|
Ōrākei
Local Board
09 July 2020
|
|
Ōrākei
Local Board input into the Emergency Budget 2020/2021
File No.: CP2020/09097
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
seek feedback on the proposed regional topics in the Emergency Budget
2020/2021.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Auckland
Council publicly consulted from 29 May to 19 June 2020 to seek community views
on the proposed Emergency Budget 2020/2021.
3. The
Annual Budget 2020/2021 was first consulted on in February/March 2020
(Consultation part 1). Since this consultation was undertaken, the COVID-19
pandemic has exerted significant pressure on the council’s financial
position. This will have flow-on effects for the proposed budget for the
2020/2021 financial year. The council has considered what those impacts are
likely to be and has asked Aucklanders for their views on aspects of the
proposed budget, now referred to as Emergency Budget 2020/2021, through a
second round of consultation (Consultation part 2).
4. During
the second round of consultation, Aucklanders were asked for their views on
three key proposals:
· general
rates increase for 2020/2021 of either 2.5 per cent or 3.5 per cent
· rates
postponement for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19
· suspending
the targeted rate paid by accommodation providers.
· The
council received feedback through telephone interviews, written forms,
including online and hard copy forms, emails and letters.
5. This
report summarises the public feedback received through Consultation part 2 on
the proposed Emergency Budget 2020/2021.
6. Local
board views on these regional matters will be considered by the Governing Body
(or relevant committee) before making final decisions on the Emergency Budget
2020/2021.
7. Out
of the 34,915 submissions received on the regional proposals in the Emergency
Budget 2020/2021, 1967 submissions were from people living in the
Ōrākei Local Board area. Anonymised submissions will be available
online to the public on our AK Have Your Say website.
8. Of
the 1967 submissions received, 1331 respondents provided feedback on Question
One. 39.5 per cent (526) of submissions supported a 3.5 per cent rates
increase. 43.7 per cent (581) of submissions supported a 2.5 per cent rates
increase. 16.8 per cent (224) did not know which rates increase they supported.
9. Of
the 1334 respondents who provided feedback on question two, more than two
thirds of submitters from the Ōrākei Local Board area generally
supported the rates postponement proposal for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19.
10. Of the 1017
respondents who provided feedback on the suspension of the targeted rate paid
by accommodation provides, 76.1 per cent were in support of the proposal, 14.7
per cent did not support the proposal and 9.3 per cent did not know.
|
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Ōrākei
Local Board:
a) receive
consultation feedback on regional proposals in the Emergency
Budget 2020/2021 from people or organisations based in the Ōrākei Local Board area.
b) provide feedback on the proposed Emergency Budget 2020/2021.
|
Horopaki
Context
11. Auckland Council
publicly consulted from 21 February to 22 March 2020 to seek community views on
the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 (Consultation part 1).
12. Since this
consultation was undertaken, the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted considerable
pressure on the council’s financial position, which will have flow-on
effects for the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year. Given the new
financial realities facing Auckland, work has been undertaken to adjust the
proposed budget, now referred to as Emergency Budget 2020/2021.
13. The council
has undertaken further public consultation with Aucklanders for their views on
Auckland Council’s proposed ‘Emergency Budget’ in response to
the financial impacts of COVID-19 (Consultation part 2) which included
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. This was carried out from 29 May to 19 June 2020.
14. The Emergency
Budget consultation asked Aucklanders for their views on three main proposals:
· general
rates increase for 2020/2021 of either 2.5 per cent or 3.5 per cent
· rates
postponement for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19
· suspending
the targeted rate by accommodation providers.
15. This report
includes analysis of the consultation feedback on the regional proposals in the
Emergency Budget 2020/2021 from people or organisations based in the
Ōrākei Local Board area.
Local board input on regional plans
16. Local boards
have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests
and preferences of the people in their 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 Emergency Budget.
17. Local Board
Plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that
guide both the development of local board agreements, which are adopted every
year as part of the Annual Budget, and input into regional plans.
Types of feedback
18. Overall
Auckland Council received feedback from 34,915 submitters in the consultation
period. This feedback was received through:
· Written
feedback –hard copy and online forms, emails and letters
· Over
the phone.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
19. The proposed
Emergency Budget 2020/2021 sets out priorities and how they will be paid for.
The regional consultation on the proposed Emergency Budget focused on changes
to rates and fees; the key proposals were:
· general
rates increase for 2020/2021 of either 2.5 per cent or 3.5 per cent
· rates
postponement for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19
· suspending
the targeted rate by accommodation providers.
20. The
submissions received from the Ōrākei Local Board area on these key
issues are summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback
on regional proposals with a local impact.
21. Sometimes the
council receives submissions that have come via a platform created by an
external organisation. These are referred to by the council as pro forma
submissions. The council has received an unusually large number of pro
forma submissions in this consultation process – a total of 9,793.
These have primarily come from three organisations – the Auckland
Ratepayers’ Alliance (9,002), Generation Zero (371) and the Animal Shelter
(420).
22. Ōrākei
received 580 pro forma submissions, with the majority coming from the Auckland
Ratepayers’ Alliance (545) and Generation Zero (28).
23. When people
submit via the council’s official consultation platform (either the
hardcopy feedback form or the digital form), they are directed to the
council’s consultation document and supporting information which are the
statutory bases for the consultation process. People who submit via pro
forma submissions often will not have had this same information presented to
them when they submit, although each pro forma submission is different in its
approach.
24. For example,
the submission form set up by the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance did not
refer to the council’s consultation material and did not ask the same
questions that were included on the council’s feedback form.
Generation Zero’s submission form also did not ask the same questions as
the council’s feedback form. However, Generation Zero did include
links to the council’s consultation material in the information supporting
their submission form.
25. As with all
feedback, pro forma submissions must be given due consideration with an open
mind, and it is up to elected members to determine the weight that is given to
this feedback.
General rates increase for 2020/2021
26. Aucklanders
were asked about a proposed general rates increase of either 2.5 per cent or
3.5 per cent 2020/2021.
Question 1: We
are proposing an average general rates increase of either 2.5 per cent or 3.5
per cent for 2020/2021. We looked at, but could not responsibly propose rates
increases below 2.5 per cent because of the severe impacts that would have on
council services, new infrastructure, our debt levels and employment and
business activity in Auckland.
The scale of the financial challenge that we
face for next year with a revenue loss of over half a billion dollars due to
COVID-19 means that spending on some council services will need to be reduced
and many capital projects will be delayed even with the 3.5 per cent increase
we had previously planned.
With a lower rate increase of 2.5 per cent, we would need
to further reduce spending on council services and further delay investment in
transport, parks and community and town centre projects.
Which increase do you support?
27. The graphs
below give an overview of the responses from the Ōrākei Local Board
area.
28. Of the 1331
submissions on Question One, 526 submissions (39.5 per cent) are in support of
a 3.5 per cent rates increase. Some of the feedback points include:
· Increasing
the rates by 3.5 per cent makes sense (128 feedback points) ‘the rate
rise is essential to ensure Council has the funds available to keep planned
capital and operational spend as high as possible over the next financial
year…’
· Need
infrastructure investment (133 feedback points). ‘important services
and projects must proceed without interruption. Decreased funding will set the
council and community back years…’
· Keep
Council services open (134 feedback points). ‘…they are more
important than ever with unemployment rising…council has less money and
will have to reduce services, but nothing should be closed completely, or those
communities will be disadvantaged…’
29. Of the 1331
submissions on Question One, 581 submissions (43.7 per cent) are in support of
a 2.5 per cent rates increase. Some of the feedback points include:
· Financial
hardship/rates too high already (203 feedback points) ‘with money
very tight for people, including those who’ve lost their jobs, increases
should be kept to a minimum.’
· Find
other revenue/savings (incl. staff costs) (177 feedback points)
‘Council needs to look realistically at the number of highly paid
executive staff; either reduce their salaries or the number of them.’
· Dissatisfied
with Council management (83 feedback points) ‘…Council staff,
especially the Mayor, Councillors and CCO executives should take a 50 per cent
pay cut; they are overpaid as it is for doing nothing. The debt level is due to
bad management…’
30. Of the 1331
submissions on Question One, 224 submissions (16.8 per cent) did not know which
rates increase they supported. Some of the feedback points include:
· Find
other revenue/savings (incl. staff costs) (83 feedback points). ‘Put
projects on hold. Look at prioritising and re-evaluate all existing projects.
Wages haven't risen by 2.5 per cent or higher so why should rates?’
· Financial
hardship/rates too high already (59 feedback points). ‘Impact is
severe, and recovery requires time. Currently all the businesses and the
working force is affected with difficult cash flows…’
· Dissatisfied
with Council management (45 feedback points). ‘Council needs to
manage funds more efficiently so constant rate increases aren't needed.’
Rates postponement for ratepayers impacted by COVID-19
31. Aucklanders
were asked about a proposal to introduce a COVID-19 Rates Postponement Scheme.
Question 2: We are proposing a COVID-19 Rates
Postponement Scheme. This will allow ratepayers who are struggling financially
as a result of COVID-19 to defer up to $20,000 of their rates for the 2020/2021
year. At the end of the postponement period ratepayers would have to 30 June
2022 to pay off the balance (including interest and administration fees).
What do you think of our proposal?
32. The graphs
below give an overview of the responses from the Ōrākei Local Board
area.
· 110
submitters indicated that they didn’t know if they supported the proposal
or not.
· Of
the 905 supporting the proposal, 280 submitters believed it would help those
under financial hardship and 154 thought it was a good idea, made sense or was
fair. 47 submitters cited that while they supported the proposal there needed
to be strong criteria and checks for eligibility. There were various other
reasons why people supported the proposal. 383 submitters did not give any
reason for their support.
· Of
the 319 submitters who did not support the proposal, the main reasons cited
were that it would just delay the debt that would have to later be repaid (102
submitters) or that it just wouldn’t do enough to assist those impacted
by COVID-19 (64 submitters). Some (42 submitters) believed that is was a
person’s own personal financial responsibility. 64 respondents did not
provide any reasons for not supporting the proposal
· 43
submitters who supported the proposal and 64 who did not support the proposal
commented that the proposal didn’t go far enough and that interest or
fees should not be charged.
· A
number of submitters, whether they supported or did not support the proposal,
cited “don’t increase rates” (37), the need to find other
revenue or make savings by cutting staff costs, sticking to core services etc
(33) and/or dissatisfaction with council management (29) in their feedback.
Suspending the targeted rate paid by accommodation providers
33. Aucklanders
were asked about a proposal to suspend the targeted rate by paid by
accommodation providers.
Question 3: Suspending the targeted rate paid by
accommodation providers Restrictions on travel and mass gatherings due to
COVID-19 have resulted in us reducing our spending on visitor attraction and
major events. We are proposing to suspend the Accommodation Provider Targeted
Rate (APTR) which helps fund these activities until 31 March 2021. The APTR
will only be charged for the last three months of the next financial year
(2020/2021) as we increase our spending in this area. This proposal will assist
the accommodation sector who are struggling financially.
What do you think of our proposal?
34. The graphs
below give an overview of the responses from the Ōrākei Local Board
area.
Written Submissions
35. Of those who
supported the proposal (1017 submissions), constituents believed this proposal
was a good idea, it was fair and it made sense (234 feedback points) and that
it would help those in financial hardship (167 feedback points). Some indicated
that they didn’t support the continuation of the APTR itself or of how
ATEED was managed (65 feedback points). One respondent said, “Accommodation
providers are amongst the hardest-hit by the economic effects of COVID-19 so it
makes sense to reduce their financial burden. Given that tourism and visitor
numbers are going to be greatly reduced in the short term it seems reasonable
to reduce spending on visitor attractions and major events.”
36. Of those who
did not support the proposal (196 submissions), respondents argued that the
charge should continue as it should be manageable for accommodation providers
to pay for it (42 feedback points) and that businesses should prepare to adjust
their business models and take personal financial responsibility to adapt (32
feedback points). Some argued against the APTR and ATEED management in general
(7 feedback points). One respondent said “Everyone must play a part. It
makes no sense to suspend rates in this area while cutting budgets in other
areas. The only changes that should be made are those that decrease
expenditure, not decrease revenue.”
37. Of those who
did not know whether they supported the proposal (124 submissions), some were
dissatisfied with Council management (4 feedback points) and some were not in
support of the APTR (4 feedback points).
Other feedback
38. Aucklanders
were asked if they had any feedback on any other issues including the
in-principle decisions made from the first round of consultation.
39. The proposals
that we previously consulted on, and that have been agreed in principle,
subject to consideration of any further feedback received in the Emergency
Budget consultation are:
· Increase
to the waste management base service targeted rate
· Increase
to the waste management standard refuse rate in former Auckland City and
Manukau City areas
· Discontinuation
of the Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate for ratepayers in
the Upper Harbour Local Board area effective from 1 July 2021
· Introduction
of a new targeted rate for Central Park Henderson Business Improvement
District.
40. As none of
the above topics received more than five feedback points, this section does not
include a feedback summary.
Feedback on other topics
41. Key themes
across feedback received from Ōrākei Local Board residents on other
topics, including local issues, include:
42. Transport:
(247 feedback points). On the topic of supporting cycleways, 57 per cent of
respondents were supportive of building more cycleways, 42 per cent not
supportive and 1 per cent neutral. Bus lanes were largely unsupported, mostly
because of the impact they had on traffic flow (75 per cent negative sentiment
response). Traffic congestion was a priority issue for respondents, where 64
per cent expressed discontent about current traffic levels and asked that this
be managed more efficiently. Perceptions on public transport were generally
positive, with 59 per cent of respondents indicating that more investment in
public transport was needed and 30 per cent asking that costs be reduced.
43. Community
Facilities: (123 feedback points). Respondents requested that libraries and
community facilities remain open and be prioritised (65 feedback points).
The following quote from a respondent was typical: “The public libraries
are playing very important roles at [sic] the communities, suggest to keep all
the libraries' services.” 82 per cent of respondents who mentioned
‘public toilets’ were in support for all local public toilets to
remain open.
44. Parks, Sports
and Recreation: (60 feedback points). Prioritising the maintenance and access
to green spaces was frequently mentioned among those who provided feedback on
parks. Sports events were important to respondents but not often seen as
essential. A respondent provided feedback to prioritise “environmental
projects and get the Pourewa Valley walkway and cycleway finished”.
45. Arts, Culture
and Events: (49 feedback points). 27 respondents who mentioned arts, culture
and events were in favour of continuing to support funding for local events.
Some respondents requested that there be a reduction in spending or stopping to
fund some events (8 feedback points). Quotes included: “Community events
such as Music in the Parks are good ways for the community to come together and
accessible for all despite financial position.” “Not supporting the
Arts and culture, reducing the role of libraries, pools, recreational centres
etc makes our quality of life poorer.” Continuing to allocate funding for
the America’s Cup was largely unsupported (68 per cent of mentions
including America’s Cup were negative) and respondents preferred that
this funding be used toward local activities.
46. Planning: (81
feedback points). Most references to regional project planning were where
respondents were mostly opposed, asking the council to focus on essential
services only. Those who mentioned the Sky Path project were supportive of it
continuing (14 feedback points). Those who mentioned light rail (15
respondents) were often opposed to its continuation (73 per cent negative
sentiment).
47. Environmental
Services: (88 feedback points). Addressing climate change was a high priority
for respondents (76 feedback points), who wanted environment and sustainability
to be prioritised as a focus area of expenditure. One respondent said,
“Please prioritise the environment and conservation in all decisions.”
48. Water: (71
feedback points). 68 per cent of feedback reflected concerns over water supply
issues. Some respondents also called to improve water quality as well as better
wastewater management. While most respondents wanted better water quality overall,
the most mentioned place was Hobson Bay. For example, one respondent said,
“We need to keep working on better water quality for Hobson Bay and the
Eastern Beaches”.
49. Rating and
Funding (finance): (506 feedback points). 176 of respondents who commented on
rating and funding requested there be a review of Auckland Council’s
management structure and salaries. Often, commenters used this space to
reiterate their support for a zero per cent rates increase. A quote from a
respondent: “As previously stated my expectation is that Auckland council
[sic] as custodians of public money do all it can to drive efficiency and
reduce costs.”
50. Waste
Services: (55 feedback points). 38 respondents who mentioned waste and rubbish
emphasised this should be a service to prioritise over other areas of
expenditure. Some respondents approached this from an environmental
perspective, emphasising the importance of clean beaches and composting
systems. For example, one submitter said, “Do not cut back on public
toilets and rubbish collections.”
51. CCOs: (84
feedback points). 47 respondents who mentioned one of the CCOs requested a
review of their management, including reducing or cancelling expenditure on
major projects (20 feedback points), cutting executive salaries and increased
accountability toward Auckland Council and constituents.
52. Regulatory
and Bylaws, including animal management: (25 feedback points). 16 respondents
were against the reduction of animal shelters, 4 called for easier resource
consenting processes. One submitter said, “I oppose the planned reduction
in the number of animal shelters from three to two, as well as the closure of
the Waiheke animal shelter.”
Information on submitters
53. The tables
and graphs below indicate what demographic categories people identified with.
This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic
information.
Figure 1, 2 and 3: Gender and age of respondents
Figure 4 and 5: Ethnicity of respondents 
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
54. The decisions
recommended in this report are procedural in nature.
55. Some of the
proposed projects in the Emergency Budget 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.
56. Some of the
proposed projects in the Emergency Budget 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
57. The Emergency
Budget is an Auckland Council Group document and will include budgets at a
consolidated group level. 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
58. 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.
59. Local
boards play an important role in the development of the Emergency Budget.
Local board nominees have also attended Finance and Performance Committee
workshops on the Emergency Budget.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
60. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on
Māori. Local board agreements and the Emergency Budget are important tools
that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to
Māori.
61. 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.
62. The analysis included submissions made by mana whenua and the wider
Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.
63. On-going 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 the council’s
decision-making processes.
64. Some of the
proposed projects in the Emergency Budget 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
65. Local board
input will be considered by the Governing Body for the Emergency Budget
2020/2021 decision-making.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
66. Local boards
are required to make recommendations on these local financial matters for the
Emergency Budget by 10 July 2020, to enable the Governing Body to make
decisions on them when considering the Emergency Budget in 16 July 2020.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
67. 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 on 16 July 2020.
68. Local boards
will approve their local board agreements between 20 to 24 July 2020 and
corresponding work programmes in August.
69. The Governing Body will adopt the Emergency Budget on 30 July 2020.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Suzanne Weld – Senior Local Board Advisor
Ollin Perez Raynaud – Local Board Engagement
Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
