can either be reversed at a future date or maintained to support that attendance in the future, where it is available.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) note the temporary amendments pursuant to the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 which allows members to attend meetings by audio-visual link as of right and, despite anything to the contrary in standing orders, to be counted for the purposes of quorum.

b) amend its standing orders by including a new Standing Order 3.3.10 that reads as follows:

i) Attendance of non-members by electronic link: a person other than a member of the local board may participate in a meeting of the local board by means of audio link or audio-visual link if the person is otherwise approved to participate in accordance with Standing Orders Sections 6 and 7.

c) amend its Standing Order 7.8.5 to provide discretion to the chair of the meeting to decline public forum requests via audio or audio-visual link.

Horopaki

Context

COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020

8. In late March 2020, central government enacted an omnibus bill that amended various acts of parliament, including the LGA and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA).

9. The amendments to the LGA and LGOIMA enable local authorities to have meetings by audio-visual link (given the restrictions regarding physical distancing and alert level 4) and support the effective operation of those meetings by removing conditions associated with the right to attend meetings by audio or audio-visual link.

10. These amendments only apply while the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020 is in force and will be repealed when that notice expires or is revoked.

Amendments to LGA

11. The amendments to the LGA modify Clause 25A, Schedule 7, so that a member of a local authority has the right to attend any meeting by audio or audio-visual link, regardless of what is provided for in the local authority’s standing orders. It also modifies Clause 25A so that a member attending by audio link or audio-visual link is counted for the purposes of quorum.

Amendments to LGOIMA

12. The amendments to LGOIMA include modifying Section 47 so that the requirement for meetings of local authorities to be ‘open to the public’ may be met during alert level 4 and other restrictions on physical distancing. The amendment redefines ‘open to the public’ to mean that the local authority:

a) if it is reasonably practicable, enables access to the meeting by broadcasting live the audio or video of the meeting (for example, by broadcasting it on an Internet site)

b) does one or both of the following as soon as practicable after the meeting ends:

i) makes an audio or a video recording of the meeting available on its Internet site

ii) makes a written summary of the business of the meeting available on its internet site.

13. This amendment does not anticipate public involvement as part of the meeting itself but ensures the public can access or view meeting proceedings online (either live or after the meeting) or through reviewing the summary.

14. Other amendments to LGOIMA include:

· modifying Section 46A so that agendas and reports for the meetings may be made available on the local authority’s internet site instead of at offices and other physical locations

· modifying Section 51 so that minutes of meetings may be made available on the local authority’s internet site instead of at offices and other physical locations

· the changes made by the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 now supersede some of the provisions in the local board standing orders and the restrictions on physical distancing and from alert level 4 now limit the opportunity for public input.

Local Board standing orders

15. The LGA requires local authorities to adopt a set of standing orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees (Clause 27, Schedule 7). Each local board has adopted its standing orders which have been developed from a template.

16. As a result of the statutory amendments listed in this report, the follow standing orders have been temporarily superseded:

· 3.3.2 Member’s status – quorum and vote

· 3.3.3 Conditions for attending by electronic link

· 3.3.4 Request to attend by electronic link

· 7.3.1 Information to be available to the public

· 7.3.2 Availability of agendas and reports

· 8.2.1 Inspection of minute books.

17. There are additional provisions in standing orders that may require further consideration if the local board wishes to enable these to continue during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. These relate to input and participation by Māori and the public.

18. Clause 25A(2) Schedule 7 of the LGA requires that a person other than a member of the local authority may participate by audio link or audio-visual link if the standing orders of the local authority permit this and if the chair is satisfied that all conditions and requirements in the standing orders are met.

19. The current standing orders do not currently provide for non-members, if required and approved to do so, to give input by means of audio link or audio-visual link.

20. Other participants at local board meetings include Governing Body members and staff. The LGA and the recent amendment provide the right for any member of a local authority or committee to attend any meeting of a local authority by audio-visual link (unless lawfully excluded). This can be interpreted broadly to extend to meetings where the elected member may not be a decision-maker or be participating in the decision at all. As such, Governing Body member participation may be by audio or audio-visual link and the process for providing them with speaking rights remains under standing orders.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. In performing their role, local boards are required to act in accordance with the principles contained in Section 14(1) of the LGA, including the requirement for the council to conduct its business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner and make itself aware of and have regard to the views of all of its communities.

22. While the LGA does not specifically require public input to be provided for at local board meetings, the standing orders approved by the local board reflects the principles in Section 14 of the LGA by providing for public attendance and enabling public input at meetings.

23. In order to continue to provide this opportunity as well as facilitate input by Māori and the public, the standing orders require amending.

Standing Orders Section 6 Māori Input

24. Speaking rights for Māori organisations or their nominees are granted under standing orders for the purpose of enabling Māori input, if any, to any item on the agenda of a meeting.

25. To ensure this right can be exercised during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period, provision needs to be made enabling any input to be given by audio or audio-visual link.

Standing Orders 7.7 Deputations and 7.8 Public Forum

26. The provisions for public input in standing orders are one of the ways that local boards give effect to the requirements of the LGA (Sections 78 and 79).

27. The LGA provides that, in the course of its decision-making, a local authority must consider the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter. The LGA does not specify how those views are to be obtained or what form that consideration should take. It does not require a public forum at meetings.

28. However, the LGA gives local authorities discretion as to how to comply with Section 78 and what to consider. Through their standing orders, local boards and the Governing Body have chosen to enable public input through deputations and public forum at their meetings as one way to obtain community views, among other things.

29. To ensure this opportunity can continue to be made available during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period, provision must be made in standing orders to receive this by audio or audio-visual link.

Proposed amendment

30. This report recommends that input from non-members continue to be enabled during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. This requires an amendment to the standing orders. An amendment to standing orders requires a 75 per cent majority vote.

31. A similar amendment has been made by the Governing Body to their standing orders. It is desirable to ensure consistency across the governance arms of Auckland Council. The Governing Body resolutions are as follows:

· Resolution GB/2020/33 (n) That the Governing Body amend standing orders by inserting a new Standing Order 3.3.10 as follows:

Attendance of non-members by electronic link: A person other than a member of the Governing Body or the relevant committee, may participate in a meeting of the Governing Body or committee by means of audio link or audio-visual link in emergencies if the person is otherwise approved to participate under these standing orders (such as under Standing Order 6.2 “Local board input” or 7.7 “Public input”).

· Resolution GB/2020/33 (p) That the Governing Body agree to change Auckland Council’s Standing Orders to provide full discretion to the chair of the Emergency Committee to decline public input requests.

32. The local board’s standing orders currently gives discretion to the chair to decline deputations but not public forum requests. Giving discretion to the chair to manage requests for public forum during this time can ensure that the requirements of the LGA regarding the provision of the technology requirements can be supported.

Technology options available

33. Where attendance by audio or audio-visual link is permitted, the LGA requires that the chair of the meeting ensures:

· the technology for the audio link or audio-visual link is available and of suitable quality

· that the procedure for use of the technology will ensure that participants can hear and be heard by each other.

34. The chair’s discretion will need to be exercised where the technology and quality cannot be guaranteed.

35. The audio and audio-visual link options available for non-member input are provided by Auckland Council through Skype for Business:

Option	Ability
Audio link only Attend Skype for Business meeting via phone	· No ability to see presentations being shared or to see and be seen by local board members attending the meeting · Only technical equipment required is a landline or mobile telephone
Audio-visual link Video and audio attend Skype for Business meeting	· Allows non-member to see both presentations being shared and to see and be seen by the local board members attending · Requires a mobile phone or a computer device with an internet connection

Option

Ability

Audio link only

Attend Skype for Business meeting via phone

· No ability to see presentations being shared or to see and be seen by local board members attending the meeting

· Only technical equipment required is a landline or mobile telephone

Audio-visual link

Video and audio attend Skype for Business meeting

· Allows non-member to see both presentations being shared and to see and be seen by the local board members attending

· Requires a mobile phone or a computer device with an internet connection

36. If enabled under standing orders, non-members who wish to give input would need to contact the local board with a request to attend. If approved by the chair, information on how to join the meeting using audio and audio-visual link options above will be sent out to the attendee by staff.

Summary of meeting

37. Where it is not reasonably practicable for the public to attend the meeting through a broadcast and/or peruse a recording after it has happened, a summary of the meeting will need to be provided by staff.

38. A summary in this context would be different from the content of agendas, reports and minutes which are all separately required to be publicly available. It should contain the thrust or key points of the discussion or debate at the meeting, keeping in mind that its purpose is to provide an alternative to an audio or video recording of the meeting, in a situation where the public is not able to attend and hear this discussion themselves.

39. The ordinary definition of a summary is a brief statement or account of the main points of something. While the appropriate level of detail is likely to vary depending on what is being discussed at meetings, a summary is not expected to include verbatim notes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

40. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

41. Staff attendance at meetings, while not specifically provided for, is a necessary part of local board meetings and as such, is expected to take place using audio-visual link.

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

Local impacts and local board views

42. This report seeks to amend the local boards standing orders to enable public input and Māori input at meetings.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

43. This report seeks a decision that will ensure Māori input can continue to be given during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period.

44. This will ensure Māori are not prevented from giving input at a meeting on any matter that may be of interest to them.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

45. The decision to amend standing orders is of a procedural nature and is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

46. The scaling up of technology to ensure compliance with COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 is being done at a cost to the council. The costs are not known at this stage and will be factored into operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

47. The objective of the recent legislative changes is to reduce public health risks and ensure compliance with social distancing measures and other restrictions in New Zealand’s COVID‑19 alert levels response plan.

48. While this is not specifically required by legislation, permitting public input by audio or audio-visual link, if practicable, can ensure the local board can receive and consider views of its constituents on decisions that they are making.

49. There is a risk that the audio-visual option would only be taken up by a small number of constituents as this would only be available to those who have the technical devices and internet access. The software that will be used for meetings is Skype for Business which is free to download and use. However, the internet access costs, or availability of technology/devices, can be a limiting factor for some constituents. Constituents who do not have internet access can participate, if approved, by phone.

50. The report is seeking discretion for the local board chair to decline public forum requests. This delegation should be exercised with caution to not undermine the intention of standing orders (which currently provide some limited grounds to decline public input). There will be instances where it is reasonable to decline (noting these examples are not intended to be exhaustive), such as:

· where the technology cannot be provided, or quality cannot be assured

· a need to manage time allocations for the agenda

· the matter is neither urgent nor the subject of a decision to be made at the meeting

· the request is offensive, repetitious or vexatious.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51. If approved, the amendments to standing orders can, if the local board chooses, continue beyond the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. Enabling these changes gives maximum flexibility for attendance of non-members at future meetings, including those with underlying health issues or compromised immune systems that may need to take extra precaution even after the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period has ended.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Polly Kenrick - Business Manager, Local Board Services

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 May 2020

Endorsing Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rate for 2020/2021

File No.: CP2020/05110

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rate for the Business North Harbour Business Improvement District (BID) programme for the 2020/2021 financial year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are rohe within Tāmaki Makaurau where local businesses have agreed to work together to improve their business environment, promote innovation and attract new businesses and customers.

3. Auckland Council supports business associations operating BID programmes, including Business North Harbour, by collecting a targeted rate from commercial properties within a defined geographic area. The funds from the targeted rate are then provided by way of a BID grant to the relevant business association.

4. Under the Auckland Council shared governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to BIDs. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body.

5. Each business association operating a BID programme sets the BID grant amount at its Annual General Meeting (AGM) when members vote to approve an operational budget for the following financial year. This budget funds the implementation of a business plan that delivers programmes based on each BID’s strategic priorities.

6. At their 2019 AGM, Business North Harbour members approved a BID grant sum of $712,030 for 2020/2021. This figure represented a 3.1 per cent ($21,409) increase from the current financial year. However, that increase was later rescinded, and the $690,621 status quo was retained in a sign of solidarity with struggling business ratepayers.

7. The business associations operating BID programmes are incorporated societies that are independent of the council. However, there needs to be a balance between the BIDs’ independence and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

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

9. The council staff regularly monitor compliance with the BID Policy and this report is part of an active risk management programme to minimise inappropriate use of funds.

10. Staff are satisfied Business North Harbour complies with the BID Policy.

11. Staff propose the Upper Harbour Local Board receives this report and recommends to the Governing Body the setting of the BID targeted rate sought by Business North Harbour as part of the council’s 2020/2021 Annual Budget decision-making.

12. After the Annual Budget is approved, the council collects the targeted rate funds and distributes them, in their entirety, in quarterly BID grant payments, effective from 1 July 2020. This will enable Business North Harbour to implement programmes that improve the local business environment and support the economic aspirations of the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017.

13. Business North Harbour, like all BID-operating business associations, will continue to play an important role in supporting its members facing two global challenges. Firstly, helping local businesses throughout the COVID-19 lockdown stages and, secondly, responding to the world’s climate change emergency with an increased focus on sustainability.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rate for inclusion in the Annual Budget 2020/2021 for the following Business Improvement District programme:

i) $690,621 for Business North Harbour Incorporated.

Horopaki

Context

BID programmes promote economic well-being and collaboration with the council

14. Tāmaki Makaurau is growing fast and is projected to include another one million people in the next 30 years. This level of growth presents challenges and opportunities for Auckland town centres and commercial precincts such as the North Harbour industrial area.

15. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are rohe within Auckland where local business and property owners have agreed to work together, with support from the council, to improve their business environment, promote innovation and attract new businesses and customers.

16. BID programmes provide the opportunity for the council group to partner with business associations, including Business North Harbour, to seize on the opportunities from Auckland’s growth in metropolitan centres such as Albany, and respond locally to changing economic conditions.

17. BID programmes encourage collaboration to achieve greater local outcomes. They provide a mechanism to enable local boards to engage with the business sector in local town centres and business areas in a coordinated way.

BIDs provide essential support in the economic recovery from COVID-19

18. The economy has been heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdown, including both retail-based town centres and industrial precincts.

19. BID-programme operating business associations now, more than ever, provide the local business leadership required to help businesses recover from the seismic economic shock and transition to a viable future state.

BIDs are funded by a targeted rate on business ratepayers within a set area

20. BID programmes are funded by a targeted rate applied to all commercially rated properties within a designated area around a town centre or commercial precinct.

21. Auckland Council supports business associations operating BID programmes by collecting the targeted rates and providing these funds, in their entirety, by way of a BID grant to the relevant business association.

22. This revenue is paid to the business associations every quarter to provide a regular and sustainable income stream to implement an agreed work programme.

The BID Policy is the mechanism to ensure accountability for BID targeted rates

23. Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District Policy (2016) (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) ensures accountability for BID targeted rate funding and encourages good governance and programme management.

24. The policy outlines the principles behind the council’s BID programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, amalgamating, and disestablishing BIDs; determines rating mechanisms; prescribes operating standards and guidelines; and sets accountability requirements.

Diagram A: From calculation to approval, how the BID targeted rate is set

The business association sets the BID grant amount to deliver its work programme

25. BID-operating business associations are provided with a rate modelling spreadsheet to help with their budget decision-making. The spreadsheet models any proposed changes to their current BID grant amount and, most importantly, how that influences the BID targeted rate for everyone who will pay it. When considering a change to the BID grant amount, BIDs must take into account what the local business and property owners can afford.

26. Each BID prepares an annual business plan for the following financial year that will deliver programmes based on their strategic priorities and financial parameters.

27. The cost of implementing that business plan is set out in an annual budget that the BID’s board (governing committee) agrees will be recommended for approval by the business association membership.

28. The AGM provides the forum where members vote to approve the operational budget and, in doing so, set the requisite BID grant amount for the following financial year.

29. However, in the wake of changing economic conditions such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a business association’s board has the option of rescinding or reducing the level of any proposed increase. Business North Harbour’s board took that option in April 2020, rescinding the AGM’s decision to increase its BID targeted rate and reverting to the financial status quo.

Local boards are responsible for recommending the targeted rate if a BID complies with the BID Policy

30. Under the Auckland Council shared governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to BIDs. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body. The local board should recommend the setting of the targeted rate if it is satisfied that the BID is substantially complying with the BID Policy.

31. Business North Harbour Chair Peter Lamberton and General Manager Kevin O’Leary addressed the local board on 13 February 2020 to update members on the progress towards achieving their BID’s business and strategic plans.

32. The Upper Harbour Local Board approved a similar recommendation for the Business North Harbour BID programme last year (resolution number UH/2019/49), as did 17 other local boards that have BID programmes operating in their rohe.

The Governing Body sets the targeted rate when it approves the Annual Budget

33. The recommendation in this report is put into effect with the Governing Body’s approval of the Annual Budget 2020/2021 and its setting (striking) of the targeted rates.

34. In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Governing Body is authorised to make the final decisions on what BID programme targeted rates, if any, to set in any particular year or property (in terms of the amount and the geographic area to be rated).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

35. BID programmes are operated by independent business associations (incorporated societies), and their programmes and services are provided according to their members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent status, the BID Policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. That is a matter for the business association members to determine. Staff, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

Business North Harbour complies with the BID Policy

36. Staff are satisfied Business North Harbour has fully met the requirements of the BID Policy.

37. Staff require BID-operating business associations to provide to the council the following documents, and stay in touch with their local board at least once a year:

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

· Audited accounts – assurance that the BID-operating business association is managing its members’ BID targeted rate funds responsibly

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

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

· Indicative budget for the following year – Auckland Council’s Annual Budget requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the Annual Budget process which sets all rates

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

· Annual Accountability Agreement – certification that these requirements have been met

· Programme Agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID-operating business association and the council that sets basic parameters of the council-business association relationship

· AGM minutes - provisional minutes of each business association’s 2019 AGM meeting which contain the resolution, voted on by members, confirming the BID grant amount for the following financial year.

38. In addition, BID-operating business associations are required to inform council staff of progress with other compliance requirements, including:

· Incorporated Society registration – a current registration of the business association along with all required documents up to date

· Key initiatives – identified activities to be advanced in the next 12 months

· Resolving problems or issues, if any – problems or issues that have an impact on the governance or operation of the BID programme.

39. The BID Policy sets an annual compliance deadline of 10 March for the information to be forwarded to the council, as summarised in the table below:

Table 1: Business association’s compliance with the BID Policy as of 10 March 2020

Requirement Financial year 2018/2019
Strategic Plan	2018 - 2021
Audited financials
Annual Report
Business Plan
Indicative budget
Board Charter
Annual Accountability Agreement
Annual meeting w/ local board	13 Feb 2020
Programme Agreement	valid to December 2020
Incorporated society registration
Key initiatives to be advanced	Supporting business recovery throughout lockdown stages
Key initiatives to be advanced	Bridge to the Future’ northern strategic roadmap; business sustainability; launch new website; Chinese-speaking ambassador embracing diversity.
2019 AGM minutes (provisional)	NB: Rate rise rescinded post-AGM.
Resolving problems or issues	Nothing to record

40. As Business North Harbour has comprehensively complied with the BID Policy, staff advise the local board to recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rate.

Business North Harbour rescinded its member-approved increase for 2020/2021

41. With the support of members at its well-attended AGM, Business North Harbour increased by 3.1 per cent ($21,409) its proposed BID targeted rate for 2020/2021.

42. That decision was rescinded in late April 2020 by the business association’s board in recognition of the COVID-19 economic downturn and its effects on members. The current BID grant amount of $690,621 will now be retained for the next financial year.

43. While some among Tāmaki Makaurau’s 48 BID-operating business associations reaffirmed their decisions to raise their targeted rates, with increases ranging from 1.2 per cent to 14.4 per cent, eight BIDs (at the time of writing this report) opted to not proceed with the AGM-sanctioned increases for 2020/2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. Through its targeted rate-funded advocacy, marketing and activities, Business North Harbour promotes and often facilitates environmental sustainability programmes.

45. From championing waste reduction and recovery programmes to an entire workstream and communications channel dedicated to sustainability, Business North Harbour is leading its business community’s response to the climate change emergency.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

46. Advocacy is a key service provided by business associations and those with BID programme-funded personnel are at an advantage. Business North Harbour ensures the views of its members are provided to council teams, including CCOs, on those plans, policies, projects and programmes that impact them.

47. Business North Harbour works closely with Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development on local economic development and sustainability programmes. With its strong focus on transport infrastructure, Business North Harbour has also built a strong working relationship with Auckland Transport.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48. Business North Harbour values its strong relationship with the Upper Harbour Local Board and sustains close governance-to-governance ties.

49. The local board’s appointed representative has an open invitation to attend BID board meetings to ensure there is a direct link between the council and the operation of the BID programme. The contributions by the local board’s economic development portfolio holders and chairs, past and present, have helped to promote mutual understanding, collaboration and aligned economic outcomes.

Visions, plans aligned

50. BIDs and local boards share an ambitious interest in their local area. They also share goals that include economic prosperity, community identity and pride.

51. The Business North Harbour BID programme tangibly supports the vision and aspirations of the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2017, most notably:

· Outcome 1: Empowered, engaged and connected Upper Harbour communities

· Outcome 4: A thriving local economy.

52. To reinforce that point, Business North Harbour’s Strategic Plan (2019-2022) states that the BID’s purpose is “to empower economic prosperity and growth”. From its constitution to its events, Business North Harbour exists to enhance its business environment and sustain the economic viability of its targeted rate-paying members.

53. The BID recently accepted the invitation to engage with the development of the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020 to ensure continued alignment of economic (and environmental) outcomes.

Local rohe, local benefit, local funding

54. Recommending that the Governing Body sets the targeted rate for Business North Harbour means that this BID programme will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in its district and provide services in accordance with its members’ priorities as stated in its strategic plan.

55. Several local boards provide additional funding to local business associations. However, accountability for any grants is set by funding agreements between the local board and the business association. Those contractual obligations are separate from the requirements of the BID Policy and are not covered in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

56. At the 2018 Census, Māori represented 5.1 per cent of the population living in the Upper Harbour Local Board area, compared to 11.5 per cent of Auckland. Individual business associations may, through operating their BID programme, identify opportunities for niche support or development of any Māori business sector in their rohe.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

57. There are no financial implications for the local board. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that rohe. The council’s financial role is to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association every quarter.

58. The targeted rate is payable by the owners of the commercial properties within the geographic area of the individual BID programmes. In practice, this cost is often passed on to the business owners who occupy these properties. This cost may be harder to meet at a time when businesses are financially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Council may be considering extending the rates remission policy to commercial property owners as part of the 2020/2021 annual plan. If approved, this would help mitigate the impact of the targeted rate on ratepayers who are struggling financially.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. There are no direct financial risks to the local board or the council that could result from this recommendation to endorse the BID targeted rate for Business North Harbour.

60. To sustain public trust and confidence in the council, however, there needs to be a balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

61. The obligations of the BID Policy are intended to help minimise the potential for BIDs to misuse funds by requiring each BID to plan for their intended use, report on its activities to its members, and have its accounts audited.

62. The council staff regularly monitor compliance with the BID Policy and this report is part of an active risk management programme to minimise inappropriate use of funds.

63. The economic shockwaves created by the COVID-19 global pandemic are being felt everywhere, including Auckland’s town centres and business precincts. The BID programme is an internationally proven approach to engage and empower local businesses. The Business North Harbour BID programme will, through business resilience and recovery initiatives, help to mitigate some of the economic effects of the pandemic.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

64. If the local board supports this report, it will recommend to the Governing Body that the BID targeted rate be set as part of the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

65. After the Annual Budget is approved, the council collects the targeted rate funds and distributes them in quarterly BID grant payments, effective from 1 July 2020. This will enable Business North Harbour to implement programmes that improve the local business environment, help businesses to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, and address the climate change emergency through leadership in sustainability.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Paul Thompson - BID Senior Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 May 2020

New name for a road created by way of subdivision at BB13, 61 Clark Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2020/04527

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a name for a new private road created by way of subdivision at BB13, 61 Clark Road, Hobsonville.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland Region.

3. The applicant, Classic Developments BB13 Limited, has submitted the following names for the new commonly owned access lot:

· Bodhi Lane (preferred)

· Centaurus Lane (alternate)

· Patariki Lane (alternate).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the name ‘Bodhi Lane’ for the new private road constructed within the subdivision for BB13 being undertaken by Classic Developments BB13 Limited at 61 Clark Road, Hobsonville.

Horopaki

Context

4. Resource consent has been obtained for a 22-lot residential subdivision for BB13 at 61 Clark Road, Hobsonville.

5. A site plan of the road and development can be found in Attachment A and a location map can be found in Attachment B.

6. In accordance with the national addressing standards, the new private road requires a name as it serves more than five lots.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

7. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area

· a particular landscape, environment or biodiversity theme or feature, or

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

· the use of Māori names is actively encouraged.

8. The applicant has proposed the names set out in the following table:

Proposed new name	Meaning	Road naming criteria
Bodhi Lane (preferred)	The name of the development described as a leafy oasis on the edge of the urban activity of the Hobsonville area; ‘Bodhi’ represents the new era of housing which meets the old-school, neighbourly values of the area.	Meets criteria
Centaurus Lane (alternate)	The name of the first seaplane to land in New Zealand at Hobsonville, circa 1937.	Meets criteria
Patariki Lane (alternate)	Meaning nobleman: fitting for the Bodhi development and the surrounding roads that are named after people of historical importance to the Hobsonville area.	Meets criteria

9. The Land Information New Zealand data service check has been completed and no duplicates exist within the Auckland region.

All iwi in the Auckland area were written to and invited to comment and no replies were received.

10. The proposed names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines and the officer’s recommendation is to approve the applicant’s preferred option.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

11. The naming of roads has no effect on climate change. Relevant environmental issues have been considered under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the associated approved resource consent for the development.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

12. The decision sought for this report has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of the report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

13. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

14. Council has corresponded with local iwi and no replies were received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

15. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road name.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

16. There are no significant risks to council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process with consultation being a key part of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

17. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand. These names are recorded on its New Zealand-wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site plan - BB13 61 Clark Road, Hobsonville	71
b ⇩	Location map - BB13 61 Clark Road, Hobsonville	73

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dale Rewa - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Urgent decision-making memo to change the date, time, location and format of the Upper Harbour Local Board community forum meeting on 6 May 2020	77

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 12 March 2020	81

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 May 2020

Local board decision making and input into the Annual Budget 2020/2021

File No.: CP2020/05199

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive consultation feedback on the proposed Auckland Council Annual Budget 2020/2021.

2. To approve 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.

3. To provide feedback to the Governing Body on the proposed regional topics in the Auckland Council Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4. Each financial year, Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed between the Governing Body and the local board) for each local board area. These agreements form part of Auckland Council’s Annual Budget and set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures.

5. Public consultation on the proposed Auckland Council Annual Budget 2020/2021 ran 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).

6. Since this consultation took place, the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted significant pressure on council’s financial position which will have flow-on effects for the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year. Auckland Council is now considering what those impacts are likely to be and will 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).

7. Local boards are required to receive feedback on the local and regional 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 decision-making. This must be done before consultation part 2 can get underway, so that the scope of consultation part 2 is clear.

8. One hundred and eighty-five submissions were received on Upper Harbour Local Board priorities for 2020/2021, showing that the majority of people either support most (46 per cent) or support all (32 per cent) of the local board’s priorities.

9. From the 4765 submissions received on the regional proposals in the Annual Budget 2020/2021, 185 submissions were from people living in the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

· Eighty-eight responses from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were received on the waste management targeted rate, showing that a significant proportion of respondents (73 per cent) supported the proposal and a lower proportion do not support the proposal (24 per cent).

· Eighty-one responses from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were received on the refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City, showing that a significant proportion of respondents (74 per cent) supported the proposal and a lower proportion do not support the proposal (15 per cent).

· Eighty-four responses from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were received on the Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate, showing that a large proportion of respondents (62 per cent) support the proposal and that the service continue, while a lower proportion (27 per cent) do not support the proposal and that the service should be discontinued, while a small proportion (11 per cent) do not support the proposal and wish would like to see the service continue as is.

10. The local board views and decisions on these matters will be considered by the Governing Body (or relevant committee) before making final decisions on the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive consultation feedback on the proposed Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour Local Board area.

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

d) recommend that the Governing Body approves any proposed locally driven initiative capital projects, which are outside local board’s allocated decision-making responsibility.

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

f) provide feedback to the Governing Body on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Horopaki

Context

11. Local board agreements form part of Auckland Council’s Annual Budget and set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. The financial report presented to the Emergency Committee during April 2020 indicated potential reductions in cash revenue of $350-650 million for the 2020/2021 financial year, depending on the length and extent of the disruption caused by COVID-19.

15. 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. It 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.

16. 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 is referred to as consultation part 2 and will be in addition to the Annual Budget 2020/2021 consultation already carried out from February to March 2020.

17. 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.

18. Further, some of the proposed changes to fees and charges required a special consultative procedure 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.

19. This report includes analysis of the consultation feedback on the Upper Harbour Local Board priorities for 2020/2021, and on the regional proposals in the Annual Budget 2020/2021 from people or organisations based in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

20. 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.

21. Decisions and feedback from the local board on these matters will be considered by the Governing Body in the Annual Budget process.

Local financial matters for the local board agreement

22. The local board decisions needed on local financial matters for the local board agreement include:

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

· any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

· proposed locally driven initiative (LDI) capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

· release of local board specific reserve funds.

Local targeted rate and BID targeted rate proposals

23. 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)

24. 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.

25. 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 topics in the Annual Budget consultation

26. Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area, not just in relation to local matters, but also in relation to the context of plans that pertain to the wider region. This includes the regional topics proposed in the Annual Budget.

27. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide views on the regional proposals consulted in the Annual Budget, including:

· the changes to rates and fees of:

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 Tāmaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021

· other budget information.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback received on Upper Harbour Local Board priorities for 2020/2021

28. The Upper Harbour Local Board consulted on the following priorities:

· continuing to deliver on the outcomes as set out in the 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan

· continuing support for the Upper Harbour Local Board communities

· delivering fit-for-purpose services, facilities and amenities that meet the communities needs

· working with communities to renew the current local board plan, identifying priorities and outcomes for the next three years.

29. Respondents were provided with the local board’s priorities as set out above and asked: “In your opinion, are the priorities right for this local board area in 2020/2021?”

30. One hundred and eighty-five submissions were received on Upper Harbour Local Board priorities for 2020/2021, showing that a majority of respondents either support most (46 per cent) or support all (32 per cent) of the local board’s priorities. An overview of all responses received is provided in graph 1 below:

Graph 1. Overview of responses received on Upper Harbour Local Board priorities for 2020/2021

31. Key themes across all feedback received were:

· support for Upper Harbour Local Board priorities for 2020/2021, and continued delivery of the 2017 Local Board Plan

· request for improved public transport network and services

· support local transport infrastructure for all modes of transport and improve the pedestrian environment

· request for improvements to general park maintenance service levels

· supporting initiatives that deliver on environmental outcomes.

32. While there were no clear key themes on other local topics from respondents within the Upper Harbour Local Board area, a few common repeated comments were received:

· support retaining ownership of Hobsonville Marina

· seeking better relationships between community organisations and Auckland Council

· seeking improved infrastructure for both informal and organised recreational sports.

33. Of the 185 submissions, 42 individual submissions were gathered on behalf of submitters by community partner organisations.

34. Due to the current COVID-19 constraints, specific comments in these 42 submissions have not been able to be translated and therefore, any detailed feedback provided has not been included in the analysis of this consultation.

35. However, the high-level responses, including general support or non-support of priorities, have been included in this analysis. The feedback from these 42 additional submissions will be made available to the local board once the translations are available.

36. The Upper Harbour Local Board held one formal ‘Have Your Say’ hearing-style event held on 5 March 2020 at the Upper Harbour Local Board office in Albany.

37. Four organisations and three individuals attended the event and presented to the Upper Harbour Local Board as follows:

· Upper Harbour Ecology Network

· Whenuapai Ratepayers and Residents Association

· Sustainable Pāremoremo

· Kaipātiki Trust

· Kim Ward

· Dave Allen

· Marty Brown.

38. Feedback received at the ‘Have Your Say’ event focused on matters of importance to the group or individual within their local communities. Matters presented to the local board included:

· increase funding for Upper Harbour Ecology Network

· advocate for the acquisition of Te Onekiritea Bomb Point as open space

· increase funding for activities that support community participation

· initiatives that protect natural environment, including the coast

· request for toilet facilities at Parkhouse Reserve, Whenuapai, and at Riverlea Reserve, Whenuapai

· investment in footpaths and cycleways in Pāremoremo

· improved public transport services for Pāremoremo

· investment in development of recreational facilities and infrastructure at Observation Green, Scott Point

· support for the ‘live lightly’ programme and sustainable living

· support waste solution programmes, including compost hubs in Hobsonville Point and Scott Point.

39. It should be noted that this is not a comprehensive list of all matters raised at the ‘Have Your Say’ event, but a list of key matters raised that are within the local board’s decision-making and advocacy roles.

Types of feedback

40. 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 16 ‘Have Your Say’ events and 42 community events.

41. The types of written submissions received for Upper Harbour is set out in graphs 2 and 3 below:

Graph 2. Types of written submissions

42. Of the 185 submissions received, eight were received from organisations and 133 from individuals:

Graph 3. Sources of written submissions

43. The submissions summarised in graph 3 do not include the ‘Have Your Say’ hearing event feedback except where event attendees have also made a written submission.

Information on submitters

44. Graphs 4 and 5 below indicate what demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information.

45. Of the 167 submissions that provided demographic information, 53 per cent identified as male and 47 per cent identified as female.

46. A large proportion of submitters were in the 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64 age groups. No submissions that included demographic information were received for people under the age of 15.

Graph 4. Age and Gender

47. Of the 162 submissions that provided ethnicity data, 44 per cent identified as Pākeha / NZ European, 56 per cent as Asian, 2 per cent as Māori, and 1 per cent as Pacific. When compared to the Auckland-wide demographics, this result indicates higher respondents who identify as Asian (29 per cent regionally) and a slightly lower proportion of residents who identify as Pākeha / NZ European (57 per cent regionally) and Māori or Pacific (both 9 per cent regionally)

Graph 5. Ethnicity

Section 1.01 Overview of feedback received on regional topics in the Annual Budget from the Upper Harbour Local Board area

48. The Annual Budget 2020/2021 set out regional priorities and how Auckland Council is going to pay for them.

49. The regional consultation on the proposed Annual Budget focused on changes to rates and fees on:

· waste management targeted rate

· refuse collection in former Auckland city and Manukau city

· Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate.

50. Other regional matters consulted on included the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021, and other regional budget information.

51. The submissions received from the Upper Harbour 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

52. 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.

53. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

54. Eighty-eight responses were received on the waste management targeted rate, showing that a significant proportion of respondents (73 per cent) supported the proposal and a lower proportion do not support the proposal (24 per cent).

55. The two clear themes in the submissions that were in support of the proposal were:

· recognition of the importance of an effective recycling programme

· acknowledgement that those who make use of the service should pay.

56. Themes that came through from submissions that did not support the proposal included a desire:

· to move to a ‘pay as you throw’ system rather than an annual targeted rate, or

· Auckland Council explores ways to mitigate costs rather than put it on the ratepayer.

Refuse collection in former Auckland city and Manukau city

57. 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.

58. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

59. Eighty-one responses were received on the refuse collection in former Auckland city and Manukau city, showing that a significant proportion of respondents (74 per cent) supported the proposal and a lower proportion do not support the proposal (15 per cent).

60. The general themes from submissions that support as well as from those that do not support the proposal is that refuse collection should be a user pays approach and that Auckland Council should have a ‘pay as you throw’ system across the entire region.

Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate

61. 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.

62. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

63. Eighty-four responses were received on the Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate, showing that a large proportion of respondents (62 per cent) support the proposal and that the service continue in the Waitākere Local Board area , while a lower proportion (27 per cent) do not support the proposal and are of the view that the service should be discontinued. A small proportion (11 per cent) do not support the proposal and would like to see the service continue as is.

64. A key theme from responses in support of the proposal and the continued service was that should residents in the Waitākere Local Board area want this programme to continue, it should be a user pays approach and not funded from all general ratepayers.

65. For submitters that did not support the proposal and opted for the service to end, the clear theme was that this service should be arranged privately and not through Auckland Council.

66. A lower number of respondents opted for no changes to the current service, with the desire to have the service remain in place and for the funding model to remain the same. Four submissions specifically requested that the service continue in the Whenuapai area.

Feedback on the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021

67. No feedback was received from the Upper Harbour 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

68. Aucklanders were asked about a change to fees and charges and a proposal to change the way we charge for pool fencing inspections:

All pool owners are required to have an inspection once every three years to ensure that their fences meet safety standards. Owners of swimming pools currently pay us $130 for each onsite inspection.

We are proposing to replace the $130 first inspection fee with an annual targeted rate of $44 for all pool owners. Any follow-up inspections will continue to be charged separately.

If the pool owner arranges an inspection from an independently qualified pool inspector, then we will reduce the targeted rate to $22. This will cover our costs of administering and maintaining the swimming pool inspection register.

Including the first inspection charge on the rates invoice will make it easier for pool owners to pay for their inspection by spreading the cost over three years and providing access to the wide range of rates payment options. Including the inspection cost on the rates invoice will also allow the council to make $74,000 of administration cost savings. If we don’t make these changes then the three-yearly inspection fee will remain and increase to $135 for 2020/2021.

69. The Upper Harbour Local Board received 20 responses on this matter, with five supporting the proposed approach and 14 respondents that do not support this approach.

70. A common response in the submissions that did not support the proposed approach is the desire to have the current model of a three-yearly inspection fee remain, however they accept the increase of the fee for 2020/2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

71. 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.

72. 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.

73. 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

74. 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

75. 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.

76. 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

77. 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.

78. 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.

79. The analysis included submissions made by mana whenua and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.

80. 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.

81. 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

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

83. 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.

84. The financial impacts and implications from the COVID-19 pandemic and information on the ‘emergency budget’ were not available at the time of writing this report but will be provided to the local board for consideration of this item at the business meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

85. The local board is required to make recommendations on these local financial matters and provide input on regional matters in the Annual Budget by 15 May 2020 to enable the Governing Body to make decisions when considering the Annual Budget in May 2020, including the ‘emergency budget’ and consultation part 2.

86. At the same time, key information necessary for consideration by the local board (impacts of COVID-19) is expected to be available no earlier than Wednesday 6 May 2020. The local board has scheduled its business meeting for Friday 8 May 2020 to allow time for consideration of any new additional information and make decisions by the required deadline.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

87. 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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Heather Skinner - Local Board Advisor

Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper Harbour

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Margaret Miles, QSM, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Members	Anna Atkinson
	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	Brian Neeson, JP

Author	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager