I hereby give notice that an extraordinary meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 25 May 2021

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Kōmiti ā Pūtea, ā Mahi Hoki /

Finance and Performance Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Shane Henderson

 

Members

Cr Josephine Bartley

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

IMSB Member Renata Blair

Cr Richard Hills

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Pippa Coom

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

IMSB Chair David Taipari

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

Sandra Gordon

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

 

20 May 2021

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8150

Email: sandra.gordon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

The purpose of the committee is to:

 

a)    advise and support the mayor on the development of the Long-term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan (AP)

b)    monitor the overall financial management and performance of the council parent organisation and Auckland Council group

c)    make financial decisions required outside of the annual budgeting processes.

 

The committee will establish an annual work programme outlining key focus areas in line with its key responsibilities, which include:

 

·         advising and supporting the mayor on the development of the LTP and AP for consideration by the Governing Body including:

o   local board agreements

o   financial policy related to the LTP and AP

o   setting of rates

o   preparation of the consultation documentation and supporting information, and the consultation process, for the LTP and AP

·         monitoring the operational and capital expenditure of the council parent organisation and Auckland Council Group, and inquiring into any material discrepancies from planned expenditure

·         approving the financial policy of the council parent organisation

·         establishing and managing a structured approach to the approval of non-budgeted expenditure (including grants, loans or guarantees) that reinforces value for money and an expectation of tight expenditure control

·         approve the council insurance strategy and annual insurance placement for Council

·         performance measures and monitoring

·         write-offs

·         acquisition of property in accordance with the LTP

·         disposals in accordance with the LTP

·         recommending the Annual Report to the Governing Body

·         funding for achieving improved outcomes for Māori.

 

Powers

 

(i)         All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)        approval of a submission to an external body

(b)        establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)        The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)       If a decision is a budgetary or financial decision that relates primarily to the Finance and Performance Committee responsibilities, the Finance and Performance Committee has the powers to make associated decisions on matters that would otherwise be decided by other committees. For the avoidance of doubt, this means that matters do not need to be taken to multiple committees for decisions.

(iii)       The committee does not have:

(a)        the power to establish subcommittees

(b)        powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·           Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·           Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·           Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·           In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·           The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·           However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·           All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·           Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·           Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·           All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·           Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·           Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·           Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

4          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

5          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

6          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

7          Overview to decision making for the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031)  9

8          Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) - local board feedback and advocacy                                                                                                                                     169

9          Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) - Mayor's final proposal (Covering report)                                                                                                                          323

10        Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031): Other proposals                        325

11        Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate                                                       375

12        Changes to the Urban Rating Area and Rating of Farm and Lifestyle Properties within the Urban Rating Area                                                                                   391

13        Other Rates and Fees Issues for Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) 493

14        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


 

1          Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2          Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

3          Petitions

There is no petitions section.

 

4          Public Input

There is no public input section.

 

5          Local Board Input

There is no local board input section.

 

6          Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

Overview to decision making for the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031)

File No.: CP2021/05806

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an overview of the process to finalise the council’s long-term plan known as the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (10-year Budget).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In developing the 10-year Budget, there were 11 Finance and Performance Committee workshops held between 26 August and 2 December 2020 before items for consultation were agreed to on 9 December 2020.

3.       Staff worked closely with Audit NZ to review not only the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 Consultation Document and Supporting Information but also the underlying information and processes to ensure the adopted products were fit for purpose.

4.       The consultation document and supporting information were adopted on 18 February 2021 which outlined the council’s proposals for 2021-2031 including proposals for:

·        an investment package for the next ten years

·        responding to climate change

·        responding to housing and growth

·        investment in our community

·        protecting and enhancing the environment

·        other priorities

5.       The 10-year Budget consultation ran from 22 February to 22 March 2021 and in total the council received 19,965 pieces of feedback. This included approximately 80 per cent received digitally, 912 people provided feedback at council-led events and 78 pieces received through social media

6.       Eighteen detailed written submissions were received from mana whenua on regional feedback topics with 103 written submissions to local boards from 12 mana whenua entities. Auckland Council’s Mana Whenua Forum also submitted. In addition, mataawaka organisations provided 11 detailed written submissions on regional feedback topics. Twenty-five mana whenua representatives representing nine entities attended a hui held with mana whenua to hear their views on the 10-year Budget.

7.       All feedback was presented to the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 April 2021.

8.       Following consultation, eight Finance and Performance Committee workshops were held between 14 April and 19 May 2021 in the lead up to this committee meeting (25 May 2021) at which key decisions for the 10-year Budget need to be made in order to finalise documentation for audit review and adoption.

9.       Each local board held workshops and meetings to consider the consultation feedback. This helped inform discussions between local boards and the Finance and Performance Committee on 12 May 2021.

 

10.     The Tūpuna Maunga Authority and the Governing Body will be asked to approve the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2021/2022 and the Summary of the Operational Plan 2021/2022 for inclusion in the 10-year Budget. Feedback received on the draft Operation Plan was jointly received by the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority and the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 April 2021.

11.     Auckland Council is responsible for the Regional Fuel Tax (RFT), which funds some of the projects identified in the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP). As the RLTP has identified changes in projects to be funded, the RFT is also required to be updated to reflect these changes. The only aspects of the RFT scheme proposed to vary from its previous version are the transport project details that are to be funded by the RFT. The final RFT scheme will be agreed by the Governing Body on 27 May 2021.

12.     The other reports on the agenda for the Finance and Performance Committee on 25 May 2021 require decisions to enable documentation for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 to be finalised at the Governing Body meeting on 29 June 2021 following completion of the audit review.

13.     In making decisions on the 10-year Budget, decision-makers must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of each reasonably practicable option, consider the feedback received, and then arrive at what they determine to be the best decision.

14.     Adopting the 10-year Budget will enable rates to be set for the 2021/2022 financial year.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      note the contents of this report, which sets out the process for making the decisions required to finalise the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) and set rates for the 2021/2022 financial year.

 

Horopaki

Context

15.     The Local Government Act 2002 requires all councils to adopt a long-term plan and review it every three years.  The long-term plan (which we refer to as the 10-year Budget) sets out the council’s activities and the community outcomes of the Auckland region, and provides integrated decision-making and co-ordination of the council’s resources as well as a long-term focus for the council’s decisions and activities.

16.     The 10-year Budget must be adopted before the commencement of the first year it relates to, after having consulted with the community through a special consultative procedure.

Developing consultation materials for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

17.     The process to develop council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031 began in August 2020. This was later than previous years due to the Emergency Budget being adopted in July 2020. Key elements of the process prior to undertaking public consultation were:

·        an inaugural long-term plan workshop covering: Mayor’s introduction, process overview, strategic scene setting, performance information overview and asset management 101

·        workshops between August and November 2020 on various key topics leading up to the Mayoral Proposal

·        a Mayoral Proposal on consultation items released on 1 December 2020

·        a workshop to discuss the Mayoral Proposal and other items required for consultation

18.     Council-controlled organisations (CCOs) were involved in the development of the 10-year Budget topics. All CCO board chairs and senior staff were invited to a workshop with the Finance and Performance Committee on 9 September 2020 to collectively discuss strategy on how best to tackle the financial challenge the council is facing. CCOs had follow up workshops on their relevant plans, pressures, options available and risks associated with these options. A capex prioritisation workshop was held on 24 November 2020 at the CCO Oversight Committee where all CCO board chairs and chief executives were invited.

Key decisions prior to consultation

19.     The 10-year Budget Consultation Document and Supporting Information are statutorily required to be audited. Audit NZ worked alongside relevant staff for some months and the audit process for the consultation phase. The Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) issued their opinion before the Governing Body formally adopted the consultation document and supporting information.

20.     Consultation items were agreed by the Governing Body on 9 December 2020. The Consultation Document and the Supporting Information were adopted by the Governing Body on 18 February 2021.

21.     Public consultation was held from 22 February to 22 March 2021.

22.     The consultation document included proposals for:

·        an investment package for the next ten years

·        responding to climate change

·        responding to housing and growth

·        investment in our community

·        protecting and enhancing the environment

·        other priorities which include both Māori outcomes and social investment.

23.     The consultation document also sought feedback on:

·        proposals related to strategic assets

·        proposals relating to changes in rates and fees and charges

·        local board priorities

·        any other issues that were important to the submitter.

Public consultation and feedback

24.     The council received 19,965 pieces of feedback. This included approximately 80 per cent received digitally, 912 people provided feedback at council-led events and 78 pieces received through social media.  

25.     We heard from 417 organisations including 26 presentations at the regional stakeholders’ event; 16 mana whenua organisations; and 16 mataawaka organisations.

26.     Due to changing COVID-19 alert levels in New Zealand, the consultation process ran differently to previous consultations. Have Your Say events where people can give feedback in person were not feasible. Instead, seven online information webinars ran over the course of the consultation period with a total of 387 attendees. Attendees were able to ask questions at these webinars and were encouraged to make submissions via digital and other channels.

27.     A summary of feedback received during the consultation process was presented to the Finance and Performance Committee workshop on 21 April 2021. The executive summary of feedback report, the full consultation summary report and the Colmar Brunton survey report are Attachments A, B and C respectively of this report. These reports can also be found on the council’s website akhaveyoursay/recoverybudget

28.     To ensure decision-makers were informed about feedback received, staff with specific subject matter expertise reviewed and summarised the feedback and full submissions were made available to elected members. This aimed to ensure councillors understood the most commonly-held community views on the key issues.

Deliberations following consultation

29.     Finance and Performance Committee workshops were held between 14 April and 19 May 2021 covering all topics consulted on with the public. Local board chairs were invited to attend these workshops.

30.     On 12 May 2021 a workshop was held between local boards and the Finance and Performance Committee. These discussions provided an opportunity for local board views to be considered ahead of this committee making recommendations to the Governing Body as set out in separate reports on this agenda.

31.     Budget discussions between council officers and representatives from council-controlled organisations (CCOs) were workshopped at relevant workshops between 14 April and 19 May 2021.

The Tūpuna Maunga Authority Annual Operational Plan

32.     Auckland Council is responsible for the routine management of the Tūpuna Maunga and the administered lands (under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority) along with associated costs. The Tūpuna Maunga Authority and Auckland Council must agree the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan (operational plan) and a Summary of the Operational Plan every year. The operational plan sets out how the council will carry out its routine management.

33.     Feedback received on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2021/2022 was jointly received by the Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority and the Finance and Performance Committee on the 21 April 2021.

34.     There is no proposed change to the 2021/2022 budget for Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki operations and this budget forms part of the overall budget that is required to be decided on at this committee meeting.  

35.     On 31 May 2021, the Tūpuna Maunga Authority will consider approving the Operational Plan 2021/2022 and the Summary of the Operational Plan 2021/2022 for inclusion in the 10-year Budget 2020/2021. Following this, adoption will be sought from the Governing Body on 29 June 2021.

Regional Fuel Tax and the Regional Land Transport Plan

36.     The recent review of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project has led to proposed changes in the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP), which has required a proposal to vary the Regional Fuel Tax Scheme (RFT).

37.     Auckland Transport is responsible for the change proposal for the RLTP, which is the overall transport investment plan for Auckland and sets out transport projects to be carried out over the next ten years. Auckland Council is responsible for the RFT, which funds some of the projects identified in the RLTP. As the RLTP has identified changes in projects to be funded, the RFT is also required to be updated to reflect these changes. The only proposed changes to the RFT scheme relate to the details of the transport projects that are to be funded by the RFT.  

38.     Due to the closely connected nature of the RLTP and the RFT, staff held a combined consultation for the proposed changes to the RLTP and RFT from 29 March and 2 May 2021.

39.     Following feedback analysis, the finalised scheme will be workshopped with both the Regional Transport Committee (24 May 2021) and the Planning Committee (26 May 2021) before being agreed by the Governing Body (27 May 2021).

40.     The agreed changes to the scheme will then be incorporated into the final 10-year Budget document prior to audit review. A formal proposal to vary the RFT scheme will also be prepared and submitted to the relevant ministers for approval and enactment through an Order in Council in support of the RLTP.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

41.     Several other reports on this agenda require decisions to be made at this committee meeting to finalise the 10-year Budget 2021-2031. These are:

·    Mayor’s Proposal

·    Local board regional views and advocacy

·    Changes to the Urban Rating Area and Rating of Farm and Lifestyle Properties within the Urban Rating Area

·    Paremoremo Public Transport targeted rate

·    Other Rates and Fees Issues

·    Other Recovery Budget Proposals.

42.     When making decisions, the Local Government Act 2002 requires council to:

·        identify all reasonably practicable options to achieve the objective

·        assess these options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages

·        consider with an open mind the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in the decision.

43.     Feedback received during public consultation is one key part of many components that need to be considered when making final decisions. Comments should be explored to understand the meaning behind the numbers and percentages presented. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44.     This report outlines the process for developing the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 and as such has no specific impacts on the climate.

45.     As part of the 10-year Budget process, there was a climate ‘lane’ and this topic was discussed at the Finance and Performance Committee workshops on 23 September and 4 November 2020 and then again following public consultation on the 10 May 2021. Further climate information and impacts can be referred to in Attachment D (Climate Action) of the Mayoral Proposal report on this agenda.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

46.     All council departments will be affected by decisions made for the 10-year Budget.  Budget updates are made on a regular basis to the executive leadership team and updates are provided from the finance division via the Commercial Managers or CCO conduit to the wider Council group.

47.     As mentioned above, CCOs have been involved in the development of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031, both with the Finance and Performance Committee and also through CCO staff working closely with the council’s finance team.


 

 

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

Local impacts and local board views

48.     The 10-year Budget must include local board agreements for the 21 local boards. Local priorities were consulted on during the consultation in February/March 2021. This feedback was presented to the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 April 2021.

49.     Local reports summarising the feedback received in the 10-year Budget consultation relevant to each local board area were considered by each local board between 3 and 7 May 2021. Local board views were then shared with the Finance and Performance Committee on 12 May 2021.

50.     A separate report on the agenda for this meeting covers local board input for the 10-year Budget. Local board views are also considered in each of the relevant decision-making reports on this agenda.

51.     Local board agreements will be approved by local boards in mid-June meetings followed by final adoption by the Governing Body on 29 June 2021 as part of the final 10-year Budget documents.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

52.     The Independent Statutory Māori Board has been a participant in the Finance and Performance Committee workshops and meetings relating to the development of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031. The chair and acting chief executive were given access to all folders and files.

53.     The total number of submissions from individuals who identified as Māori was 761 compared to 1595 in the 2020/2021 Emergency budget consultation.

54.     During public consultation, the Governing Body held a hui with mana whenua to hear their views on the 10-year budget. 25 mana whenua representatives, representing 9 entities attended. Eight mana whenua entities (Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust; Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust; Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust; Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated; Te Kawerau Iwi Settlement Trust; Makaurau Marae Māori Trust; Ngāti Tamaoho Settlement Trust; and Te Motu a Hiaroa Charitable Trust) provided a written submission only. Mana whenua feedback has been captured in detail in Attachment 3 of the Summary of Feedback report which is Attachment A of this report.

55.     Three sub-regional live panel discussions were held in partnership with Radio Waatea, mataawaka and councillor panelists which reached an audience of 4635 online views and an audience of more than 12,000.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

56.     The 10-year Budget project has been budgeted at $1.2 million excluding Audit NZ’s fee and we are currently tracking within the budgeted amount. For comparison the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan budget was $1.6 million, however this cost included a separate consultation process on the refresh of the Auckland Plan.

57.     Budget decisions made in relation to separate reports on this agenda will enable the budget for 2021-2031 to be finalised and adoption sought from the Governing Body on 29 June 2021. The financial implications of the budget decisions are set out in those reports.


 

 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58.     The timeline for the 10-year Budget has significant risk associated with it. A high level of project management and political engagement is required in order to meet the key milestones and adopt by the statutory deadline of 30 June 2021.

59.     Another risk is compliance with the prescriptive requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. Legal Services will review the final documentation for legislative compliance before it is adopted by the Governing Body. 

60.     The final documentation will also be submitted to Audit NZ for their final review in June 2021 in accordance with the statutory requirement for the 10-year Budget to be audited.

61.     The Audit and Risk Committee has an important oversight role for risks associated with the 10-year Budget and will receive updates on key risks and mitigations throughout the process.

62.     Adopting the 10-year Budget will enable rates to be set for the following financial year. Failing to adopt the 10-year Budget could impact the council’s ability to continue to deliver the services and projects that Auckland needs.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

63.     Following decisions at this committee meeting, and at the subsequent Governing Body meeting, the key steps for finalising the 10-year Budget are:

10-year Budget 2021-2031

2021

Prepare final documentation – i.e. Volume 1 Overview, Volume 2 Our detailed budgets, strategies and policies, and Volume 3 Local Board Information and Agreements

26 May – 30 June

Audit NZ final review

4-15 June

Audit and Risk Committee meeting – to review the effectiveness of governance over risks and the operation of internal controls for the preparation of Auckland Council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031

22 June

Finance and Performance workshop – receive and discuss final documentation ahead of the Governing Body meeting

23 June

 

Finance and Performance and Governing Body meeting – adoption of the final 10-year Budget 2021-2031

29 June

Close the loop with Aucklanders and distribute final documents to libraries, service centres, local board offices and online.

July

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

10-year Budget 2021-2031 Executive summary report

17

b

10-year Budget 2021-2031 Consultation summary report

23

c

10-year Budget 2021-2031 Colmar Brunton report

137

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Thompson - Programme Manager

Warren Marshall – Auckland Insights Manager

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) - local board feedback and advocacy

File No.: CP2021/05980

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an overview of local board feedback and advocacy on the proposed Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) (the 10-year Budget).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       As part of Auckland Council’s shared governance model, local boards have a legislative role to provide input on regional plans. For the 10-year Budget, local boards achieve this in three ways:

·        preparing local board agreements to be included in the 10-year Budget (Volume 3) – this includes local board projects, budgets, performance measures and local fees and charges for 2021/2022

·        providing feedback on regional topics 

·        recommending local matters to the Governing Body to consider or make decisions on in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 process, including advocating for projects/issues that are important to communities in their local board areas.

3.       From 22 February to 22 March 2021, the council consulted with the public on the 10-year Budget. Each local board has now considered community feedback received for their local area and resolved feedback on the 10-year Budget for the consideration of the Governing Body.

4.       Local boards will adopt their local board agreements between 15 and 17 June 2021 and the Governing Body will then adopt the 10-year Budget (including agreeing the local board agreements) on 29 June 2021.

5.       This report summarises feedback and advocacy from local boards on the 10-year Budget and focuses on common themes.  As such, it does not include all of the matters raised in local board resolutions. The complete set of local board resolutions relating to the 10-year Budget is provided in Attachment A and a compilation of adopted local board advocacy initiatives and other requests or recommendations is provided in Attachment B.

6.       Key themes arising from those local boards that resolved on regional issues in the 10-year Budget include:

·        general support for the overall investment package and proposed general rates increases

·        feedback on the proposed funding levers, including concerns regarding asset consolidation

·        strong support for the proposed actions and investment to address climate change

·        a mixed response to proposals for a community services approach that is less reliant on assets and a more focused infrastructure investment approach to support housing and growth

·        support for the extension and increase of the Water Quality Targeted Rate and the extension of the Natural Environment Targeted Rate

·        general support for other priorities and proposals in the 10-year Budget.

7.       Local boards provided recommendations for the following local matters:

·        increased targeted rate grants to provide for the successful expansion of the Dominion Road and Manurewa Business Improvement Districts

·        Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board recommend the release of local board specific parking reserve funds.

8.       In general, the adopted advocacy initiatives and other requests raised by local boards focus on providing equitable and sustainable service provision to the local communities of our growing city. The key themes include:

·        community investment in sports and aquatics facilities, parks, paths, public spaces, town centres, community assets and programming, particularly but not exclusively to support areas of projected growth

·        the need for transport infrastructure that serves growing communities, particularly for investment in transport hubs, public transport networks, road infrastructure and initiatives to lower emissions

·        addressing environmental concerns, in particular waste management, water quality, pest and weed control, and tree coverage.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      consider feedback and advocacy from local boards when making decisions on the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031).

 

Horopaki

Context

9.       The 10-year Budget sets out Auckland Council’s activities and community outcomes over ten years and provides for integrated decision-making and coordination of the council’s resources, including how to pay for those activities. The Governing Body is responsible for adopting the 10-year Budget.

10.     As part of this process, local boards develop annual local board agreements which are agreed between local boards and the Governing Body (and are included in the 10-year Budget).

11.     Local boards also have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws, and any proposed changes to be made to them. The Governing Body has a corresponding statutory obligation when making decisions, to consider the views and preferences expressed by local boards, if the decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operations of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

12.     Local board chairs were invited to attend Finance and Performance Committee workshops where the development of consultation materials for the 10-year Budget was discussed from August to November 2020 and for post-consultation discussion from April to May 2021.  All local board members were provided access to summarised versions of the workshop presentations.

13.     Local boards agreed, both their local content for consultation and feedback on regional items proposed to be consulted on, at business meetings between 1 and 3 December 2020. This local input was then formally considered by the Finance and Performance Committee on 9 December 2020.

 

14.     From 22 February to 22 March 2021, the council consulted with the public on the draft 10-year Budget. In total, Auckland Council received a total of 19,965 pieces of feedback during the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

·    written feedback – 18,975 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters

·    in person – 607 pieces of feedback through 61 Have Your Say events (38 in person and 23 online webinars). Twenty-six events were affected due to the Covid-19 lockdowns (either cancelled, postponed or moved to an online platform)

·    telephone interviews – two people made submissions via our telephone interview option

·    social media – 78 pieces of feedback through Auckland Council social media channels.

15.     Local boards considered consultation feedback related to their local board area and then passed resolutions detailing their feedback and advocacy to the 10-year Budget at their business meetings between 5 and 7 May 2021.  

16.     This report provides an opportunity for the Governing Body (through the Finance and Performance Committee) to formally consider local board views in their decision-making on the 10-year Budget.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17.     This report includes a summary of local board input on regional topics, and local matters to be considered by the Finance and Performance Committee in making recommendations to the Governing Body for the final 10-year Budget. This summary focuses on common themes and does not include all the matters raised in local board resolutions. Most boards did not provide feedback on every topic.

18.     The full set of local board resolutions are provided in Attachment A (local board resolutions on the 10-year Budget 2021-2031) and all local board advocacy initiatives and issues are provided in Attachment B (local board advocacy initiatives and requests for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031).

Local board feedback on regional topics in the 10-year Budget

19.     As part of the consultation, Aucklanders were asked for their views on issues and proposals for regional topics, including proposals for five key issues:

·    proposed investment package

·    responding to climate change

·    responding to housing and growth

·    investment in our community

·    protecting and enhancing our environment.

20.     The 10-year Budget Consultation Document (Consultation Document) gave an overview of Auckland Council’s challenges, strategies and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The document also outlined the five key issues, other priorities, several rating policy proposals, and other matters for feedback. Other matters included proposals related to strategic assets, proposed changes to key policies and the Summary of the draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Annual Operational Plan.

21.     This report provides an opportunity for local boards to provide input into the council’s final 10-year Budget.

Proposed investment package

22.     The 10-year Budget 2021-2031 includes a $31 billion package of capital investment that will enable continued delivery of key services and strong investment in new and renewed assets. This package is proposed to be enabled by a number of funding levers, including a one-off 5 per cent increase in average general rates for the 2021/2022 financial year followed by 3.5 per cent increases over the remaining years of the budget.

23.     In addition to the proposed rates increases, three other funding levers are proposed to enable the level of investment outlined in the 10-year Budget including $90 million of permanent ongoing annual savings, a target of $70 million from asset recycling, and increasing our debt-to-revenue ratio up to 290 per cent for the first three years and returning to 270 per cent thereafter.

General rates increases

24.     The majority of local boards support the proposed rates increases. These are Aotea / Great Barrier, Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, and Whau Local Boards (19 local boards).

25.     Waitematā Local Board supports an average increase of more than 5 per cent in general rates while Howick Local Board supports average increases of 3.5 per cent each year and does not support the one-off average increase of 5 per cent to general rates in 2021/2022.

26.     While several local boards note concerns regarding affordability and mixed community support for the general rates increases, Manurewa and Waitākere Local Boards have expressed concern about whether the ongoing average 3.5 per cent general rates increases would be sufficient to fund the proposed investment.

Ongoing savings and cost reductions

27.     Nine local boards provided feedback on the $90 million ongoing savings target, all in support of the proposal. These are Albert-Eden, Franklin, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Maungakieke-Tāmaki, Papakura, Upper Harbour and Waiheke Local Boards. Albert-Eden Local Board has requested this target be reviewed and slowed when possible and Papakura Local Board has expressed concerns about the sustainability of this target in the long run.  Hibiscus and Bays Local Board did not explicitly state their position on the  target, but request that the savings do not negatively impact on the delivery of core services and local priorities.

Asset recycling

28.     Local boards have expressed mixed views regarding the proposed $70 million asset recycling per annum target for the first three years of the 10-year Budget. Five local boards support the proposal (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Manurewa, Ōtāra-Papatoetoe, and Waiheke Local Boards), Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura and Upper Harbour Local Boards support the principle of asset recycling and six local boards do not support the proposal (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Waitākere and Waitematā Local Boards). Other local boards did not express positional views on the proposal.

29.     Concerns about the proposal include equitable service provision, financial sustainability over time and serving current and future service requirements in response to growth, particularly with regards to provision for local face-to-face community places and opportunities for public placemaking.

30.     Regardless of their position, six local boards have stressed that they should be enabled to participate meaningfully in the decision-making processes surrounding the recycling of assets in their local areas. Eight local boards have requested greater support and incentives to optimise local assets, with some local boards indicating their preferences on how to prioritise strategic reinvestment. Several local boards have also expressed concerns over particular asset sales proposed in their local areas. These preferences and concerns can be found in the full list of resolutions (Attachment A).

Increased borrowing

31.     Twelve local boards support the proposal to increase the debt-to-revenue ratio to 290 per cent for three years, returning to 270 per cent for the remaining years of the budget. These are Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtāra-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Upper Harbour, Waiheke and Waitākere Local Boards. Kaipātiki and Waitematā Local Boards support higher levels of borrowing. Other local boards did not express positional views on the proposal.

Other funding levers

32.     Additional funding levers recommended by local boards included the sale of airport or port shares (Devonport-Takapuna Local Board) and increasing development contributions (Hibiscus and Bays, Ōrākei and Papakura Local Boards).

Responding to climate change

33.     The 10-year Budget 2021-2031 Consultation Document proposed an additional $150 million of additional investment to accelerate climate change actions. The majority of local boards provided feedback in support or strong support of the proposal. These are Aotea / Great Barrier, Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, and Whau Local Boards (19 local boards).

34.     Waitematā Local Board suggest greater investment in climate action than the proposal and support most of the proposed actions to more significantly accelerate climate action work. Henderson-Massey Local Board have not indicated their position on this proposal, but do not support more significantly accelerating climate action work as this would cause an overall rates increase.

35.     Local boards requested that additional advice and support be provided to integrate climate actions into business as usual at a local level and also advocated for how they recommend climate actions are prioritised. These prioritisations can be found in the complete list of resolutions (Attachment A).

Responding to housing and growth

36.     A more focused approach to providing infrastructure is proposed to support growth, focusing limited infrastructure investment capacity in a few key areas. Eleven local boards provided feedback supporting the proposal in general, including some who advocated for additional high growth areas to be considered for inclusion. These are Albert-Eden, Franklin, Kaipātiki, Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtāra-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā Local Boards. Other local boards did not express positional views on the proposal.

37.     Puketāpapa, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā Local Boards indicated support for focusing investment on existing urban areas released for density and not to enable urban sprawl. Ōtāra-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa and Waitākere Ranges Local Boards request that priority be given to supporting areas of high deprivation.

38.     Some local boards noted concerns for continuing to support communities with the local services and social infrastructure they need, particularly those that will experience growth but are not considered in a key focus area. Albert-Eden and Puketāpapa Local Boards request greater collaboration with central government to fund infrastructure for government-led development.

Investment in our community

39.     The 10-year Budget Consultation Document proposed to move away from an asset-dominated approach to community services. It proposed to consider how to better use partnerships, grants, digital and approaches more tailored to community needs that are less reliant on having a large number of community assets.

40.     While ten boards expressed support for the proposed community investment approach (Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour, and Waiheke Local Board), four of these boards expressed caution or concern in their support. A further four boards do not support the proposed approach.

41.     Four boards acknowledged that the proposed 10-year Budget would not deliver the funding needed to completely meet the shortfall in community investment, and asset servicing/development and four boards note that the proposal requires further information to inform decision-making, particularly details at a local level.

42.     Meaningful local board involvement in decisions that relate to local community investment was highlighted as a key concern. Seven local boards noted the importance or requested increased focus on considering local board and/or local community views. Two boards noted the relevance of the Governance Framework Review and Manurewa Local Board advocates that the implementation of the new community investment approach should not commence until the new local board funding model has been introduced.

43.     In considering the proposed community investment approach, local boards expressed concern regarding accessibility to public services, particularly for vulnerable and digitally excluded communities. There was strong support for tailoring services to different local communities, while some local boards expressed concern that the proposed approach will not adequately consider local requirements.

Asset consolidation

44.     Seven local boards expressed general concerns or opposition to consolidation and sale of assets. Three note the role of public facilities in providing places for communities to connect with each other.

45.     Eight local boards noted their support for the concept of service optimisation, requesting increased support through quality advice and greater incentives for local boards to consider decommissioning local assets. Similarly, eight local boards, with varied positions on the overall community investment proposal, noted the importance of asset renewals and expressed ongoing deferrals.

Protecting and enhancing our environment

46.     The previous 10-year Budget accelerated actions to improve our water quality and natural environment. This was funded by the Water Quality Targeted Rate and the Natural Environment Targeted Rate.

Water Quality Targeted Rate

47.     In the Consultation Document, the council proposed to extend the Water Quality Targeted Rate from 2028 to 2031, providing an additional $150 million, and increase the Water Quality Targeted Rate in line with projected average rates increases for the ten years of the budget, providing a total of $256 million over 10 years.

48.     Seventeen local boards support the proposed extension and increases (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, Waitākere, Waitematā and Whau Local Boards) and four support the extension only (Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Rodney and Upper Harbour Local Boards).

49.     Four local boards specifically expressed support for using the Water Quality Targeted Rate to improve water quality in the Manukau Harbour, while two specifically expressed support progressing work on the Eastern Isthmus. Waiheke Local Board advocated for a greater focus on protection of wetlands and waterways and several other local boards advocated for greater investment in water quality projects in their area including in the Wairau Stream catchment and the North Eastern beaches.

 

Natural Environment Targeted Rate

50.     This council is also proposing to extend the Natural Environment Targeted Rate from 2028 to 2031. This would provide an additional $107 million allowing council to maintain its investments in measures such as addressing the spread of kauri dieback, and predator and weed control. No changes are proposed to the Natural Environment Targeted Rate.

51.     Eighteen local boards support the proposed extension. These are Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour Waiheke, Waitākere, Waitematā and Whau Local Boards. Other local boards did not express positional views on the proposal.

52.     Additionally, Waitākere Ranges Local Board note concern for whether the proposed action is adequate to address the stated issues and support increasing the Natural Environment Targeted Rate alongside the proposed Water Quality Targeted Rate increase.

53.     Four local boards have expressed preferences regarding how the additional funding is spent, and Manurewa Local Board has expressed concern regarding the equitable access to regional funding like that raised by the Natural Environment Targeted Rate and Water Quality Targeted Rate.

Other priorities

54.     Aside from the key issues covered above, Māori outcomes and social investment were identified as key priorities for this 10-year Budget and were included in the consultation document.

Māori outcomes

55.     The Māori outcomes portfolio includes strategic prioritisation through day-to-day activities, supplemented by the targeted use of the proposed Māori Outcomes fund ($150 million investment over the next ten years). Strong support was expressed by local boards with thirteen boards noting their support for the proposal. These are Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waiheke, Waitākere, Waitematā and Whau Local Boards. Other local boards did not express positional views on the proposal.

56.     Local boards note the value of their relationships with mana whenua and request involvement in the budget allocation of the Māori outcomes fund.

Social investment

57.     Several proposed initiatives were included for consultation under the social investment priority. Local board views provided on these proposals are summarised as follows:

·    Eleven local boards generally support the social investment proposals.

·    Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board endorse the social procurement initiative in partnership with Amotai.

·    Aotea / Great Barrier, Hibiscus and Bays, and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Boards support local and social procurement in general.

·    Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Waitematā Local Boards expressed support for the commitment to the living wage for all council employees and contractors.

·    Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipatiki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Waitākere and Waitematā Local Boards support the proposed homelessness operational fund.

·    Kaipātiki expressed support for the proposed reinstatement of contestable funds impacted in the Emergency Budget 2020/2021.


 

 

Rating policy

58.     In addition to the proposal for general rates increases, a number of other rating policy changes were proposed in the consultation document. Three local boards noted their general support for the proposed rating policy proposals (Henderson-Massey, Howick and Waiheke Local Boards), with the exception of the proposed changes for farm and lifestyle use properties for Howick Local Board and the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate for Waiheke Local Board. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board noted that aspects of the rating policy proposals do not directly impact their area.

Changes to the Urban Rating Area and farm-lifestyle properties

59.     Of the eight local boards that provided feedback on the proposal to extend the Urban Rating Area, five support (Franklin, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura and Waitematā Local Boards), two do not support (Rodney and Upper Harbour Local Boards) and one notes community support for the proposal (Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board).

60.     Ōrākei Local Board support the proposal to charge farm and lifestyle properties in the Urban Rating Area urban residential rates while Franklin, Upper Harbour and Howick Local Boards do not support the proposal. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board again notes community support for this proposal.

Introducing the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate

61.     Of the eight local boards that provided feedback on the proposed targeted rate of $10.5 million per year on Vector to fund tree management around overhead powerlines, seven support the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Devonport-Takapuna, Manurewa, Ōrakei, Papakura, Waitematā Local Boards).

62.     Kaipātiki Local Board does not support the proposal, as the local board do not believe that this is the appropriate time to introduce this targeted rate as it will result in approximately $1 increase per month on all power bills. Furthermore, they note the need for Vector to fund and plan for the undergrounding of all powerlines, rather than mitigating the impact of trees on overhead lines.

Reinstatement of the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate

63.     The proposed options for reinstating the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate (APTR garnered a variety of views from six local boards. Two local boards support Option 2 timeframes (Franklin and Waitematā Local Boards), one supports Option 3 timeframes (Papakura Local Board), and three do not support reinstatement (Kaipātiki, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Waiheke Local Boards).

64.     Albert-Eden Local Board request that the Governing Body undertake further work on the APTR, noting community feedback did not support the reinstatement options. If the APTR is reintroduced, Waiheke Local Board request that their area is moved from Zone B to Zone C.

Extending the duration of the City Centre Targeted Rate

65.     Of the five local boards that provided feedback on the extension of the City Centre Targeted Rate, Waitematā Local Board and three others (Franklin, Ōrākei and Papakura Local Boards) support the proposal, with one noting community support the proposal (Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board).

Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate

66.     Upper Harbour Local Board recommend not to include the Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate as part of the 10-year Budget with a majority of submissions not supporting either of the two proposed options. They request Auckland Transport and Auckland Council undertake work to further develop options. No other local boards provided feedback on this proposal.

 

Introducing the Rodney Drainage Targeted Rate

67.     Three local boards provided feedback on the proposal to introduce a community-council joint management model to manage the drainage assets in Te Arai and Ōkahukura funded by a local targeted rate. Franklin and Ōrākei Local Boards support the proposal and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board note community support. Rodney Local Board did not comment on the proposal.

Rates decisions made last year

68.     Franklin Local Board support the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate proposal and note that this approach may be suitable for other rural local board areas.  Waitākere Ranges Local Board note that the proposed increase in the targeted rate should be coming out of regional funding and the Water Quality Targeted Rate.

69.     Franklin Local Board support the proposal for an opt-in Clevedon Water and Wastewater Connection Targeted Rate.

70.     Other local boards did not express views on these decisions.

New fees and increases

71.     Kaipātiki and Waitematā Local Boards expressed general support for the proposed new fees and increases. While Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Papakura Local Boards support the increase to the venue hire fee, Papakura Local Board noted that some community groups are struggling to hire facilities at the current rates. Other local boards did not express views on the proposals.

Removing library late return fines

72.     Ten local boards provided feedback on the removal of late return fines on library books and other items. Nine local boards support (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Waitākere and Waitematā) and one local board does not support the proposal (Papakura Local Board), with Papakura Local Board noting its support for reducing the penalty fee for late returns.

Other matters for feedback

Strategic assets

73.     Some changes to strategic assets can only be made if the decision is provided for in the 10-year Budget. Local boards provided the following feedback on proposals related to strategic assets:

·    Albert-Eden Local Board supports the retention of strategic assets

·    Bledisloe House – Waitematā Local Board supports the proposal of a long-term lease agreement for Bledisloe House.

·    Heritage buildings in Takapuna and Devonport – the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board does not support the proposal to sell the council-owned buildings at 2 The Strand, Takapuna, and 3 Victoria Road, Devonport. Kaipātiki Local Board express concerns over the same proposals, noting the heritage value of the two buildings.

·    Waterfront properties – Waitematā Local Board support Panuku negotiating long-term leases for waterfront properties in the Wynyard Quarter Precinct. Waiheke Local Board seek assurance that the council’s waterfront redevelopment plans for Wynyard Quarter ensures sufficient land is retained for current and future ferry services.

Proposed changes to key policies

74.     In the consultation document, amendments were proposed for the Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) Accountability Policy, Auckland Airport Shareholding Policy and the Revenue and Financing Policy. The Revenue and Financing Policy was also consulted in a separate process and will be considered separately by Finance and Performance Committee. The Local Board Funding Policy was included in consultation material with no proposed changes.

75.     Local boards provided the following feedback on key policies:

·    CCO Accountability PolicyFranklin and Kaipātiki Local Boards support the proposed changes. Waitematā Local Board advocates for the policy to include expectations that CCOs: contribute and align with objectives and priorities of Auckland Council plans, including local board plans; jointly develop their local board engagement policy with each board; and involve local boards as governors, when decisions impact on their local governance role or have high community interest.

·    Auckland Airport Shareholding PolicyFranklin and Kaipātiki Local Boards support the proposed changes.

·    Local Board Funding PolicyKaipātiki Local Board requests that the policy include consideration for tree coverage on public land in each local board area, as additional investment is required maintain bush areas. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board supports a review of the policy.

·    Revenue and Financing PolicyFranklin Local Board supports the proposed changes.

76.     In early 2021, the policy setting out the Allocation of Decision-Making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and Local Boards, which is published in each long-term plan and annual plan, underwent an internal review. The Joint Governance Working Party considered this review and their resolutions have informed proposed changes in the draft content since it was included in the 10-year Budget consultation material. Local boards have had the opportunity to consider the draft at their May business meetings. Their feedback will be summarised and included in a separate report for Governing Body consideration prior to final decision-making on the 10-year Budget.

Tūpuna Maunga Authority Annual Operational Plan

77.     The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 requires that the Tūpuna Maunga Authority prepare an Annual Operational Plan to provide a framework in which the council will carry out the routine management of the 14 Tūpuna Maunga, and the plan must be agreed by the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and the council. A summary of the draft plan was included in the council’s consultation material for the 10-year Budget. Four local boards expressed support for the operational plan. They are Albert-Eden, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Waitematā Local Boards.

Local matters for consideration

78.     In the 10-year Budget process there are matters where local boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body for consideration or decision-making. This includes:  

·    any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

·    any new/amended local targeted rate proposals 

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

·    release of local board specific reserve funds

·    any local board advocacy initiatives.

Business improvement district and local targeted rate proposals

79.     Local boards are required to endorse any new or amended locally targeted rate proposals or business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals in their local board area. These proposals must have been consulted on before they can be implemented.


 

 

Changes to Business Improvement District Targeted Rates

80.     Three proposed extensions to Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rate areas were consulted on with the 10-year Budget. These were Manurewa, Glen Innes, and Dominion Road BIDs.

81.     Following the successful expansions of the Dominion Road and Manurewa BIDs, the Albert-Eden and Manurewa Local Boards recommend increased targeted rates grants to provide for the BID expansions in their local areas. The Glen Innes BID extension proposal was unsuccessful in the ballot process. Its current boundaries will remain and no amendments to the targeted rate are recommended.

Local Targeted Rates

82.     Kaipātiki Local Board proposed to investigate a targeted rate to fund a local project. Noting that public feedback on the proposal was split, the board confirms it will not be pursuing the investigation of establishing the local targeted rate.

83.     The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board recommend the continuation of the targeted rate to enable free adult entry to local swimming pools.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

84.     Local boards are allocated funding for local driven initiatives (LDI) annually, to spend on local projects or programmes that are important to their communities. Local boards have decision-making over the LDI funds but need approval from the Governing Body where:

·    operational (opex) LDI funding is to be converted into capital (capex) LDI funding

·    the release of local board specific reserve funds is requested, which are being held by the council for a specific purpose

·    a LDI capital project exceeds $1 million.

Request for release of local board specific funds

85.     Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board recommend the release of local board specific parking reserve funds of $515,000 to the following projects as follows:

·    $170,000 for Ian Shaw parking project (FY21/22)

·    $345,000 for Glen Innes parking project (FY22/23).

Other local financial matters

86.     Rodney Local Board request the conversion of the local board’s $1 million One Local Initiative LDI capex funding in financial year (FY) 2024/2025 to ABS opex funding across the next four financial years (FY 2021/2022 – FY 2024/2025) to enable the local board to continue the delivery of the Kumeū-Huapai indoor courts facility via a private partnership. They note that looking at alternative ways of delivering services other than building and operating assets aligns with Auckland Council’s Community Investment proposal in the draft 10-year Budget. 

87.     Waiheke Local Board notes that the Governing Body approved the allocation of LDI funding to enable up to $1 million, debt-funded, towards the development of a swimming pool. This was approved by the Budget Committee on 7 May 2015 (resolution BUD/2015/5).

Local board advocacy

88.     Local boards are requested to approve any advocacy initiatives for consideration by the Governing Body and inclusion (as an appendix) to the 2021/2022 Local Board Agreement.

89.     Twenty local boards approved between two and fifteen advocacy items. Waiheke Local Board will approve their advocacy initiatives during the adoption of their Local Board Agreement in June 2021. Seventeen local boards also included specific requests or recommendations in other sections of their resolved feedback on the 10-year Budget.

90.     The full set of advocacy initiatives and other requests identified by local boards are compiled in Attachment B and are also included in the full local board resolutions in Attachment A.

91.     This year, three items were advocated for by numerous boards. These items and local board support for each of them are as follows:

·    Local Board Transport Capital FundFifteen local boards expressed support for the full reinstatement of Local Board Transport Capital Funds. These are Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura and Waitematā Local Boards.

·    Asset renewals and capital funding for locally driven initiatives (LDI capex) – Four local boards expressed support for the reinstatement (or increase) of LDI capex funds. These are Albert-Eden, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki. Eight local boards noted the importance of asset renewals, including Albert-Eden Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Upper Harbour Local Boards.

·    Tree protectionsix local boards expressed support for a review of Schedule 10 of the Unitary Plan to increase tree protection across Auckland. These are Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Papakura and Whau Local Boards. In addition, Waiheke Local Board expressed support for tree protection in general.

92.     The majority of local board advocacy were related to community investment in sports and aquatics facilities, parks, paths, public spaces, town centres, community assets and programming, particularly but not exclusively to support areas of projected growth.

93.     Other common themes across local board advocacy included:

·    the need for transport infrastructure that serves growing communities, particularly for investment in transport hubs, public transport networks, road infrastructure and initiatives to lower emissions

·    addressing environmental concerns, in particular water quality, pest and weed control, and tree coverage

·    waste management, in particular the development of sub-regional resource recovery centres in the north and south

·    initiatives to promote tourism and boost local economy

·    addressing social concerns such as housing conditions and affordability, alcohol harm and regulatory compliance

·    supporting partnerships with mana whenua and Māori communities at a local governance level.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

94.     This report summarises local board feedback on the 10-year Budget and as such has no specific impacts on the climate.

95.     Projects allocated funding through this 10-year Budget process will all have varying levels of potential climate impact associated with them. The climate impacts of projects Auckland Council chooses to progress, are all assessed carefully as part of the council’s rigorous reporting requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

96.     CCOs and all council departments will be affected by decisions made for the 10-year Budget and have been involved in its development.

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

Local impacts and local board views

97.     Local board views and feedback on the regional topics in the 10-year Budget are provided in this report.

98.     Local boards have been involved throughout the development of the 10-year Budget. This has included:

·        local board chairs attending Finance and Performance Committee workshops

·        all local board members being provided access to summarised versions of the Finance and Performance Committee workshop presentations

·        local boards provided formal input into the consultation material for the 10-year Budget in December 2020

·        local boards presented their views and input to the Finance and Performance Committee on 12 May 2021.  

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

99.     The 10-year Budget is an important tool that enables and demonstrates council’s responsiveness to Māori.

100.   Of those who submitted to the 10-year Budget consultation, 5 per cent identified as Māori. There were also submissions from 18 Mana Whenua entities and 18 mataawaka entities, many of whom provided specific feedback on local priorities and advocacy.

101.   Local boards considered submissions related to their local board rohe when finalising their feedback and advocacy positions for the 10-year Budget.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

102.   The 10-year Budget is a statutory process which must be completed every three years. The council budget provides for the resourcing to deliver this project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

103.   The Governing Body must consider the views and preferences expressed by local boards when making decisions that affect those local board areas, as this is a legislative requirement and part of Auckland Council’s shared governance model.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

104.   Local boards will approve their local board agreements between 15 and 17 June, and the Governing Body will adopt the 10-year Budget on 29 June 2021.

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local board resolutions on the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031)

183

b

Local board advocacy initiatives and requests for the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget)

303

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Samantha Tan Rodrigo - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) - Mayor's final proposal (Covering report)

File No.: CP2021/06643

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To set out the mayor’s recommendations for the Recovery Budget (10 Year Budget 2021-2031) for consideration and decisions by the Finance and Performance Committee which will be recommended to the Governing Body meeting on 25 May 2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

 

2.       This is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to the 25 May 2021 Extraordinary Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report.


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031): Other proposals

File No.: CP2021/06093

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To consider items for inclusion in the council’s long-term plan, known as the Recovery Budget - 10-year Budget 2021-2031, not covered by other reports on this agenda. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       If the council wishes to make decisions that involve the transfer of ownership or control of a strategic asset, then this must be explicitly provided for in the council’s long-term plan. As part of the consultation on its 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (10-year Budget), Auckland Council consulted on the following three proposals relating to the transfer of ownership or control of assets that may be considered to be strategic assets because of their heritage status or their waterfront location:

·      Granting a long-term lease over Bledisloe House

·      Disposing of two heritage buildings in Takapuna and Devonport

·      Providing for long-term leases over certain waterfront properties

3.       Some changes to key council policies can only be made if provided for in the 10-year Budget. The council consulted this year on changes to its:

·      CCO Accountability Policy

·      Auckland Airport Shareholding Policy

4.       Auckland Council is required to include a Local Board Funding Policy within its long-term plan. The council has not proposed any changes to its current policy.

5.       Performance measures and targets provide transparency to the community around the service levels the council aims to deliver over the 10-year Budget period. The council has undertaken a review of these measures to ensure they remain relevant and meaningful.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body that the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 provides for:

i)     the transfer of ownership and a change in use for Bledisloe House through entering into a development agreement for a long-term ground lease of 125 years.

ii)     long-term leases on the following council-owned development sites in the city centre waterfront precinct, on which Panuku plans to partner with private developers to develop:

A)      North Wharf – site 14 

B)      Jellicoe Street – site 19 

C)     Silo 6 – site 12 

D)     Wynyard Point – Block A and B

E)      44-56 Hamer Street – Sealink ferry terminal 

F)      101 Pakenham Street West – Lysaght Building 

iii)    the sale of the following council-owned buildings:

A)      2 The Strand, Takapuna

B)      3 Victoria Road, Devonport

b)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body that the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 includes:

i)        The Council Controlled Organisation Accountability Policy (Attachment A)

ii)       The Auckland Airport Shareholding Policy (Attachment B)

iii)      The Local Board Funding policy (Attachment C).

c)      note the draft level of service measures and targets in Attachment D to be included in the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 following further review and confirmation.

 

Horopaki

Context

6.       The agenda for this meeting includes a number of reports on items for inclusion in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031. The items within this report include the provision in the long-term plan for decisions that may constitute a transfer of ownership or control of strategic assets, updates to council policies and the set of service level measures and targets for inclusion in group of activity statements for the 10-year Budget.

7.       All the items considered in this report were included in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 Consultation Document and/or Supporting Information adopted on 18 February 2021.

8.       Consultation took place between 22 February and 22 March 2021 and a full report on the feedback received is included as an attachment to the process overview report on this agenda.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9.       The consultation document for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 included three proposals relating to the transfer of ownership or control of assets that may be considered to be strategic assets. Decisions on these proposals can only be made if explicitly provided for in the 10-year Budget.

Section 97 Local Government Act 2002

10.     Under section 97 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002), a decision to transfer ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from a local authority must not be made unless the local authority has explicitly provided for the decision in its long-term plan, and consulted on the proposal through a consultation document in accordance with section 93E.

11.     Strategic assets are defined in both the LGA 2002 and Auckland Council’s Significance and Engagement policy. The policy defines strategic assets as iconic assets with strategic significance and those assets that are vital for delivering services to Auckland on a network basis.

12.     Included in the list of strategic assets in the Significance and Engagement policy are “cemeteries, heritage scheduled buildings and structures” and “freehold interest in waterfront land held by the Ports of Auckland Limited and the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency” (this is understood to also include freehold interests in waterfront land now held directly by the council).


 

 

Bledisloe House

13.     The council has consulted on a proposal to grant a long-term lease of the Bledisloe House Building to a developer (with conditions attached) to avoid cost liability, to protect heritage and achieve wider Aotea Precinct integrated outcomes.

14.     The property is surplus to council operational requirements and is not fit-for-purpose for Auckland Emergency Management. Additionally, there is no budget provided for the substantial renewals investment required in the building over the next ten years, let alone any work to achieve integrated outcomes with the adjacent Aotea Station development.

15.     The primary alternative would be to retain ownership of the property in full council control. This would require the council to undertake the necessary renewals and maintenance which would need to be funded either from rates and debt or by displacing other planned investment. If the council also wished to achieve development and heritage outcomes this would require substantial additional investment.

16.     Minimal feedback was received through public consultation, specifically ten submissions supported the proposal and two did not support.  Supporting submissions included comments such as “this seems a sensible option” and suggestions that a full sale would be preferable to a long-term lease. Submissions that did not support included comments around the importance of a council presence on Aotea Square.

17.     Also of note was the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance submission which explicitly supported the proposal and had over 3000 submissions.

18.     The Waitematā Local Board indicated support for the proposal of a long-term lease agreement for Bledisloe House to achieve better precinct integration and activation of the space.  No other local boards expressed any views or preferences on the proposal.

19.     Bledisloe House, built in the late 1950’s, is a category B heritage scheduled building. As Bledisloe House may be viewed as a strategic asset under the Significance and Engagement Policy, staff recommend that the decision to grant a long-term lease of Bledisloe House to a developer be explicitly provided for in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Heritage buildings in Takapuna and Devonport

20.     The consultation document included a proposal to sell two properties in Takapuna and Devonport. The buildings are located at:

·      2 The Strand, Takapuna

·      3 Victoria Road, Devonport

21.     Both properties are scheduled heritage buildings, have been identified as surplus to operational requirements, have identified seismic issues, and are currently vacant.

22.     The Takapuna property was donated to a legacy council in 1939, meaning its sale is subject to certain restrictions in the LGA 2002.  First, the council must use the proceeds of sale in a way consistent with the original purpose of the endowment.  In this case, the endowment can be used for any municipal purpose, i.e. the “core” business which councils were involved in at the time of donation, in a way that benefits the former Takapuna Borough area.  Second, the council must make a reasonable attempt to notify the original donor (or the successor) of the proposed sale, to give them an opportunity for comment.  In this case, the council has taken reasonable steps to establish that there is no remaining donor or successor to notify.  

23.     The primary alternative would be to retain ownership of the properties and lease them to commercial tenants. This would require the council to invest in the necessary seismic work which would need to be funded by higher rates and debt, or to displace other investment.


 

 

24.     Minimal feedback was received through public consultation. Specifically, for 2 The Strand, 12 submissions supported, four did not support and for 3 Victoria Road, six submissions supported the proposed sale and five did not support.  Comments in support included “I agree we need to get rid of assets that are not performing, are empty or have no use”. Submissions in opposition included references to potential other uses.

25.     Also of note was the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance submission which explicitly supported the sales and had over 3000 submissions.

26.     Two local boards expressed views and preferences on these proposals. The Devonport Takapuna Local Board opposed the proposed sales, noting it “was raised by a number of submitters, despite there being no specific question on this in the feedback form”. The Kaipātiki Local Board expressed concern at the proposed sales as the buildings are recognised for their architecture and heritage value.

27.     As both these properties are heritage scheduled buildings and so may be viewed as strategic assets under the Significance and Engagement Policy, staff recommend that the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 explicitly provide for the sale of these properties.

Waterfront properties

28.     Panuku is leading the regeneration of Wynyard Quarter located within Auckland’s city centre waterfront area.

29.     The consultation document included a proposal to provide for long-term leases on seven properties in the waterfront precinct, which represent the next stages in Panuku’s existing plans to partner with private developers to achieve regeneration outcomes.

30.     The properties are:

·      North Wharf (site 14),

·      Jellicoe Street (site 19),

·      Silo 6 (site 12),

·      Wynyard Point Blocks A and B,

·         44-56 Hamer Street, and

·         101 Pakenham Street West

31.     The alternatives would be to do nothing and not achieve the development outcomes or to sell the properties which would also carry the risk that the intended outcomes would not be achieved as planned.

32.     Minimal feedback was received through public consultation, specifically five submissions supported the proposal and two did not support. Submissions in support commented on the preferred approach of leasing as against outright sale mitigating risk to the waterfront vision. Submissions that did not support included comments such as references to challenges of specific sites.

33.     Also of note is the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance submission which explicitly supported the leases and had over 3000 submissions.

34.     Two local boards provided feedback. The Waitematā Local Board expressed support for Panuku to negotiate long-term leases for waterfront properties in the Wynyard Quarter Precinct. The board further recommended that a key focus to transforming Wynyard Quarter into a vibrant and liveable community is sustainability and achieving diverse mixed housing with the bulk of owners and residents committed to using it as their long-term community and living space.  The Waiheke Local Board sought assurance that the council’[s waterfront redevelopment plans would ensure sufficient land is retained in council for the purposes of current services and for futureproofing wharves and terminus of sufficient scale to cope with increasing demands of ferry services.

35.     Long-term leases with terms that provide for exclusive use and the ability to restrict public access may constitute a transfer of control under the LGA 2002.  Given that the properties are freehold interests in waterfront land, it is likely that they are strategic assets as defined in the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Therefore, to meet the requirements of section 97 of the LGA 2002, the council would need to amend the long-term plan for one or more of the seven identified properties each time a decision to enter a new lease which triggers section 97 is proposed. To avoid the continued amendment of the long-term plan, staff recommend providing for long-term leases for all seven of the identified properties in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Key policies

36.     The council has consulted on changes to two key policies where such changes can only occur if provided for in the 10-year Budget. Additionally, some policies are required to be included in the 10-year Budget even if unchanged.

CCO Accountability Policy

37.     The consultation document proposed some changes to our CCO Accountability Policy, and a copy of the proposed draft policy was included within the supporting information.

38.     The key changes to the policy involve removing some of the common expectations of council-controlled organisations (CCOs) from the policy so that we can include them in statement of expectations for CCOs.

39.     Feedback through public consultation indicated a number of themes, principally the need for CCOs to be more accountable and to operate efficiently.

40.     Four local boards provided feedback on the draft CCO Accountability Policy, one supporting the proposed changes (Kaipātiki) and three commenting on the need to improve CCO accountability to local boards (Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, and Waitematā).

41.     Staff recommend no further changes to the CCO Accountability Policy from the draft included in consultation material and that this policy (Attachment A) be included in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Auckland Airport Shareholding Policy

42.     The consultation document proposed some changes to our Auckland Airport Shareholding Policy and a copy of the proposed draft policy was included within the supporting information.

43.     The proposal did not change the core elements of the policy such as the underlying shareholding.

44.     The key changes were around giving the council greater flexibility to take advantage of corporate actions and to update the policy to reflect historical changes (such as the removal of references to Auckland Council Investments Limited).

45.     Feedback from public consultation was limited. Twenty-six pieces of feedback were received, most of which commented on whether or not the council should sell its shares.

46.     Two local boards provided feedback on the draft policy, Franklin and Kaipātiki both supported the proposed amendments.

47.     Staff recommend no further changes to the Auckland Airport Shareholding Policy from the draft included in consultation material and that this policy (Attachment B) be included in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Local Board Funding Policy

48.     The council is required to include a Local Board Funding Policy within its 10-year Budget.

49.     There are no proposed changes to the policy.  Staff recommend that this policy (Attachment C) be included in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.


 

 

 

Performance measures and targets

50.     The 10-year Budget 2021-2031 is required to include, in relation to each group of activities of the council, a statement of the intended levels of service provisions that specifies the performance measures used to assess the level of service and the performance targets set by the council for the period of the plan.

51.     Draft statements (including draft measures and targets) were included in Section 3 of the supporting information to the consultation document.

52.     Following adoption of the consultation document, council staff have reviewed all measures and targets and updated where necessary. Attachment D describes the process undertaken and includes a list of all measures and targets with any changes tracked and explained.

53.     None of the proposed changes are considered significant and most are made to improve relevance and provide the community with meaningful information about how the council group delivers services.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

54.     In the case of Bledisloe House, climate change considerations such as water use, emissions and energy efficiency are driving a requirement to renew the property to a higher standard.

55.     In the case of the Waterfront properties proposal, sustainability initiatives will be assessed on a site-by-site basis and will form key criteria against which any long-term lease proposal is evaluated.

56.     The CCO Accountability Policy forms part of the CCO governance framework which directs each substantive CCO to contribute towards reducing carbon emissions and contributing towards a climate resilient future.

57.     The list of performance measures includes a new measure that looks to track the council’s reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (scope 1 and scope 2 organisational emissions). We are targeting a 50 per cent reduction against our baseline by 2030.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

58.     Staff from across the Auckland Council group informed the development of these proposals and policy changes for consultation.

59.     Staff have liaised with colleagues from across the group, and been informed by the views of CCO boards, to support the proposed performance measures and targets for the 10-year Budget.

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

Local impacts and local board views

60.     Feedback received from local boards on the items included in this report are summarised in the report above.  Further local board feedback on the consultation material is included in the report “Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) – local board feedback and advocacy” included in this agenda.


 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

61.     Local iwi have previously expressed interest in purchasing commercial and social assets which may include: Bledisloe House, the waterfront city centre properties, 2 The Strand, Takapuna and 3 Victoria Road, Devonport. As part of each lease or disposal, local iwi will be informed and consulted where appropriate.

62.     The list of performance measures includes updates to specific targets related to Māori identity and culture, marae support, and support to Māori organisations to progress housing and papakāinga development. Explanations of the updates are included below the tables.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

63.     The Bledisloe House, Takapuna and Devonport property items support the council’s asset recycling targets. If the proposals are not achieved other properties would need to be identified to achieve these targets, otherwise funding our investment programme would require higher rates and debt.

64.     Leases on the waterfront properties enable Panuku to continue their plans to progress the regeneration of the area. If the proposals are not approved either the council would need to provide additional funding to Panuku or development outcomes would not be achieved.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

65.     There is a risk for any long-term lease or disposal proposal that the commercial interest in a property may be less than anticipated at the time the council is seeking to enter into a transaction. This will be mitigated by close monitoring of property market trends and ensuring the council is receiving expert advice from qualified property professionals.

66.     Some of the proposed changes to Auckland Airport Shareholding Policy seek to mitigate risks around council not being able to act quickly enough to manage risks or take up opportunities associated with that shareholding.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

67.     Resolutions passed at this meeting will be reflected in the final long-term plan documents as they are prepared for legal and Audit New Zealand review.

68.     On 29 June 2021, the Governing Body will be asked to adopt the final long-term plan documents.

69.     Staff will continue to work on negotiations with the Aotea overstation developer and a further report on Bledisloe House will be brought to the Finance and Performance committee following adoption of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

70.     If the recommendations in this report are agreed, Panuku will progress the sale of the two heritage properties 2 The Strand, Takapuna and 3 Victoria Road, Devonport, in accordance with any agreed and legislatively required processes. 

71.     Long-term leases for each of the identified waterfront properties will be progressed by Panuku in accordance with existing delegations and CCO oversight arrangements.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Airport Shareholding Policy

333

b

Local Board Funding Policy

337

c

Performance measures and targets

341

d

CCO Accountability Policy

361

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Michael Burns - Manager Financial Strategy

Alastair Falkner – Prinicpal Advisor Investment Advice

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

Attachment D: Performance measures and targets

Purpose

1.       Identify changes to performance measures and targets from those included in the consultation document supporting information. These will form the basis for the final 10-year Budget 2021-2031 to be adopted on 29 June 2021. Any significant budget decision-making impacts on measures or targets will be updated to be included in final 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Summary

2.       As part of continuous improvement, Auckland Council departments and CCOs have undertaken further reviews on the current performance measures and targets since the consultation document. The focus is to ensure that measures are relevant and provide the community with meaningful information about how successfully the council group delivers services.

3.       Few changes are proposed to measures and targets across the council group. These changes range from minor wording changes, target updates, and addition and deletion of few measures. These are set out in below sections.

4.       Measures and targets presented will be further updated, as necessary, following:

a)      Audit New Zealand review,

b)      Legal compliance review,

c)      Further clarification from CCO and departmental business managers,

d)      Draft CCO Statements of Intent (SOIs) (discussed at CCO Oversight Committee on 18 May 2021), and

e)      Budget decision-making process on 25 May 2021.

5.       The measures for local activities will be included in this set following agreement by respective local boards from 14 to 18 June 2021, as part of agreeing their local board agreements.

6.       The Governing Body will adopt the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) on 29 June 2021.

7.       From 1 July 2021, measures will be uploaded into internal databases for monitoring and reporting.

Catalogue of changes to draft 2021-2031 LTP measures and Targets

8.       Tables below are catalogue of changes grouped by Groups of Activity.

9.       Deletions have been highlighted by red strike-through formatting. New text has been highlighted in blue.

 


 

Roads and footpaths

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We provide safe, high quality and efficient local roads, footpaths and cycle ways for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and drivers

The change from Reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries on the local Tāmaki Makaurau’s road network, expressed as a number

533

N/A

Reduce by at least 36 (497)

New Measure

Reduce by at least 50

593

Reduce by at least 50

545 

Reduce by at least 50

496 

Reduce by at least 50 per year

Improve

(no more than 325 by the end of 2027)

The target trajectory for future years reflects the 10-year target for Deaths and Serious Injuries as set out in ATAP and endorsed by the LTP and RLTP. The 12-month total (January to December) number of deaths and serious injuries on local roads are according to NZ Transport Agency’s Crash Analysis system.

Average AM peak period lane productivity across 32 monitored arterial routes

32,951

23,000

30,000

33,000

33,000

34,000

33,000 35,000 per year

Road productivity is a measure of the efficiency of the road in moving people during the peak hour. It is measured as the product of number of motorised vehicles (cars, buses, and trucks), their average journey speed and average vehicular occupancy per lane in one hour. It is measured across 32 arterial routes. These routes comprise all Primary Arterials of the Road Network, as defined in the One Network Road Classification (ONRC). The monitored arterial routes are defined in the Auckland Transport 2019 SOI Route Productivity map.

Proportion of level 1A and 1B freight network operating at Level of Service C or better during the inter-peak

94%

85%

85%

90%

85%

90%

85%

90%

85%

90%

Percentage of intersections with average pedestrian delay within the city centre, metropolitan and town centres at good levels of service (LOS A-C) at interpeak

Percentage of key signalised intersections in urban centres where pedestrian delays are reduced during the interpeak period

N/A

New measure

Set baseline

90%

Maintain or improve

90%

Maintain or improve

90%

Maintain or improve

90%

The freight network comprises all level 1A and 1B freight routes as defined in the Auckland Transport Freight Network. The monitored freight network is defined in the Auckland Transport Statement of Intent. Level of Service measured by median speed as a % of the posted speed limit. LoS C or better = >50%.

Number of cycle movements past 26 selected count sites

3.669M

4.1018m

4.020m

4.120m

Maintain or improve

Maintain or improve

Auckland transport uses the following sites to monitor cycle movements: Beach Road, Curran Street, East Coast Road, Grafton Bridge, Grafton Gully, Grafton Road, Great South Road, Highbrook shared path, Hopetoun Street, Karangahape Road, Lagoon Drive, Lake Road, Lightpath, Mangere Bridge, Northwestern cycleway – Kingsland, Northwestern cycleway – Te Atatu, Orewa shared path, Quay Street (Vector Arena), SH20 shared path (near Dominion Road), Symonds Street, Tamaki Drive (both sides of the road), Te Wero Bridge (Wynyard Quarter), Twin Streams shared path, Upper Harbour Drive, Upper Queen Street, Victoria Street West.
Note: some trips may be counted more than once across the cycle network. Micromobility devices are not captured at our count sites.

Road maintenance standards (ride quality) as measured by smooth travel exposure (STE) for all sealed rural roads

94%

92%

88%

88%

88%

88%

92%

Road maintenance standards (ride quality) as measured by smooth travel exposure (STE) for all sealed urban roads

87%

81%

78%

78%

78%

78%

81%

Smooth Travel Exposure (STE) is a customer outcome measure indicating ‘ride quality’. It is an indication of the percentage of vehicle kilometres travelled on a road network with roughness below a defined upper threshold level. The threshold varies depending on the traffic volume band and urban/rural environment of the road.

Percentage of the sealed local road network that is resurfaced

5.6%

6.5%

6.0%

Progress on 10-year target

Progress on 10-year target

7%

Percentage of footpaths in acceptable condition

98%

95%

92%

95%

Progress on 10-year target

95%

Progress on 10-year target

95%

95%

Proportion of road assets in acceptable condition

94.2%

95%

92%

92%

92%

95%

92%

As defined in the Auckland Transport's Asset Management plans.

Percentage of customer service requests relating to roads and footpaths which receive a response within specific timeframes

86.4%

85%

85%

85%

85%

85%

Specified time frames are defined in Auckland Transport’s customer service standards: one hour for emergencies, two days for incident investigation as a high priority, and three days for an incident investigation as a normal priority.

Rationale

10.     Performance tables have been updated to ensure alignment to draft SOI and current movements in budgets.

11.     There has been a change in the parameters of the measure for number of deaths and serious injuries. Initially it was limited to the local road network in Auckland and had a lower figure of 533 for the 2019/20 period. Auckland Transport has since updated the measure to include the entirety of Auckland’s road network, which now covers the state highway network too. Based on this parameter, the baseline has been retroactively updated to reflect the change.  


 

Public transport and travel demand management

 

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We specify, contract for, and promote public transport services and provide safe, high quality public transport infrastructure

Total public transport boardings

82.3M

104.8M

99.0M

83.3M

114.6M

93.6M

Maintain or improve

108.4M

Maintain or improve

154M

The percentage of public transport trips that are punctual

98%

96%

96%

96%

96%

96%

97%

The percentage of passengers satisfied with public transport services

July-March
90.5%
April-June
86%

85%

85-87%

85-87%

85-87%

85-87%

The percentage of the total public transport operating cost recovered through fares

33.7%

47-50%

40-45%

35-40%

43-47%

42%-45%

Maintain or improve

Maintain or improve

Farebox recovery measures the contribution passenger fares make to the operating cost of providing public transport services.  The measure calculates farebox recovery in accordance with NZ Transport Agency guidelines.

Percentage reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from AT's Auckland Transport’s assets (baseline 2018/19)

N/A 

New measure

9%

6%

9%

9%

12%

9%

50%

This includes emissions from activities such as electricity used in office spaces, staff travel for work, and the Auckland Transport’s corporate fleet. Assets also include public transport facilities and trains.

Rationale

12.     Performance tables have been updated to ensure alignment to draft SOI and current movements in budgets. 

13.     Some targets have reduced in the first two years to reflect gradual recovery of public transport services from COVID-19 impacts. However, a higher uptake is forecast in the outer years.

14.     New targets to reflect Auckland Transport’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been added.   

 


 

Water supply

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We provide Aucklanders with a reliable supply of safe water

The extent to which the local authority's drinking water supply complies with part 4 of the drinking-water standards (bacteria compliance criteria)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

The extent to which the local authority's drinking water supply complies with part 5 of the drinking-water standards (protozoal compliance criteria)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Compliance with the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards from its Small Waters ‘network’ systems measured by the number of non-compliance notices received from the Drinking Water Regulator

N/A

New measure

0

0

0

0

Further details can be found at www.health.govt.nz/publication/drinking-water-standards-new-zealand-2005-revised-2008.

Median response time for attendance for urgent call-outs: from the time that the local authority receives notification to the time that service personnel reach the site (minutes)

50 mins

≤60 mins

≤60 mins

≤60 mins

≤60 mins

≤60 mins

Media response time for resolution of urgent call-outs: from the time that the local authority receives notification to the time that service personnel confirm resolution of the fault or interruption (hours)

2.9 hours

≤5 hours

≤5 hours

≤5 hours

≤5 hours

≤5 hours

Median response time for attendance for non-urgent call-outs: from the time that the local authority receives notification to the time that service personnel reach the site (days)

1.7 days

≤5 days

≤5 days

≤5 days

≤5 days

≤5 days

Median response time for resolution of non-urgent call-outs: from the time that the local authority receives notification to the time that service personnel confirm resolution of the fault or interruption (days)

2.1 days

≤6 days

≤6 days

≤6 days

≤6 days

≤6 days

An urgent call-out is one that leads to a complete loss of supply of drinking water. A non-urgent call-out is one where there is still a supply of drinking water.

The total number of complaints received by the local authority about any of the following:

a)    drinking water clarity

b)    drinking water taste

c)     drinking water odour

d)    drinking water pressure or flow

e)    continuity of supply

f)     the local authority's response to any of these issues

expressed per 1000 connections to the local authority's networked reticulation system

7.2

≤10

≤10

≤10

≤10

≤10

The percentage of real water loss from the local authority's networked reticulation system

13.2%

≤13%

≤13%

≤13%

≤13%

≤13%

This measure tracks unexplained water losses as a percentage of total water produced. These losses are calculated by deducting water sales volumes and allowable unbilled water usage from the total volume of water produced

The average consumption of drinking water per day per resident within the territorial authority district (litres)

268.6

262 litres
+/- 2.5%

262 litres
+/- 2.5%

262

260 litres
+/- 2.5%

262

258 litres
+/- 2.5%

262

256 litres
+/- 2.5%

A DIA mandatory measure to provide information on whether the water supply system is being managed to ensure demand does not outstrip capacity. Careful management of the demand for water is an important component of integrated water resources management to ensure that demand does not exceed capacity, that water is allocated efficiently, and that productivity is maximised.

Rationale

15.     Updated to reflect better water consumption targets proposed by Watercare SOI

 


 

Wastewater treatment and disposal

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We collect and treat Auckland's wastewater in a safe and sustainable way

The number of dry weather overflows from the territorial authority's sewerage system, expressed per 1000 sewerage connections to that sewerage system

0.55

≤10

≤5

≤5

≤5

≤5

Dry weather sewerage overflow means sewage that escapes a territorial authority’s sewerage system and enters the environment during periods of dry weather

Compliance with the territorial authority's resource consents for discharge from its sewerage system measured by the number of:

a)    abatement notices,

b)    infringement notices,

c)     enforcement orders,

d)    convictions

received by the territorial authority in relation to those resource consents

a) 0
b) 0
c) 0
d) 0

a) ≤2
b) ≤2
c) ≤2
d) 0

a) ≤2
b) ≤2
c) ≤2
d) 0

a) ≤2
b) ≤2
c) ≤2
d) 0

a) ≤2
b) ≤2
c) ≤2
d) 0

a) ≤2
b) ≤2
c) ≤2
d) 0

Compliance with the territorial authority’s resource consents for discharge from its Small Waters onsite wastewater systems measured by the number of:

a)    abatement notices

b)    infringement notices

c)     enforcement orders

d)    convictions

received by the territorial authority in relation to those resource consents

N/A

New measure

a) ≤3
b) ≤3
c) ≤3
d) 0

a) ≤3
b) ≤3
c) ≤3
d) 0

a) ≤3
b) ≤3
c) ≤3
d) 0

a) ≤3
b) ≤3
c) ≤3
d) 0

Attendance at sewerage overflows resulting from blockages or other faults: median response time for attendance - from the time that the territorial authority receives notification to the time that service personnel reach the site (minutes)

43 mins

≤60 mins

≤60 mins

≤60 mins

≤60 mins

≤60 mins

Attendance at sewerage overflows resulting from blockages or other faults: median response time for resolution - from the time that the territorial authority receives notification to the time that service personnel confirm resolution of the blockage or other fault (hours)

2.4 hours

≤5 hours

≤5 hours

≤5 hours

≤5 hours

≤5 hours

Sewerage overflow means sewage that escapes a territorial authority’s sewerage system and enters the environment

The total number of complaints received by the territorial authority about any of the following:

a)    sewerage odour

b)    sewerage system faults

c)     sewerage system blockages

d)    the territorial authority's response to issues with its sewerage system

expressed per 1000 connections to the territorial authority's sewerage system

20.1

≤50

≤50

≤50

≤50

≤50


 

Stormwater

 

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We manage our harbours and waterways through sustainable management of the stormwater network

Auckland Council stormwater compliance with resource consents for discharge from its stormwater system, measured by the number of:

a)    abatement notices,

b)    infringement notices,

c)     enforcement orders,

d)    convictions,

received in relation those resource consents

0

0

0

0

0

0

We manage the stormwater network to minimise the risks of flooding to Aucklanders

The number of complaints received about the performance of the stormwater system per 1000 properties connected to Auckland Council's stormwater system

0.80

< 3 per 1000 properties

< 3 per 1000 properties

< 3 per 1000 properties

< 3 per 1000 properties

< 3 per 1000 properties

The percentage of response time during storms to close stormwater manholes within three hours

97%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

The number of flooding events that occur and the associated number of habitable floors affected per 1000 properties connected to Auckland Council's stormwater network

Not measured

< 1 per 1000 properties

< 1 per 1000 properties

< 1 per 1000 properties

< 1 per 1000 properties

< 1 per 1000 properties

The median response time to attend a flooding event, measured from the time that Auckland Council receives notification to the time that service personnel reach the site (hours)

Not measured

< 2 hours

< 2 hours

< 2 hours

< 2 hours

< 2 hours

We provide safe water quality at beaches and coastal areas for recreation (Auckland swimability Index)

The proportion of time that a reference set of beaches are suitable for contact recreation during the summer swimming season (1 November to 30 April)

82%

80%

81%

82%

83%

Increasing by 1% every year to 90% in 2030/31

Recreational activities that bring people physically into contact with water, such as swimming. Safeswim water quality forecasts take account of rainfall, wind, tide, sunlight, and beach type. It is built using high-frequency targeted sampling on top of historical monitoring results spanning over 20 years at some sites and are underpinned by the best available meteorological data Reported based on 84 beaches that have been selected as key by Safeswim

 

 


 

Local council services

16.     Our 21 local boards review their performance measures and targets every year as part of their annual local board agreements.

17.     The measures are subject to change as local boards review their measures and targets together with their work programmes.

18.     This will be incorporated in final local board agreements released in June 2021.

 


 

Regionally delivered council services

Auckland Emergency Management

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We work with partner agencies and stakeholders to coordinate the response in a hazard event and build resilience in the Auckland community

The percentage of Aucklanders who are prepared for an emergency

71%

65%

 65%

 65%

 65%

 65%

The percentage of Aucklanders that have a good understanding of the types of emergencies that could occur in Auckland

83%

75%

 75%

 75%

 75%

 75%

 

Investment

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We manage Council's investment in Ports of Auckland, Auckland International Airport and Auckland Film Studios

The annual growth in Auckland Council's dividend compared to the Customer Price Index growth

-71.33%

CPI growth plus 1.5%

CPI growth %

CPI growth %

CPI growth %

CPI growth %

Rationale

19.     The measure tracking growth in dividend has been reinstated and aligned to the Financial Strategy, to ensure this activity is monitored.

 

Environmental Services

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We work with Aucklanders to manage the natural environment and enable low carbon lifestyles to build resilience to the effects of climate change

The proportion of the region under community stewardship for natural environment outcomes

N/A

New measure

60%

65%

70%

85%

The proportion of kauri areas, managed by Council, with site-based mitigation in place to reduce the spread of kauri dieback disease

N/A

New measure

97.7%

99.7%

99.7%

99.7%

Kauri areas refer to kauri forests that council has a mandate to manage, including council parks, Department of Conservation land where a Memorandum of Understanding is in place for Council to manage, and private land deemed high priority for kauri forest management where an agreement has been reached with the landowner. Does not include areas that consist of only a small number of kauri trees or amenity plantings.

Kilometres of planned track upgrades, to reduce the risk of spread of kauri dieback, completed and open to the public

N/A

New measure

166.5km

195.7km

195.71km

195.7km per year

Number of indigenous plants and animals regionally vulnerable to extinction under active management

N/A

New measure

94 

96

98

100 per year

399 plants, birds, freshwater fish, lizards, frogs, and bats are currently considered “vulnerable to extinction” in the region through a review of national and regional data and expert knowledge (invertebrates, fungi, lichen and non-vascular plants and marine species have not been assessed and are therefore out of scope for this measure).

The proportion of rural mainland Auckland under sustained management for possums

N/A

New measure

26%

27%

30%

50%

The proportion of priority native habitats on regional parks under active sustained management for pest plants

N/A

New measure

 7.75%

45%

10.21%

48%

13.48%

51%

22.32%

66%

Priority native habitats are a minimum suite of sites identified as requiring the restoration and maintenance of ecological integrity in order to maintain the greatest number and most diverse range of Auckland’s indigenous ecosystems and sequences. Priority native habitats are otherwise known as Biodiversity Focus Areas. Native habitats are defined as the indigenous ecosystem types described in Singers et al., 2017, Indigenous terrestrial and wetland ecosystems of Auckland.

Number of species-led projects being delivered on Hauraki Gulf islands for the purpose of maintaining or achieving eradication of pest plants and pest animals

N/A

New measure

 9

10

10

10 per year

Species-led projects are projects that target single or multiple species. This includes both site level pest control projects and projects that manage pest pathways to prevent species re-invading those islands from which they have been eradicated.

Number of native trees plants planted

N/A

New measure

735,000

740,000

495,000

495,000 per year

Number of Aucklanders engaged in living low carbon lifestyles

48,816

30,000

30,000

65,500

30,000

66,500

30,000

68,500

30,000

78,500

The percentage of schools engaging in sustainability education programmes

61%

58%

60%

60%

60%

60%

Greenhouse gas emissions Scope 1 & 2* (tonnes, % change vs baseline)

N/A

New measure

21,691

(-11%)

19,956

(-18%)

17,561

(-28%)

11,766

(-52%)

Scope 1 & 2 emissions include

•    Stationary combustion (for example. gas combustion for heating & diesel used in generators)

•    Transport emissions (for example fleet vehicle fuel, flights, use of public transport, taxis & rental cars)

•    Waste (for example waste to landfill from Council facilities & Claris landfill)

•    Fugitive Emissions (for example refrigerants)

•    Land use change (for example livestock emissions and fertiliser)

•    Electricity

Rationale

20.     The change recognises that pest plant control at a site requires long-term management due to the ability of seeds to disperse, persistence of seeds in the soil, rapid re-growth and re-seeding for some species and the ability of other species to re-sprout from very small plant fragments. Also recognises that controlling one pest plant species can lead to invasion of another pest plant and some pest plants require repeat control treatments.

21.     Uptake in targets reflects current and potential new number of Aucklanders expected to be engaged in low carbon lifestyle. It is currently in draft as it requires confirmation of investment in climate action proposed by council.

22.     Some targets reworded to clarify performance in outer years.

23.     The Greenhouse gas emissions measure has been added to begin to track our performance against Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri (Auckland’s Climate Plan).


 

Regional community services

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We manage Auckland's natural environment and help Aucklanders adopt a low carbon lifestyle

The number of New Zealand native plants grown for revegetation programmes in the Botanic Gardens

The number of New Zealand native plants grown in the Botanic Gardens for revegetation programmes

69,532

60,000

60,000

60,000

60,000

60,000 per year

The number of volunteer hours worked in regional parks each year

51,715

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

80,000

We provide library services and programmes that support Aucklanders with reading and literacy and opportunities to participate in community and civic life

The number of library items checked out (including e-items)

13.5M

14.0M

Maintain or improve

16.4M

Maintain or improve

18.2M

Maintain or improve

18.4M

Maintain or improve

18.4M per year

The number of website sessions for the Auckland Libraries website and library catalogue

5.03M

8.0M

Maintain or improve

5.8M

Maintain or improve

5.9M

Maintain or improve

5.9M

Maintain or improve

5.9M

We updated our methodology for recording website sessions in FY2019/20 to correct for the incorrect cross-domain sessions inflating our previous results. The 2019/20 result of 5.03M reflects the website sessions for corrected sessions, but the target of 8.0M for 2020/21 was back in 2017/18. 

The number of active library members (members who have used their membership account at least once in the past 12 months)

403K

380K

Maintain or improve

395K

Maintain or improve

410K

Maintain or improve

425K

Maintain or improve

425K per year

We provide safe and accessible parks, reserves, beaches, recreation programmes, opportunities and facilitates to get Aucklanders more active, more often

The percentage of residents participating in sport and recreation at least once per week

72%

72%

72%

72%

72%

72%

The percentage of the public who have used a regional park in the last 12 months

66%

76%

70%

76%

72%

76%

74%

76%

76%

The percentage of park visitors satisfied with the overall quality of their visit

95%

96%

96% 

96%

96%

96% 

We provide rental services to older tenants and maintain the older persons property portfolio

Percentage of tenants satisfied with the provision and management of “housing for older people"

91%

78%

78%

78%

79%

79%

We showcase Auckland's Māori identity and vibrant Māori culture

The percentage of regional programmes, grants and activities that respond to Māori aspirations

48.5%

17.2%

Maintain or improve

20%

Maintain or improve

22%

Maintain or improve

24%

Maintain or improve

26%

Rationale

24.     Total library items checked out (including e-items) have significantly increased in FY21 due to the implementation of autorenewals, which allows customers to keep items longer if there are no requests, as well as growth in e-issues.

25.     Measure wording updated and an amendment to how website sessions are defined and calculated.

26.     Active members have been updated using pre-Covid trends and averages for FY22 onwards. Additions to Libraries initiatives is expected to drive an increase in the future.

27.     Targets updated with latest data from business managers based on proposed resourcing

28.     Minor update to measure description

Regional Governance

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We contribute to resilient, sustainable, and thriving marae facilities and infrastructure that support marae as hubs for their communities

The number of mana whenua and mataawaka marae that received support

N/A

New measure

Set baseline

22 

Maintain or improve

22

Maintain or improve

22

Maintain or improve

22

We provide opportunities for Aucklanders to contribute to community and civic life

The percentage of Aucklanders who feel Council provides opportunities for them to have a say in shaping Auckland

41%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

The percentage of Māori residents who believe that they have adequate opportunities to have their say in decision making

34%

50%

50%

50%

50%

50%

The number of compliance notices issued by the Privacy Commissioner

N/A

New measure

0

0

0

The percentage of LGOIMA and Privacy Act decisions made and communicated within statutory timeframes

86%

95%

 95%

 95%

95% 

 95%

We support the Māori led housing and papakāinga development through planning & development processes

The Number of Māori organisations and trusts projects that have been supported to achieve Māori housing and papakāinga development

The number of Māori organisations and trusts supported to progress Māori housing and papakāinga development

18

18

20 

22

24

26

 

Rationale

29.     Updated targets to reflect available grants and budgets

30.     Minor update to measure description

 


 

Regional Planning

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We meet all planning legislative requirements

The percentage of Auckland Unitary plan changes and notices of requirement processed within statutory timeframes

N/A

New measure

100%

100%

100%

100%

Percentage of elected members satisfied with local spatial plans

N/A

New measure

73%

73%

73%

73%

The percentage of adopted core strategies, policies and plans incorporating Maori outcomes or developed with Maori participation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

We provide a coordinated council response to major development and infrastructure programmes, including major housing developments

The percentage of Development Programme Office programmes that identify and engage with key stakeholders,  including Mana Whenua and Maori organisations

100%

95%

 95%

95% 

 95%

95% 

The percentage of City Centre Targeted Rate programme delivered on time and within budget

83%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

Rationale

31.     Wording change to amend sentence structure

 

Waste Services

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We manage the collection and processing of household waste and help Aucklanders minimise waste

Percentage of council controlled closed landfill discharge consents achieving category one or two compliance rating

100%

98%

98%

98%

98%

98%

Percentage of customers satisfied with overall waste collection services

N/A

New measure

75%

75%

75%

75%

We help Aucklanders minimise waste to landfills

The total waste to landfill per year (kg per capita)

930kg

877kg

877kg

793kg

751kg

582kg

The volume quantity of domestic kerbside refuse per capita per annum

138kg

144kg

144kg

144kg

110kg

88kg

The total number of Resource Recovery Facilities

8

8

9

10

12

23

A Resource Recovery Facility is a facility in the community where the public can drop off reusable and recyclable items. Resource Recovery Facilities can vary greatly - from simple drop off stations in small rural areas through to large eco-industrial parks. The long-term target of 23 facilities is a proposed number of sites.

Rationale

32.    Wording change to amend sentence structure

Regulatory services

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We make it easy for customers to apply for consents and we process these in a timely and professional way

The percentage of building consent applications processed within 20 statutory working days

82.1%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

The percentage of customers satisfied with the overall quality of building consent service delivery

62.1%

65%

65%

65%

67%

67%

The percentage of non-notified resource consent applications processed within 20 statutory days

71.2%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

The percentage of customers satisfied with overall quality of resource consents service delivery

54.5%

65%

55%

60%

65%

65%

The time it takes to process consents is measured according to MBIE and IANZ guidelines as to the correct application of the Building Act 2004 and the Resource Management Act 1991 about when timing starts and stops.

The percentage of notified resource consent applications processed within statutory time frame

78%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

The statutory timeframe differs depending on the nature of the notified resource consent. The applicable statutory timeframes relating to this measure are included in Part 6 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

We help reduce harm from noise and other nuisances

Percentage of noise calls for service attended within 45 30 minutes for urban areas or 75 45 minutes for remote areas

New measure

N/A

Urban:
95% 80%
Remote:
100% 80%

Urban:
95% 80%
Remote:
100% 80%

Urban:
95% 80%
Remote:
100% 80%

Urban:
95% 80%
Remote:
100% 80%

The percentage of non-compliance with Excessive Noise Direction within 72hours

New measure

N/A

20%

20%

20%

20%

We register dogs and respond efficiently when animals cause harm or nuisances

The percentage of cases of non-compliance for menacing dogs that reach compliance within 3 months

76%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

We regulate the safe operation of premises selling food and/or alcohol

The percentage of food premises that receive a D or E grade that are revisited within 20 or 10 working days

New measure

N/A

95%

95%

95%

95%

20 working days for premises that receive a D grade, and 10 working days for premises that receive a E grade

The percentage of high-risk alcohol premises that are visited annually. 

New measure

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

Percentage of licensees satisfied with the food and alcohol licensing service

New measure

N/A

85%

85%

85%

85%

 

Rationale

33.     Updated to reflect changes in management of contracts that deliver this level of service.


 

Council controlled services

Development Auckland

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We make the waterfront and town centres dynamic, culturally-rich, safe and sustainable laces for Aucklanders and visitors to enjoy

Net new dwellings (housing units)

N/A

New measure

Progress 3-year target 

Progress 3-year target 

 909

3,995 

Number of housing units includes an apartment, duplex unit, a town-house or a residential dwelling. These relate to town centre intensification a key element of the council’s development strategy.

Commercial / Retail gross floor area (GFA) or net lettable area (square meter)

N/A

New measure

Progress 3-year target 

Progress 3-year target 

 30,000

220,600 

Capital project milestones approved by the board achieved

N/A

New measure

 80%

80%

80% 

80% 

The milestones originate from the programme business cases or planning documents and reviewed by the programme directors. A list of project milestones is compiled for Panuku Board approval. It is reset each year to consider any deferrals agreed with council as part of the Annual Plan process.

We manage and maintain council's properties, assets, and services to optimise financial returns

Annual property portfolio net operating budget result agreed with the council achieved

N/A

New measure

$22.8m

$17.7m

$16.2m

$118m

The monthly average occupancy rate for tenantable properties

96.9%

≥ 95%

 Commercial 85%

Residential 95%

 Commercial 85%

Residential 95%

 Commercial 85%

Residential 95%

Commercial 85%

Residential 95% 

In the first 3 years of the LTP, there may be impacts of Covid-19 on ability of tenants to pay rent. Panuku will accommodate for Covid-19 hardship arrangements in its annual budget result.
The occupancy of properties or rental objects, are those that are ‘available for rent’ and are tenantable

 

Regional Facilities

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

Auckland Unlimited deliver arts, wildlife, collections, sports, and events that provide experiences that are engaging and embraced by Aucklanders

The number of people who experience Auckland Unlimited's arts, environment and sports venues and events

2.79M

3.9M 

3.9M

4.0M

4.0M

4.0M per year

The net promoter score for Auckland Unlimited’s audiences and participants

45

 20

20

20

20

20

Net promoter score is an index ranging from -100 to 100 that measures the willingness of customers to recommend a product or service to others.

The percentage of operating expenses funded through non-rates revenues

52%

 65%

65%

tbc

65%

tbc

65%

tbc

65%

tbc

The number of programmes contributing to the visibility and presence of Māori in Auckland, Tāmaki Makaurau

44

 18

20

20

20

20 per year

Rationale

34.     Projected operating funding split is currently being reviewed by Auckland Unlimited.

 

Economic Growth and Visitor Economy

Actual

Target

Indicative Long-term Plan targets

Performance measure

2019/20

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25-30/31

We support the sustainable growth of the Auckland visitor economy through destination management and marketing, major events, business events and international education attraction and support programmes

The contribution to regional GDP from major events and business events attracted or supported

$33.7M

$66.5M

Progress 10-year target 

Progress 10-year target 

Progress 10-year target 

 Increasing to $70M

The number of visitor nights generated as a result of an Auckland Unlimited intervention

244,259

435,000

Progress 10-year target 

Progress 10-year target 

Progress 10-year target 

442,500 by 2031

We manage and maintain council's properties, assets, and services to optimise financial returns

We deliver information, advice, programmes and initiatives to support the creation of high value jobs for all Aucklanders

Number of businesses that have been through an Auckland Unlimited programme or benefited from an Auckland Unlimited intervention

4,315

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000

3,000 per year

Number of Māori businesses that have been through an Auckland Unlimited programme or benefitted from an Auckland Unlimited intervention     

333

120

150 

150

150

150 per year

Intervention is a programme or service delivered by Auckland Unlimited. The targets reflect Auckland Unlimited’s emerging strategy which is likely to result in the delivery of fewer larger interventions.

Rationale

35.     Level of Service statement updated to better reflect services.

 


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate

File No.: CP2021/06042

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To consider the recommendation from the Upper Harbour Local Board to not include the Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate as part of the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 to fund a new bus service from Paremoremo to Albany.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Upper Harbour Local Board considered the consultation feedback on the proposal to include a local targeted rate to fund a bus service between Paremoremo to Albany as part of the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 at its business meeting of Thursday, 6 May 2021. The original report to the local board meeting of 6 May 2021 can be found under Attachment A.

3.       The local board resolved as follows:

Resolution number UHCF/2021/10

MOVED by Chairperson L Whyte, seconded by Deputy Chairperson M Miles: 

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)   agree to recommend that the Finance and Performance Committee recommend to the Governing Body that they:

i)          agree not to include the Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate as part of the Recovery Budget 2021-2031 to fund a new bus service from Paremoremo to Albany on the basis that out of a total of 461 submissions from those affected by the proposal, 248 submissions (a majority at 54 per cent) did not support either option, 105 submissions (or 23 per cent) supported option 2, 55 submissions (or 12 per cent) supported option 1, and 53 submissions (or 11 per cent) selected ‘don’t know’.

b)   note the consultation feedback received included a number of submissions that did not oppose the provision of a bus service, however they did not feel the proposals were sufficiently developed to allow them to support it.

c)   request Auckland Transport and Auckland Council staff undertake informal engagement with the community regarding catchment, route, schedule and bus stop locations, and report back no later than October 2021 on options for a targeted rate to fund a bus service between Paremoremo and Albany.

d)   delegate authority to Deputy Chairperson M Miles and Member A Atkinson (Topic Area Lead for Transport) to work with staff to develop and agree materials for engagement with the community and provide direction as necessary.

CARRIED

4.       The Finance and Performance Committee is requested to consider the recommendation from the Upper Harbour Local Board and decide whether to recommend to the Governing Body not to include the Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate in the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

5.       These decisions are required to enable the preparation of the final Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 for adoption by the Governing Body in June 2021. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body that they:

i)        agree not to include the Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate as part of the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 to fund a new bus service from Paremoremo to Albany.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board 6 May 2021 Report: Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate

377

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

Changes to the Urban Rating Area and Rating of Farm and Lifestyle Properties within the Urban Rating Area

File No.: CP2021/06272

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To recommend changes to the Urban Rating Area and the rating of farm and lifestyle properties in the Urban Rating Area for inclusion in the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (10-year Budget).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Residential and business properties outside the Urban Rating Area (URA) pay 90 per cent of the respective urban rates. Farm-lifestyle properties pay 80 per cent of the urban residential rate, regardless of where they are located.

3.       The current URA was set based on old planning rules that existed prior to the Auckland Unitary Plan, principally the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). As the city developed and the MUL expanded, the URA was adjusted accordingly. With the adoption of the Unitary Plan, the basis for the URA needs to be updated. Urban development is occurring outside of the current URA. Developing areas and towns near the current URA have similar levels of access to services as nearby properties inside the URA. Similarly, farm-lifestyle properties within the URA receive the same level of service as their urban-rated neighbours.

4.       As part of the 10-year Budget, the council consulted on two proposals to improve fairness in the treatment of similar ratepayers. These were to:

·    extend the URA to include all land within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB), excluding Warkworth and land zoned Future Urban, but including consented urban developments within the Future Urban zone at Ockleston Landing (Hobsonville) and Halls Farm (Upper Orewa)

·    rate farm-lifestyle properties within the URA as urban residential.

5.       The extension of the URA will raise the total rates for the 7,500 affected properties by an average of 10 per cent ($230 for residential properties, and $1,370 for business properties). The impact of the proposal on the 630 affected farm-lifestyle properties will be an average increase in total rates of 24 per cent, or $1,400. These rates increases are in addition to the proposed 5 per cent average general rates increase.

Public Feedback

6.       Feedback received on these proposals was presented at the Finance and Performance Committee workshop on 21 April 2020. Overall, public feedback supported these proposals:

·    57 per cent of 12,306 submitters support the extension of the Urban Rating Area

·    53 per cent of 11,903 submitters support urban rates for farm-lifestyle properties in the URA.

7.       Of the 12,306 submitters on the URA proposal, 1,049 provided a written comment.  For the farm-lifestyle proposal, 387 of the 11,903 submitters provided a written comment. A key theme from the written comments was opposition to the proposal because service levels were seen as too low to justify urban rates.


 

 

8.       Submitters opposed to the proposal identified a range of services that they felt were lacking. This included general rates funded services (footpaths, roading, public transport, stormwater and distance to council facilities such as pools), non-general rates funded services (water and wastewater) and non-council services such as a high school for Kumeū/Huapai.

Consideration

9.       There is no single measure or trigger that can be used to identify areas as having an urban level of service. The council’s planning designations are the best mechanism for identifying urban land. These designations have been developed through extensive consultation with the community. They will also form key drivers for decisions on council’s future investment in services. Using planning designations means that the Urban Rating Area will automatically expand as the city grows, as it did previously when the MUL was expanded.

Service levels within the proposed URA extension areas

10.     Areas developing now are being built to current urban standards for roads, stormwater, water and wastewater, and local parks. Areas that developed in the past may have lower levels for these services, but this is the same for other older parts of the current Urban Rating Area. Greenfield areas may lack these services entirely but are no different from greenfield areas currently within the URA. Land values and therefore rates, reflect the availability of these services.

11.     The timing of delivery for services such as public transport and community facilities to growth areas depends on demand triggers and council’s funding priorities. While the availability of these services does not match inner suburbs, areas affected by the proposal have similar access to facilities as nearby suburbs. Greenfield areas benefit from facilities in adjacent suburbs. Lower property values for undeveloped land ensures they are rated equitably with developed areas.          

12.     As part of consultation, the council also asked if the areas of Kumeū/Huapai and Riverhead should be excluded from the URA. This was because these areas have somewhat lower services than other areas proposed for inclusion. The level of service they receive is directly comparable to other areas within the URA, such as Titirangi.

Farm-lifestyle in the URA

13.     Protecting Auckland’s prime productive lands was a key consideration in the development of the Unitary Plan. Such land is outside the Rural Urban Boundary and not affected by these proposals. Farm-lifestyle properties within the Urban Rating Area are predominately lifestyle properties, located in urban residential areas. They benefit from the same services as their urban-rated neighbours and should pay rates on the same basis. While less developed land will make less use of council services, the cost of making these services available is the same as most of the costs are fixed.

Conclusions

14.     The current Urban Rating Area was based on previous planning designations and covers areas with a range of service levels. Fringe areas have lower levels of general rates funded services than more central areas. Land values in these areas reflect both the lower level of services, and distance from more developed areas. As such, rates paid by properties will be lower than similar properties in more highly serviced locations, even if urban rates are applied.

15.     The areas proposed for inclusion into the Urban Rating Area have comparable access to services as other urban rated fringe suburbs such as Titirangi and Waiheke, or greenfield development areas like Flat Bush.


 

 

16.     Retaining the current Urban Rating Area will mean increasing inequity in rating between new and existing urban areas. The proposed changes to the Urban Rating Area and the rating of farm-lifestyle properties will provide greater consistency in the rating treatment of properties. The impact of the proposals will be significant for some properties, particularly farm-lifestyle properties. This impact can be mitigated by transitioning the change over three years. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body that it align the Urban Rating Area with the Rural Urban Boundary in the Unitary Plan and charge urban rates for all land within the Rural Urban Boundary except land located in Warkworth and land zoned Future Urban but including the Future Urban zoned Ockleston Landing and Halls Farm consented developments.

b)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body that it charge farm and lifestyle properties located in the Urban Rating Area urban residential rates.

c)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body that it transition the rates change over three years for clauses a) and b) above.

 

Horopaki

Context

Decision making

17.     Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the key requirements the council must comply with when making decisions. In particular, the council must:

·        identify all reasonably practicable options to achieve the objective of the decision

·        assess those options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages

·        give due consideration, with an open mind, to the views and preferences of people likely to be affected by, or have an interest, in the decision.

18.     The consultation process provides an opportunity for those interested in, or affected by, decisions to have their voices heard by their elected representatives prior to decisions being made.  Feedback received during consultation is one key part that needs to be considered when making final decisions. Comments provided as part of the feedback should be considered in order to understand the context and the meaning behind the numbers and percentages presented. 

19.     The council must weigh up the information provided on the advantages and disadvantages of each option, consider the feedback received from local boards and the public, and then arrive at what it determines to be the best decision.

20.     When making decisions the council is limited by the scope of the original consultation. Decisions can only be made within the bounds of the options considered in the proposal put forward for consultation. If the council wishes to make a decision outside the scope of the original consultation, then further consultation is required.


 

 

General rates charges and the Urban Rating Area

21.     Under the council’s rating policy, some groups of ratepayers (such as businesses) are charged a higher general rate than others (such as rural properties). When developing its rating policy as part of the Long-term Plan 2012-2022, the council considered factors including differences in the level of services received or used, and the different ability of groups of ratepayers to pay.  Following consultation, the council agreed to apply a lower rates differential to properties that are defined as rural or farm/lifestyle. This was to reflect the lower availability of council services in the rural parts of Auckland. 

Urban Rating Area

22.     The rating policy adopted in 2012 used the planning rules in place at the time to determine whether properties were urban or rural. All residential and business properties inside the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) or Pukekohe township were urban-rated, while those outside these boundaries were rural-rated. Any new growth areas required an extension to the Metropolitan Urban Limit, so were automatically incorporated into the Urban Rating Area.

23.     In 2016 the Auckland Unitary Plan become operative and the Metropolitan Urban Limit was superseded by the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB). The RUB identifies the limit of future urban development in Auckland over the next thirty years. Within the boundary, land is identified as either:

·    land with an operative urban zoning that is able to be developed now for urban use

·    Future Urban Zoned land that cannot be developed until it is rezoned for urban use or receives a resource consent.

24.     Since the Unitary Plan became operative, urban development has been occurring outside the boundaries of the Metropolitan Urban Limit. At present, this development is not automatically included in the Urban Rating Area. As part of the Annual Budget 2019/2020, the council agreed to extend the boundary of the URA to include developments that had occurred immediately adjacent to the Metropolitan Urban Limit.

Farm/lifestyle rating differential

25.     The application of the farm-lifestyle differential does not depend on its location or planning rules. All properties with a land use of Lifestyle or Rural Industry (dairy, forestry, market gardens or livestock farming) are rated as farm-lifestyle regardless of where they are located.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

26.     The following sections sets out:

·        the proposals that were consulted on

·        a summary of feedback received

·        consideration of feedback and additional information to support decision making

·        options for responding to feedback

·        a brief summary of local board feedback (local board feedback is set out in full in a separate report also on this agenda)

·        recommendations.

27.     These sections focus primarily on the feedback received and any new information that has come to light since consultation and staff responses to issues raised by Aucklanders in their feedback. More detailed analysis of each issue was included in the Supporting Information for consultation. These documents are Attachments B and C to this report.

Proposals

28.     As part of the 10-Year Budget 2021-2031, council consulted on proposals to expand the URA and rate farm-lifestyle use properties within the URA as urban residential.

Urban Rating Area Extension

29.     Under this proposal, the URA will be extended to include all land within the RUB with an operative urban zoning or which has a consent for urban development. It excludes all land zoned Future Urban (apart from currently consented developments) and Warkworth. An option to exclude Kumeū/Huapai and Riverhead was included.

30.     This proposal will result in 7,500 properties (or 4,150 if Kumeū/Huapai and Riverhead are excluded) changing from being rated Rural Residential to Urban Residential or Rural Business to Urban Business. Moving properties from the rural to the urban rates differential will increase their value-based general rates by 11 per cent, equal to around 10 per cent of total rates. The impact of the proposal is an average change in rates of $230 for residential properties and $1,370 for business properties.

31.     Alongside this change, 140 properties currently in the URA will move from urban-rated to rural-rated. This is because they are now outside the RUB or are zoned Future Urban. The value-based general rate for these properties will fall by 10 per cent or an average of $500.

32.     The above rates impacts are in addition to the proposed average general rates increases that apply across all ratepayers. Detailed analysis of rates impacts by area can be found in the consultation supporting information document in Attachments B and C to this report.

Farm-Lifestyle in the Urban Rating Area

33.     Under this proposal, all properties with a farm-lifestyle use located within the URA will be rated as urban residential. This proposal affects 500 properties within the current URA and 130 additional properties in the extended URA. This proposal will increase the value-based general rate for these properties by 25 per cent. This is an average of $2,700 for 90 farm properties, and $1,200 for 540 lifestyle properties.

Feedback

34.     Overall, there was strong support for the proposals, with more than half of the submitters who responded on these issues supporting both proposals.

Feedback on the Urban Rating Area proposal

35.     Overall, 57 per cent of the 12,306 submitters on the URA proposal were in support.  Of the 1,049 submitters who provided a written comment on the proposal:

·    135 supported the proposal. Of these 25 generally supported the proposal and 23 only supported the proposal for areas that had levels of service similar to other urban areas

·    843 did not support it. The main reason for not supporting the proposal was that service levels were seen as too low to justify charging urban rates (746 comments).

36.     613 submitters wrote comments that related to areas directly affected by the proposal. Of these submitters 93% did not support the proposal.  The main reason given for not supporting the proposal was that service levels were seen as too low to justify urban rates. Of this feedback: 

·    460 mentioned roads (mostly in relation to not being able to handle increased traffic volumes from development)

·    439 mentioned transport, bus, or train services

·    340 mentioned water or wastewater services

·    199 mentioned stormwater, drains or drainage

·    170 mentioned pools

·    101 mentioned footpaths.

 

37.     The Kumeu Huapai Residents and Ratepayers Association, the Whenuapai Ratepayers and Residents Association and the Herald Island Ratepayers and Residents Association all opposed the proposal. This was on the basis that they considered their respective areas did not receive levels of service similar to urban areas and should remain rural-rated.

Feedback on the rating of farm-lifestyle in the URA proposal

38.     Feedback on the rating of farm-lifestyle properties was similar to that received in the Urban Rating Area. Overall, 53 per cent of the 11,903 submitters on the farm-lifestyle proposal were in support. Of these, 387 submitters provided a written comment on the proposal, with

·    44 submitters supporting the proposal, with the main reason given being general support

·    287 submitters opposing the proposal, with the main reason being that service levels were seen as too low to justify charging urban residential or urban business rates (173 comments).

39.     Other key issues raised by submitters included:

·    productive farmland should be charged lower rates (20 comments)

·    inability to subdivide or develop land, either due to lack of infrastructure in areas (primarily Hingaia) proposed to be included in the URA, or due to Large Lot zoning for farm-lifestyle properties (14 comments) 

Local Board, Mana Whenua and Regional Stakeholder feedback

40.     Seven local boards resolved feedback on the URA proposal. Of these, five supported the proposal (Franklin, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura, Waitematā), and two did not (Rodney and Upper Harbour). Four boards resolved feedback on the rating of farm-lifestyle properties, with Ōrākei supporting the proposal and Howick, Franklin and Upper Harbour opposed.

41.     Feedback on the proposals was received from seven mana whenua iwi, all of whom supported the proposals. Four regional stakeholders commented on the proposals, two supporting both proposals, while the other two responded “other” and “don’t know”.  

Consideration of Feedback and Additional Information

Defining Urban Service Levels

42.     The council and its CCOs have a range of documents that provide various standards for council services in the context of urban and rural areas. These include the Community Facilities Network Plan and the Park and Open Space Acquisition Policy, and the Auckland Design manual’s Code of Practice for new infrastructure such as roads and stormwater.

43.     These documents do not provide an overarching level of service that qualifies as “urban”. The first two documents are used to identify priorities for future investment, while the codes of practice set standards for new development only. This means that new suburbs may be provided a higher level of service for some council assets, for example park provision, stormwater, footpaths and roads than older suburbs that developed when standards were lower or non-existent.

44.     There is a wide variation of service levels across the current Urban Rating Area. Properties close to the city centre have higher access to regional facilities, are generally well served by local community facilities and have much greater public transport services than properties on the fringe of the Urban Rating Area. In comparison, properties at Long Bay, Flat Bush, Titirangi and on Waiheke have fewer services available and further to travel to access facilities. Similarly, properties in rural areas may have higher or lower access to services depending on whether they are in a town, or close to urban areas.


 

 

45.     The URA does not identify areas with a specific level of service. Instead, it uses (now outdated) planning designations to identify areas that broadly receive higher levels of service than is the average for areas outside the URA. Areas with higher levels of service will generally attract higher land values than those with lower service levels. As general rates are set on property values, they will reflect differences in service levels. The following table compares rates for a property in Ponsonby with similar properties in outer urban suburbs. It also shows the rates that would be paid for by a similar property in Riverhead if it was charged urban rates. 

 

Inside Urban Rating Area

Rural Rating Area if Charged Urban Rates

 

Cowan Street Ponsonby

Coachman Drive Flat Bush

Konini Road Titirangi

Laingholm Drive Laingholm

Pitoitoi Drive Riverhead

Land Area

397 sqm

401 sqm

439 sqm

820sqm

400 sqm

Improvement Value

$350k

$350k

$380k

$360k

$360k

Land Value

$1.6m

$700k

$500k

$310k

$520k

General Rates:

$4,250

$2,490

$2,159

$1,750

$2,160

Urban residential

46.     In determining whether the URA should be extended, the key question is not whether areas have a specific level of service, but how are they being rated in comparison to other areas with similar levels of service. The areas proposed for inclusion in the URA receive comparable service access as other urban-rated fringe suburbs, for example:

·    Kumeū, Huapai and Riverhead have similar service levels to Titirangi

·    Herald Island, Whenuapai Village and Dairy Flat have similar levels of service to parts of Waiheke and Laingholm, but are much closer to other urban centres than these areas

·    Hingaia, Karaka and Red Hills are similar to greenfield development areas in Takanini, Massey West and Flat Bush that are already rated as urban

47.     An analysis of service levels for the suburbs above can be found in Attachment A to this report. This analysis also provides updated catchment maps for council community facilities.

Service Levels: Roads, Footpaths and Stormwater

48.     Roads, footpaths and stormwater are built to current urban standards in new developments. Land in greenfield areas will have low levels of these services, this will be reflected in their property values.

49.     Areas such as Herald Island, or the older parts of Kumeū, Huapai and Riverhead developed under earlier planning rules with lower standards for this infrastructure. This may include narrow roads, footpaths only on one side of the road and open drainage ditches. This infrastructure may be upgraded as more intensive development occurs, though issues such as street width are unlikely to change.

50.     Parts of the existing URA developed at the same time as the above areas have similar infrastructure. Narrow streets, missing footpaths and drainage ditches are common in Titirangi, Waiheke and parts of Whangaparāoa. Narrow streets are also common in the older inner-city suburbs. 


 

 

51.     There are very few unsealed roads in either the current or proposed URA.  The majority of unsealed roads within the URA are on Waiheke. Only two unsealed roads have been identified in the proposed change areas, both of which are in developing greenfield areas. One of these is a short stretch of road serving a single property, while the other is half in the current URA and half in the proposed extension to the URA.

Service Levels: Community Facilities

52.     Council’s community facilities include libraries, community centres, halls, art facilities, and recreational facilities like pools and leisure centres. The distribution of these facilities varies, and not all parts of the current Urban Area are served by all types of facilities. The areas proposed for inclusion have similar levels of access to community facilities as nearby urban areas. Updated catchment maps for the council’s Community Facilities Network Plan are included in Attachment A to this report.  

53.     Greenfield areas sit within catchments for facilities in adjacent suburbs and these facilities are part of what makes these areas attractive for development.  While greenfield land makes less use of these services, the costs of making these services available are the same as for more developed land as the costs are largely fixed. Charging urban rates to greenfield areas recognises their benefits from access to these services. Lower property values for undeveloped land maintains equity with developed areas.

Service Levels: Water and Wastewater

54.     Urban development requires connection to the water and wastewater networks. As such there is a relationship between these services, and areas defined as urban. This does not mean that availability of these services is a good basis for setting the URA.

55.     For example, there are around 7,500 properties in the current URA that have an onsite wastewater management system (septic tank). Of these properties, 93 per cent currently pay urban rates. The wastewater network in some inner-city suburbs like Ponsonby is combined with stormwater and does not meet today’s standards for new developments, which constrains the ability of many of these properties to develop.

56.     Conversely, a number of rural towns have water and wastewater networks, for example Waiuku, Helensville, Parakai, Warkworth and Snells Beach. Others, like Maraetai and Beachlands, have wastewater networks but are on tank water.

57.     Of the 8,160 properties proposed to be to be urban-rated, around 1,230 have an onsite wastewater management system (e.g. a septic tank). These properties are largely located in greenfield areas. Some can connect to water networks now, while others will be able to once the land is developed. In the meantime, their property values will reflect the lack of services, and they will pay lower rates than serviced properties.

58.     There are some significant barriers to using water or wastewater services as a basis for setting the general rates:

·    general rates do not fund the water or wastewater network. These services are maintained by Watercare, through water charges to properties connected to the network. 

·    council does not currently hold data on water/wastewater connections in its rating database

·    setting a rate based on connection discourages properties from connecting to the networks as they become available.

59.     Further analysis on water and wastewater services in the URA can be found in Attachment A to this report.


 

 

Large Lot zone

60.     Of the 640 farm-lifestyle properties proposed to be urban rated, 410 are zoned Residential Large-Lot. This zone identifies land on the urban periphery where intensive development is restricted, either to protect the landscape, or where ability to develop is limited by lack of reticulated services, or by the nature of the terrain. It has a minimum lot size (property area) of 4000 square metres.

61.     There are 5,460 properties zoned Residential Large Lot in the Urban Rating Area, of which 92 per cent are already charged urban rates.  While the Large Lot zone tends to have lower service levels than other residential zones, this is reflected in the land values for the properties. 

62.     There are thousands of lifestyle properties that are in areas adjacent to the urban boundary, which under the Unitary Plan are zoned Rural and are outside the RUB. Under the unitary plan, the Large Lot zone is an urban residential zone, and not a rural zone. These properties generally have a higher level of service than rural zoned land.

63.     Additional analysis on Large Lot zone can be found in Attachment A to the report.

Productive Farmland

64.     Under the proposal, 90 properties with a rural industry (farming) use will be rated urban residential. Half these properties are now vacant or owned by development companies.  

65.     A key driver for the Unitary Plan was to protect Auckland’s prime productive land through rural zoning. The rural industry properties captured by the proposal are all located in area zoned for urban development. Many landowners requested urban zoning, while other properties are within already developed areas. Further analysis of rural industry use properties is available in Attachment A to this report.

Charging Urban Rates to Greenfield Land Zoned for Urban Development

66.     The funding and delivery of the network infrastructure required to enable urban development of greenfield land is a highly complex process, involving landowners, council, its CCOs and government entities such as Waka Kotahi. Broadly, council and its CCOs are responsible for delivering the bulk infrastructure (arterial roads and the main trunk lines for water, wastewater and stormwater) that serves subregional areas. Developers are required to provide all the local infrastructure within their developments, as well as networks required to connect their development to the bulk infrastructure networks.

67.     In some areas, local network infrastructure will be required to cross multiple landholdings. For some large-scale developments, this will not be an issue. Major developers may be able to deliver the local network infrastructure independently, which in turn can enable other landowners to piggyback off the new network. Smaller developments may not be financially viable unless all benefiting landowners contribute to the network. In these cases, council and its CCOs will work with landholders to establish infrastructure financing agreements to fund the required works.  If landowners are unable to reach agreement, then some owners may find themselves in the position of not being able to develop until these issues are resolved. Other owners may still be able to proceed by creating temporary onsite infrastructure (such as stormwater ponds) that will be removed once the network infrastructure becomes available.

68.     Difficulties in funding local network infrastructure is not restricted to greenfield areas. Fragmented land ownership is often a greater issue for urban brownfield developments needing local network upgrades. For example, some properties in combined sewer catchments like Ponsonby are unable to be developed because they can’t feasibly connect to a separated stormwater system


 

 

69.     The council undertakes a significant amount of work to enable development. For greenfield land this can include structure planning, Unitary Plan changes, the establishment of local infrastructure agreements between multiple landowners, and the establishment of mechanisms to finance and fund local and bulk infrastructure. The owners of urban-zoned greenfield land are the direct beneficiaries of this largely rates funded investment. Land rezoned for urban development increases in value. Owners who choose not to develop still benefit from higher property values when they sell. While an increase in land value means an increase in rates, the value of undeveloped greenfield land is a fraction of developed land. Staff consider that it is equitable to charge this land urban rates to reflect the council’s general rates funded investment that enables their land to be developed. This approach is consistent with the rating treatment of brownfields land zoned for development and applies to greenfield land that can be developed within the current urban rating area.

Infrastructure Constraints on Greenfield Development at Hingaia

70.     Some submitters opposed the extension of the URA at Hingaia, as they are currently unable to develop their land due to a lack of water and wastewater infrastructure.

71.     Watercare, Auckland Transport and council’s own infrastructure teams have confirmed there are no constraints on development in the Hingaia area due to the availability or capacity of bulk infrastructure. The pace of development in Hingaia is instead impacted by a lack of agreement between developers on the provision of local infrastructure. In particular, work on the Hayfield Road Special Housing Area (SHA) has been delayed due to some developers pulling out of an agreement for delivery of the water main.

72.     The Hingaia greenfield area is already partly within the Urban Rating Area. Some landowners whose developments are delayed by a lack of agreement on local infrastructure are already paying urban rates.  Conversely, some developments in the area outside the URA are proceeding, including two nearing completion.  See the “Greenfield” section in Attachment A to this report for maps and additional information on development in the Hingaia area.

73.     Staff consider that the definition of the URA must be able to be applied broadly. Ratepayers need to be able to easily identify whether their properties are located in the urban or the rural rating area.   The URA is not an appropriate mechanism to address issues of infrastructure availability that affect individual properties differently and where the causes of delays are complex and beyond the control of council. It is reasonable to apply urban rates to the whole of Hingaia Peninsula for the reasons identified above. Land not currently able to develop will continued to be valued as undeveloped greenfield land and will pay significantly lower rates than properties that do develop.

74.     If council wishes to provide support with the payment of rates charged to developers which are currently unable to connect to bulk infrastructure, then this would be best done through a rates remission policy. However, staff do not recommend such an approach. Obtaining agreement from large numbers of landowners for the funding and delivery of network infrastructure is a complex process, dealing with many competing interests. When such agreements fail, there are often many conflicting views as to the cause. It is difficult to envisage how a remission scheme would be able to fairly adjudicate which properties should be eligible for a remission, especially when some landowners may be responsible for the delays in resolving local infrastructure issues.   

Options

Status Quo

75.     Currently urban areas outside the URA pay lower rates than similar urban areas within the URA. Farm-lifestyle properties inside the URA pay less than their neighbours but have access to the same level of service in the area. 

76.     If planning designations are not used to define the Urban Rating Area, then the council will need to progressively extend the boundary as development occurs. This will require consulting on changes to the URA every year as development occurs on the city fringe. Failure to do so will create inequities in the rating system as properties either side of the defined boundary line will be rated differently.

Exclusion of Kumeū, Huapai and Riverhead

77.     The council consulted on an option to continue to exclude Kumeū, Huapai and Riverhead from the Urban Rating Area, as these areas have slightly lower access to services than the other areas considered for inclusion and are further from the current Urban Rating Area. 

78.     Officers do not recommend excluding Kumeū, Huapai and Riverhead. These areas have levels of service comparable to other areas already within the URA such as Titirangi. They also have similar travel times to other urban centres.

Exclusion of Herald Island, Whenuapai Village and Dairy Flat

79.     The council received a significant level of feedback from residents in these areas that opposed the inclusion of Herald Island, Whenuapai Village and Dairy Flat in the Urban Rating Area. Residents considered that their current level of service was too low to justify urban rates. In particular, these areas have limited footpaths and open drainage ditches. Properties in Whenuapai Village do not have access to the wastewater network, while Dairy Flat have access to neither water or wastewater networks. (Herald Island is connected to both the water and wastewater networks.) Furthermore, these areas are surrounded by Future Urban zoned land, so are not able to be further developed at this time. The Whenuapai Ratepayers & Residents Association submitted an alternative proposal to limit urban rates to the Whenuapai Settlement area (the currently developing Special Housing Area), see map in Attachment E to this report.

80.     The council can choose to exclude these properties from the new URA if it agrees that the current level of service in these areas and limited development potential warrants continuing to rate these properties as rural. Council is able to do this so long as the properties to be excluded from the URA can be clearly identified. This can be done by adding “excluding land with an operative urban zoning located at Herald Island, Whenuapai Village and Dairy Flat”. A similar logic would also exclude currently rateable future school land at Drury owned by the Catholic Church.

81.     The potential URA Exclusion Maps are in Attachment F to this report. These maps differ from that proposed by Whenuapai Ratepayers & Residents Association in that they do not exclude any Future Urban zoned land. This means that Future Urban zoned land in these areas will be automatically included in the URA as it is rezoned for urban development (as is proposed for the rest of the URA). The council will need to reconsult on including Herald Island, Whenuapai Village and Dairy Flat in the future when it considers that urban development has sufficiently advanced in these areas.

82.     Officers do not recommend excluding Herald Island, Whenuapai Village and Dairy Flat from the URA. These areas have similar service levels and development to urban rated areas in Waiheke or Laingholm. Further details can be found in “Section 1: Comparison of Service Levels by Suburb” in Attachment A to this report. Unlike Waiheke or Laingholm, Herald Island, Whenuapai Village and Dairy Flat are much closer to other urban centres.

Lower rates differential

83.     The council could choose to apply a lower rates differential to Kumeū, Huapai and Riverhead or to areas such as Herald Island, Whenuapai Village and Dairy Flat. A differential of 0.95 would be halfway between the current rural and urban differentials. Such an approach would be appropriate if these areas have levels of service that fall between levels of service available in urban and rural areas.


 

 

84.     Officers do not recommend the application of lower rates differential for any of the areas proposed to be included in the Urban Rating Area. While these areas have service levels lower than central urban areas, they are comparable to other fringe areas already included within the Urban Rating Area. (Further details can be found in “Section 1: Comparison of Service Levels by Suburb” in Attachment A to this report.)      

Transition

85.     Some properties will experience a relatively high degree of change if the proposals proceed. In particular, properties moving from farm-lifestyle rates to urban residential rates will experience an average increase in total rates of 24 per cent, or $1,560, on top of the proposed general rates increase of 5 per cent for 2021/2022.

86.     The council can choose to mitigate the impact of this rates increase by transitioning to the new rates differential over three to five years. A three-year transition would reduce the average impact for farm-lifestyle properties to an average of 8 per cent, with a similar level of change in the second and third years. Staff note that the council’s property revaluations will take effect in 2022/2023, which may result in a higher or lower level of change for some properties.  

87.     The table below compares the average rates impact by sector for year one, for no transition and transition periods of three and five years. The rates impact is in addition to the proposed average general rates increases that apply across all ratepayers.

 

Rate impact in 2020/2021:

Transition:

None

Three year

Five year

Category:

($)

(%)

($)

(%)

($)

(%)

Residential

$219

10%

$73

3.3%

$44

2.0%

Business

$1,380

10%

$460

3.3%

$276

2.0%

Farm

$2,700

24%

$900

8.0%

$540

4.8%

Lifestyle

$1,185

24%

$395

8.0%

$237

4.8%

 

Conclusions

88.     Staff recommend adopting both proposals as consulted on. This is:

a)   Extending the URA to include all land within the Rural Urban Boundary, except land located in Warkworth and land zoned Future Urban but including the Future Urban zoned Ockleston Landing and Halls Farm developments.

b)   charge farm and lifestyle properties located in the URA urban residential rates.

89.     This will align the rating definition of urban with council’s planning rules. It is consistent with the approach used when the rural and urban rating differentials were established. Using the planning definitions means that the URA will automatically expand as land is rezoned for urban use.

90.     Officers also recommend that the changes are transitioned over three years, to align with the 10-Year Budget review cycle. The maximum rates change of 8 per cent under this scenario is lower than the 10 per cent rates increase cap that applied when council transitioned to its amalgamated rating policy.  Applying a transition will help mitigate the impact on ratepayers affected by the proposals.


 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

91.     Recommendations in this report have a neutral climate impact as they relate to the allocation of charges rather than decisions on activities to be undertaken.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

92.     The proposals in this report have been reviewed by the following departments or business units of the Auckland Council group:

a)      Chief Economist Unit

b)      Parks Sports and Recreation

c)      Arts Community and Events

d)      Community Facilities

e)      Plans and Places

f)       Auckland Transport

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

Local impacts and local board views

93.     Local boards considered the proposal at their meetings in May 2021.  Feedback on these proposals were received from seven local boards. 

Urban Rating Area proposal

Farm/lifestyle rating proposal

Support

Do not support

Support

Do not support

Franklin

Manurewa

Ōrākei

Papakura

Waitematā

Rodney

Upper Harbour

 

Ōrākei

 

Howick

Upper Harbour

Franklin

 

94.     The Franklin Local Board noted that availability of services and infrastructure are not necessarily an indicator of accessibility and connection to services such as water, power and internet may still be cost prohibitive.  They further noted that changes to rating approach need to consider shifts in land supply approach and a blanket increase does not recognise the complexities of this process.

95.     The Rodney Local Board did not support the URA proposal as amenity and service levels are inadequate and do not consider they meet an urban standard that would justify any amendment to the urban rating area.

96.     Impacts of the proposals by local board area can be found in Attachment D to this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

97.     The council does not hold information on the ethnicity of ratepayers so is not able to identify the exact impact on the proposed changes on Māori. The impact of the proposed changes on Māori will be similar to that on other residents in Auckland.

98.     The proposal to extend the URA does not affect any Māori land[1] properties. All identified Māori land properties in Auckland are either within the current URA or are located outside the RUB.

99.     The proposal to remove the farm and lifestyle differential in the URA does not affect any Māori land properties.

100.   Consultation on the 10-year Budget included engagement with the 19 iwi authorities. Targeted engagement to include mataawaka was also undertaken.

Feedback from Mana Whenua

101.   Feedback on these proposals was received from seven iwi, all of whom supported both proposals. These were: Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust; Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust; Ngati Tamatera; Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society; Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated; Te Akitai Waiohua; Ngāti Tamaoho Trust. Details of feedback from mana whenua is attached to the 10-year Budget Consultation Summary report included in this meeting’s agenda.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

102.   Adopting both proposals as recommended will raise $2.6 million in additional rates once fully phased in. Further analysis of the financial impacts of all the options consulted on is available in Attachments B and C to this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

103.   Some ratepayers may be concerned about the proposed level of increase in their rates. The council wrote to each ratepayer affected by the proposed changes to the URA to advise them of the changes the council was considering and letting them know how they could get more information and the opportunities for them to make their views known both in person and in writing.

104.   Transitioning the rates change will help to mitigate the effect of a sudden rates increase and provides additional time for affected ratepayers to adjust.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

105.   Proceeding with these proposals will require changes to the matters used to define rates differentials in the Revenue and Financing Policy.

106.   In June 2021, the Governing Body will be asked to adopt the rating policy as part of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.  The Governing Body will adopt the Revenue and Financing Policy at the same meeting.

 


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Additional Analysis for the Urban Rating Area and Farm-Lifestyle rates proposals

407

b

Extension of Urban Rating Area proposal

435

c

Farm and Lifestyle differential in the Urban Rating Area proposal

481

d

Local Board Impacts of Urban rating Area and Farm-Lifestyle Rates Proposals

487

e

Whenuapai Residents and Ratepayers Assoc Map for amended Urban Rating Area

489

f

Potential Urban Rating Exclusion Areas

491

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

25 May 2021

 

Other Rates and Fees Issues for Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031)

File No.: CP2021/06279

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To recommend changes to rating policy and fees for adoption as part of the council’s long-term plan, referred to as the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (10-year Budget).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The recommendations in this report bring together all the rating issues and fees material proposed for adoption as part of the 10-year Budget, where they are not covered by reports elsewhere. Proposed changes to rating policy and fees and charges were consulted on  between February and March 2021 as part of the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) Consultation Document (the consultation document).

3.       Feedback received on these proposals was presented at the Finance and Performance Committee workshop on 21 April 2021 and is detailed in the report on this agenda - Overview to decision-making for the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031). Staff have considered the feedback alongside an assessment of the identified options in developing their advice in this report.

Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate

4.       As part of the consultation document, the council proposed introducing a targeted rate on Vector of $10.5 million per year to fund enhanced maintenance of council trees that present a risk to Vector’s power lines.

5.       Feedback on this proposal was relatively evenly split between those who support (31 per cent), those who did not support (37 per cent), and those that had no clear view either way (32 per cent). Key themes from comments were that the electricity lines should be undergrounded and concern that the cost would ultimately be passed on to electricity users.

6.       Vector has advised council that it is uneconomic to underground the electrical network and doing so comes with other costs/risks. It is understood that Vector intends to pass the cost of a new targeted rate through to their customers, which is likely to cost residential electricity consumers on average an additional $1 per month. Under the proposal, overall spending on tree maintenance will increase by $5 million per year, improving supply security and public safety by reducing the risks associated with downed power lines. It would also enable additional tree planting to support the Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy and increased maintenance of trees in parks and town centres.

7.       Following a review of public feedback and further assessment of the key considerations, no changes are recommended to the proposal.

City Centre Targeted Rate Extension

8.       As part of the consultation document, the council proposed extending the timeframe for the City Centre Targeted Rate to align with the timeframe of the 10-year Budget so it will expire in 2030/2031. The proposal was supported by 51 per cent of submitters with 34 per cent against.


 

 

9.       The City Centre Targeted Rate is currently due to expire in 2024/2025. The extension will allow additional investment of $157.7 million in the period 2025/2026 to 2030/2031 to:

a)      support safe pedestrian and cycling access around the new City Rail Link Aotea and Karangahape Road stations

b)      streetscape enhancement and placemaking activities for new residential development.

c)      regeneration of midtown as the city’s civic and cultural hub

10.     Following a review of public feedback and further assessment of the key considerations, no changes are recommended to the proposal.

Waste Management Targeted Rates and User-pay Charges

11.     As part of the consultation document, the council proposed small inflationary cost increases in the base (1.2 per cent) and refuse (0.9 per cent) waste management targeted rates. Increases to other waste management rates were also proposed to cover cost inflation. The council only received eight items of feedback on waste management targeted rate issues.

12.     Subsequent to the finalisation of the council’s consultation materials, the government confirmed an increase in the waste levy that applies to tonnages delivered to landfill of $10 per tonne to apply from 1 July 2021. The waste levy increase will raise the council’s cost of refuse disposal. The government will also impose further increases in the waste levy of $10, $20 and $10 per tonne respectively from 1 July 2022, 1 July 2023 and 1 July 2024.

13.     The government distributes half of the waste levy it collects to local authorities based on their share of population. As a result, we estimate the council will receive a $5 million increase in its waste levy grant. This grant must be spent on promoting or achieving the waste minimisation activities set out in our Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP).

14.     To ensure costs are borne by users of the service, the council sets its refuse targeted rate and rubbish bin/bag prices to recover the cost of refuse collection and disposal. The costs of refuse are currently met by service users through the refuse targeted rate in the former Auckland and Manukau City areas, and by user pays bin tags and rubbish bags elsewhere. Because of the timing of the government’s announcement, the increase in the waste levy was not included in the consultation document.

15.     Staff recommend that the 10-year Budget be amended to recover the increase in waste levy costs.

Rating policy changes as a consequence of other decisions

16.     As part of the consultation document, the council proposed changes to rating policy to implement decisions the council took as part of the Emergency Budget 2020/2021 or in developing the draft Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031). These were to:

a)      increase the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate to fully recover the costs of providing the service from the beneficiaries (decided as part of the Emergency Budget 2020/2021)

b)      reinstating interest on various loan repayment targeted rates

c)      cost inflation adjustments to the local board swimming pool entry targeted rates, Swimming/Spa Pool Compliance Targeted Rate and the City Centre Targeted Rate.

17.     Two submitters opposed the increase in the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate. No feedback was received on the other proposals. The proposals ensure the recovery of the costs of providing the services.

18.     Following a review of public feedback and further assessment of the key considerations, no changes are recommended to the proposals.

Local board and local area targeted rates

19.     As part of the consultation document, the council proposed the following changes to local area targeted rates:

a)      replace the Clevedon wastewater and water connection targeted rate that provided financial assistance to connect to Watercare’s reticulated water and wastewater system with a fixed targeted rate payable over 15 years

b)      introduce targeted rates on the benefiting properties in two of the remaining drainage districts in the former Rodney District Council area (Te Arai and Okahukura) to fund the sustainable provision of stormwater services. The Glorit drainage district is to be funded by the benefiting landowners

c)      changes to the Business Improvement District (BID) Targeted Rates proposed by the relevant business associations including the extension of the boundaries for the Manurewa, Glen Innes and Dominion Road BIDs

d)      introduce a Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate to fund a new bus service from Paremoremo to Albany.

20.     Three items of feedback were received on the Clevedon wastewater and water connection targeted rate proposal, with two items of feedback in support.

21.     Following further work undertaken since consultation to assess and develop the proposal, staff have identified a number of complexities and risks associated with the proposed scheme, in particular around the potential applicability of the Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) to the proposed targeted rate. To ensure the council is not engaging in activities where it may not be able to meet its legal obligations or customer expectations, staff recommend this targeted rate be removed. This rate does not yet apply to any properties.

22.     51 per cent of feedback received supported the Rodney drainage districts rates proposal although most of those directly affected were opposed. They considered the service should be general rates funded. These are the only rural areas which currently receive a general rates funded stormwater service. No changes are recommended to these proposals.

23.     Feedback showed varying levels of support for the BID expansions. For BID expansion proposals to proceed a successful ballot of affected businesses is required. Only the ballots for the Manurewa and Dominion Road BIDs were successful. Both BID expansions have been approved by the respective local boards and it is recommended that the boundary for the Glen Innes BID remain unchanged.

24.     The recommendation from the Upper Harbour Local Board on the Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate is addressed in a separate item on this agenda.

Fees and charges

25.     As part of the consultation document, the council proposed to:

a)      budget for an increase to venue hire fees of 6 per cent

b)      to make some changes to regulatory fees

c)      remove late return fines on library books and other items.

26.     Very little feedback was received on the proposed changes to venue hire and regulatory fees. Venue hire fees haven’t been adjusted for inflation since 2014. The regulatory fees changes will ensure cost recovery and improve customer service.

27.     Feedback received supported the proposal to remove late return fees although those opposed were concerned it would reduce the incentive to return items. While the cost of removing fines is $1.2 million, it will remove a significant barrier to library usage particularly amongst lower income groups. Replacement charges for items not returned are being retained.

28.     As provided for in the Revenue and Financing Policy, other regulatory fees are increasing in line with council cost inflation (one per cent in 2021/2022) where necessary to maintain cost recovery.

29.     Following a review of public feedback and further assessment of the key considerations, no changes are recommended to the proposals.

Reinstatement of the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate

30.     On 22 April 2021 the Finance and Performance Committee agreed to recommend that, subject to consideration of local board feedback, the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate be suspended until 30 June 2022 and expenditure on visitor attraction and major events reduced to around $14.5 million. Only seven local boards commented on the proposal with two supporting reinstatement from 1 January 2022, one from 1 July 2022, one general support for suspension and two opposed.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body as part of the final Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 to:

i)        introduce the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate to be set on Vector’s utility assets of $10.5 million for 2021/2022, to be adjusted annually for council rate of inflation, to fund enhanced maintenance of our trees that present a risk to the Vector electricity network and additional investment in tree planting activity

ii)       extend the duration of the City Centre Targeted Rate and investment programmes it funds until 2030/2031, to align with the timeframe of the Recovery Budget,10-year Budget 2021-2031

iii)      increase the waste management standard refuse and large refuse targeted rates to $150.06 and $70.53 respectively for 2021/2022

iv)      increase the rubbish bin tag and rubbish bag prices as set out in Table 1 of this report

v)      adjust the waste management standard refuse and large refuse targeted rates, the rubbish bin tag prices and rubbish bag prices for the remainder of the 10-year budget period to reflect any further changes in costs

vi)      increase the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate to $296.75 for 2021/2022, 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 and adjust the targeted rate for the remainder of the 10-year budget period to reflect any further changes in costs

vii)     reinstate interest on the following loan repayment targeted rates:

A)      Riverhaven Drive targeted rate

B)      Retro-fit Your Home targeted rate

C)     Kumeū Huapai Riverhead wastewater targeted rate

D)     On-site wastewater systems (septic tank) upgrades targeted rate

E)      Point Wells wastewater targeted rate

F)      Jackson Crescent wastewater targeted rate

viii)    adjust for cost inflation the waste management targeted rates (those other than standard refuse and large refuse), local board swimming pool entry targeted rates, Swimming/Spa Pool Compliance Targeted Rate and the City Centre Targeted Rate

ix)      remove the Clevedon wastewater and water connection targeted rate

 

x)      that stormwater services and management of drainage assets in the Te Arai and Okahukura drainage districts be undertaken in a joint management arrangement with the relevant communities, with the provision of those services to be funded from a targeted rate on the benefiting properties in the Te Arai and Okahukura drainage districts as set out in this report

xi)      that stormwater services and management of drainage assets in the Glorit drainage district be undertaken by a private management arrangement with the community and affected landowners, with funding provided directly by the benefiting landowners

xii)     adopt the changes to the Business Improvement District (BID) Targeted Rates proposed by the business associations, including the extension of the boundaries for the Manurewa and Dominion Road BIDs

xiii)    agree to the changes to fees and charges as set out in this report

b)      having considered the feedback from local boards relating to the reinstatement of the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate as set out in this report, confirm its recommendation to the Governing Body from its meeting on 22 April 2021 (resolution FIN/2021/28):

agree to recommend to the Governing Body at its meeting on 25 May 2021, subject to consideration of local board feedback, that it agree as part of the Recovery Budget 2021-2031 that:

i)       expenditure on visitor attraction and major events be reduced from $29 million to around $14.5 million; and the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate be suspended until 30 June 2022.”

Horopaki

Context

Decision making

31.     Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the key requirements the council must comply with when making decisions. In particular, the council must:

·    identify all reasonably practicable options to achieve the objective of the decision

·    assess those options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages

·    give due consideration, with an open mind, to the views and preferences of people likely to be affected by, or have an interest, in the decision.

32.     The consultation process for the Recovery Budget, 10-year Budget 2021-2031 provides an opportunity for those interested in, or affected by, decisions to have their voices heard by their elected representatives prior to decisions being made. Feedback received during consultation is one key part that needs to be considered when making final decisions. Comments provided as part of the feedback should be considered in order to understand the context and the meanings behind the numbers and percentages presented. 

33.     The council must weigh up the information provided on the advantages and disadvantages of each option, consider the feedback received from local boards and the public, and then arrive at what it determines to be the best decision.

34.     When making decisions the council is limited by the scope of the original consultation. Decisions can only be made within the bounds of the options put forward for consultation. If the council wishes to make a decision outside the scope of the original consultation, then further consultation is required.


 

 

Consultation and feedback

35.     Proposed changes to rating policy and fees and charges were consulted on in February and March 2021 as part of the consultation document. Detailed analysis of the feedback received during the consultation period has been included in the report on this agenda - Overview to decision-making for the Recovery Budget (10-year Budget 2021-2031) .

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

36.     The following sections set out, for each of the proposed changes to council’s rating policies and fees and charges, key issues to be considered when making a decision:

·        the proposal that was consulted on and any relevant context

·        a summary of feedback received

·        consideration of feedback including the advantages and disadvantages of the options

·        local board feedback

·        officers’ recommendations.

37.     The analysis below records brief summaries of local board feedback on the proposals. Local board feedback is set out in full in a separate report also on this agenda.

38.     These sections focus primarily on the feedback received and any new information that has come to light since consultation, as well as officers’ responses to issues raised by Aucklanders in their feedback. More detailed analysis of each issue was included in the Supporting Information for consultation (refer to Attachments A-F).

Introducing the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate

39.     Vector supplies electricity to most of the population within the Auckland region. Council owns a significant number of trees along the network of overhead power lines (around 80 per cent in urban areas and around 30 per cent in rural areas). The requirements for the management of trees near power lines are set out in the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003. Vector consider that tree trimming provided for under the regulations does not ensure power network resilience.

Proposal

40.     As part of the consultation document, the council consulted on introducing a targeted rate of $10.5 million per year on Vector to fund an enhanced level of tree management around Vector’s overhead power lines.

41.     This would result in:

·        improved public safety around power lines

·        a more resilient electricity network with less power outages

·        more resilient urban forest.

42.     As part of the proposal, $500,000 will be ringfenced for new tree planting activity. The additional tree planting will be integrated with the enhanced management of council trees near power lines to manage the impact on the tree canopy as per the Auckland Urban Ngahere (Forest) Strategy.


 

 

43.     This proposal will also free up around $1.5 million of current spending on tree management near power lines. This would be spent on:

·        $500,000 additional investment in tree planting activity. In combination with new and existing budgets, this will triple the tree planting budget to $1.5 million and result in around 3,000 trees being planted annually

·        $1 million to increase service levels by reducing pruning rotation from eight years to five years.

Feedback

44.     Overall, 31 per cent of feedback supported the proposal, 37 per cent did not support the proposal, and 32 per cent provided a comment without a clear stance.

45.     Key themes across supporters and opposers of this proposal were that the power lines should be undergrounded and concern that the targeted rate will ultimately get passed on to power bills.

46.     Some of the submitters opposing the proposal appeared to have misinterpreted the targeted rate as applying across all ratepayers rather than just Vector.

 

Local boards views

47.     Seven local boards expressed their support of this proposal and one local board did not support it.

48.     Support

Do not support

Albert-Eden

Devonport-Takapuna

Franklin

Manurewa

Ōrākei

Papakura

Waitematā

Kaipātiki

 

Consideration

49.     Vector has advised council that undergrounding its entire electricity network would cost more than $6.4 billion and result in an increase of around $1,609 per annum for all Vector electricity users. Vector currently spend $10.5 million a year on undergrounding the electricity network. This is in addition to new underground circuits to meet the growing demand for new homes and businesses across the city. Undergrounding will also occur where customers and/or other infrastructure asset owners pay for it.

50.     Vector has also advised that once undergrounded, the number of faults is reduced (less impact from trees, etc.) but the network is exposed to accidental dig-ins and faults take longer to find and repair than overhead lines. Undergrounding also comes with additional costs for infrastructure to support streetlights and other utilities, berm congestion, and a less flexible electrical network.

51.     The targeted rate would only apply to Vector and it is understood that they intend to pass the cost of the targeted rate through to their customers. If they do, it is expected to result in electricity bills for Vector electricity users increasing by around $1 per month for the average residential customer.


 

 

52.     The proposal will eventually result in an estimated $3.9 million to $20.3 million of economic benefits to the Auckland region from reduced power outages caused by trees. It will also result in improved public safety around power lines, increased tree planting and canopy cover, and increased tree maintenance service levels in parks and town centres.

53.     Management of our trees under, or near, Vector’s power lines will be undertaken in accordance with best arboriculture practice and in compliance with the Auckland Unitary Plan. Some tree maintenance may require additional applications for resource consent. The immediate focus (first few years) will be on management of risk posed by trees near the most critical parts of the network. Additional tree planting will mitigate the impact of enhanced pruning on the tree canopy.

54.     To ensure the enhanced tree trimming programme meets the goals of both parties, the council will enter into a joint agreement with Vector.

55.     Proceeding with this proposal will require amendments to the Revenue and Financing Policy to include the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate as a funding source for council services.

Recommendation

56.     Staff recommend that council adopt an Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate as part of the Recovery Budget,10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Extend the duration of the City Centre Targeted Rate

57.     The City Centre Targeted Rate partially funds the city centre redevelopment program from benefiting residential and business properties. The city centre redevelopment programme is designed to enhance the city centre as a place to live, work, visit and do business. The Auckland City Centre Advisory Board (ACCAB) which represents city centre residents, businesses and other city centre interest groups, provides advice to the council on the priorities for the city centre targeted investment portfolio as well as commenting on any proposed changes to the City Centre Targeted Rate policy. The City Centre Targeted Rate is currently due to expire in 2024/2025.

Proposal

58.     As part of the consultation document, the council consulted on extending the duration of the City Centre Targeted Rate) and the associated investment program from 2024/2025 until 2030/2031 to align with the timeframe of the Recovery Budget,10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Feedback

59.     Overall, 51 per cent of feedback supported the proposal, whilst 34 per cent did not support the proposal. A further 12 per cent selected ‘Other’ and 3 per cent selected ‘Don’t Know’ or provided a comment without a clear stance.

60.     The key theme from those who supported the proposal was that the city centre needs more investment, whilst those who did not support suggested the council should focus more on suburban areas rather than the city centre.

Stakeholders

61.     Six of the council’s regional stakeholders specifically responded to this proposal. Four supported the proposal, with one of these supporters emphasising that it needs to be consistently well utilised. One did not support the proposal and did not provide any comments on this. One submitter responded ‘Other’ to this proposal and commented that they supported the ‘general increase in rates’ but that funded programmes through targeted rates “should prioritise support for mana whenua to exercise their traditional role as kaitiaki and for communities to lead deliver [sic] local, sub-regional and regional environmental programmes.”


 

 

Local boards

62.     The Franklin, Ōrākei, Papakura and Waitematā local boards provided feedback on this proposal and expressed their support of the extension of the duration of the City Centre Targeted Rate.

Consideration

63.     The City Centre Targeted Rate has funded significant investments in the city centre to improve the visitor experience and attractiveness by funding street and public spaces improvements such as Freyberg Square, Albert Street, Karangahape Road enhancements, Quay Street and Lower Queen Street; as well as contributing to the vibrancy of the city centre through activation, events and marketing activities such as Artweek.

64.     The need to fund further development in the city centre will continue beyond 2025 as the city continues to grow. The targeted rate is currently due to finish in 2024/2025 and it is recommended that the rate is extended to 2030/2031 to fund further development.

65.     The proposed extension of the City Centre Targeted Rate would provide an additional $157.7 million over the 2025/2026 to 2030/2031 period.

66.     Continuing the targeted rate from 2025/2026 will support safe pedestrian and cycling access around the new City Rail Link Aotea and Karangahape Road stations. New residential communities are anticipated as a result of intensification around the stations.  The targeted rate will support streetscape enhancement and placemaking activities to connect these communities to the city centre and create a sense of belonging to urban neighbourhoods.

67.     From 2025, the targeted rate will help fund the regeneration of midtown as our civic and cultural hub through the streetscape and laneway projects identified in the City Centre Masterplan.  The targeted rate will continue to be used to fund activation and destination marketing programmes that will encourage people to visit the city centre and provide safe, exciting and welcoming environment that is distinctly Tāmaki Makaurau.

68.     The Auckland City Centre Advisory Board (ACCAB) has expressed their support for the continuation of the rate. The ACCAB is working with the council on the priorities for the future investment of the City Centre Targeted Rate.

Recommendation

69.     Staff recommend the council extend the duration of the City Centre Targeted Rate until 2030/2031.

Waste management targeted rate and user-pay charges

70.     The core waste management targeted rates are:

·        a region-wide base rate to cover the cost of recycling, inorganic collection, resource recovery centres, the Hauraki Gulf Islands subsidy and other regional waste services

·        a refuse rate in the former Auckland City and the former Manukau City to fund refuse collection (refuse collection in other parts of the region is funded by user-pay bin tags and rubbish bags)

71.     The consultation document included proposed increases to the base and refuse targeted rates to adjust for underlying inflationary increases of 1.2 and 0.9 per cent respectively.

72.     Subsequent to the finalisation of the council’s consultation materials, the government confirmed increases to the waste levy that applies to tonnages delivered to landfill of $10 per tonne to apply from 1 July 2021. This increases the council’s cost of refuse disposal. The government will also impose further increases in the waste levy of $10, $20 and $10 per tonne respectively from 1 July 2022, 1 July 2023 and 1 July 2024.


 

 

73.     As a result of the increase in the waste levy, the council expects to also receive an increase in waste levy funding of up to $5 million in 2021/2022 and further increases in following years. This grant is intended to be used for initiatives that further waste minimisation in line with the council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) and not for ongoing operational expenditure for refuse or base rate funded services.

Feedback

74.     Eight submitters provided specific comments on the waste management targeted rates. Five requested the council to reduce the targeted rate to help businesses. One criticised the inconsistency in the council’s policy allowing multi-unit developments in the former Auckland City Council area to opt-out of the council refuse and recycling services and hence requirement to pay rates for those services that isn’t available in other former council areas. One commented that waste management is a regional service and should be funded from the general rate. Another questioned why properties in west Auckland had to pay for refuse collection while the rest of Auckland did not.

Local boards

75.     No local board provided feedback on this proposal.

Consideration

76.     To ensure costs are borne by users of the service, the council sets its refuse targeted rate and rubbish bin/bag prices to recover the cost of refuse collection and disposal. The costs of refuse are currently met by service users through the refuse targeted rate in the former Auckland and Manukau City areas, and by user pays bin tags and rubbish bags elsewhere.

77.     The increased cost to council arising from the government’s decisions on the waste levy are outside the council’s control and staff recommend they are managed by increasing the refuse targeted rate and rubbish bin/bag prices. This would increase the standard refuse rate for the former Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council areas by $8.46, or 6.0 per cent, instead of $1.34 or 0.9 per cent as proposed in the consultation materials. The large refuse rate would also increase to $70.53 instead of to $67.18 as proposed in the 10-year Budget. The bin tag and rubbish bag prices would increase as follows.

Table 1      Proposed changes to bin tag and rubbish bag prices to recover increase in waste levy on refuse to landfill

Product

Current recommended retail price (incl. GST)

New recommended retail price (incl. GST)

80 litre bin tag

$2.70

$2.85

120/140 litre bin tag

$3.95

$4.25

240 litre bin tag

$5.70

$6.15

40 litre single bag

$1.65

$1.75

60 litre single bag

$2.30

$2.45

60 litre bag 5 pack

$11.50

$12.25

78.     As the increase in waste levy applies to all waste service providers, we expect similar increases in refuse bag or bin prices across the market.

79.     Staff have considered two options for mitigating the impact of an increase to the refuse rate and user-pay rubbish bin/bag prices (which ensures refuse costs are met by service users).


 

 

80.     The options considered would mitigate the impact of the cost increase by lowering the base rate by a similar amount to the increase in the refuse rate or average annual cost of rubbish bin/bags. They require the foregone base rate revenue to be funded from another source. The options considered are:

·        increasing general rates funding by raising the general rates increase from 5 per cent to 5.2 per cent

·        funding qualifying waste minimisation projects presently funded by the base service rate with funding from the increased waste levy grant.

81.     Staff do not recommend these options because the:

·        ratepayers (including those who don’t receive a service) will still bear the cost in their general rates or in reduced funding of other general rates funded services. The cost would be disproportionally borne by higher-value properties and businesses rather than service users as general rates are applied on the basis of capital value

·        funding from the waste levy is required to be used for waste minimisation projects in addition to council’s current plans to achieve the waste minimisation goals set in Auckland’s WMMP.

82.     In addition, an estimated 156,000 properties that do not receive council’s refuse collection service (and therefore would not have an increased targeted rate or rubbish bin/bag cost imposed by the council) would also be subsidised by a reduction in the base service rate under these options.

Recommendation

83.     Staff recommend that the proposed 10-year Budget be amended to recover the increase in waste levy costs from the service users as set out below.

·        raising the standard refuse rate for the former Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council areas by $8.46, or 6.0 per cent (from $141.60 to $150.06), instead of $1.34 or 0.9 per cent as proposed in the consultation materials for the 10-year Budget

·        raising the large refuse rate for the former Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council areas to $70.53 instead of to $67.18 as proposed in the consultation materials for the 10-year Budget

·        increasing bin tag and rubbish bag prices as set out in Table 1 above. As the increase in waste levy applies to all waste service providers, we expect similar increases in refuse bag or bin prices across the market

·        adjust the waste management standard refuse and large refuse targeted rates, the rubbish bin tag prices and rubbish bag prices for the remainder of the 10-year budget period to reflect any further changes in costs.

Waitakere rural septic tank pump-out programme

84.     The Waitākere rural septic tank pump-out programme provides a three-yearly pump-out of onsite wastewater management systems for 3,210 properties in the Waitākere Ranges local board area and 656 properties in the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas. The service is funded by a targeted rate on these properties.

85.     As part of the Emergency Budget 2020/2021, the council resolved to, effective from 1 July 2021:

a)      stop providing the septic tank pump-out service to 656 ratepayers in the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas

b)      continue to provide the septic tank pump-out service to the 3,210 ratepayers in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area, funded from an increased targeted rate (likely to be between $260 and $320 per year) to fully recover costs.

 

Proposal

86.     As part of consultation on the 10-year Budget, the council consulted on setting the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate at $290 for the 2021/2022 year (subject to final contract negotiations) to fully fund the cost of providing the septic tank pump-out service to properties in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area. This rate would be amended annually for council’s rate of inflation.

Feedback

87.     Two pieces of feedback were received on this topic. Both did not support the proposal. One commented that rural septic tank owners should not have to face an increase in the rural sewerage targeted rate and pay the water quality targeted rate at the same time. Another argued that all ratepayers should share the costs.

Local boards

88.     Feedback on this proposal was provided by two local boards.  The Franklin Local Board supported the Waitakere rural septic tank pump-out programme.

89.     The Waitākere Ranges Local Board noted that the loss of the subsidy from general rates has contributed to the increase of the targeted rate and considers that this should be coming out of regional funding and the water quality targeted rate.

Consideration

90.     The council has completed the procurement process for the ongoing provision of the service in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area and accordingly the end of the service in the other board areas. To fully recover the costs of the service in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area, an annual targeted rate of $296.75 is recommended for 2021/2022, 2022/2023 and 2023/2024. While this is 2.3 per cent higher than the amount indicated in the consultation material for the 10-year Budget, the rate will be fixed for three years instead of being increased annually for inflation. Staff consider it more desirable to keep the rate constant for a period that coincides with the cycles of service delivery and contract renewal. The targeted rate for future service cycles will be consulted on and determined following renewal of service contracts.

Recommendation

91.     Staff recommend the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate be set at $296.75 for 2021/2022, 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 and be adjusted to reflect any further changes in costs for the remainder of the 10-year budget period.

Recommence charging interest on loan repayment targeted rates

92.     The council maintains a number of targeted rates that are repaying financial assistance property owners received to make their homes more energy efficient, connect to reticulated water and wastewater schemes in the former Rodney District Council area and to upgrade their septic tanks. As part of the Emergency Budget 2020/2021. the council stopped recovering interest costs via these rates to update its compliance with consumer finance legislation.

93.     No local board provided feedback on this proposal.

Consideration

94.     As part of consultation on the 10-year Budget, the council consulted on reinstating interest on these targeted rate schemes when it is appropriate to do so.  No feedback was received on this proposal. 


 

 

95.     The operation of these existing schemes requires the council to comply with a range of consumer finance legislation. Following assessment of the council’s ability to meet legislative requirements, particularly those in relation to supporting new customers, we decided to stop offering financial assistance schemes to new customers. The council suspended interest payments on these schemes for the 2020/2021 year in order to update its compliance programme for its existing customers. The compliance programme has now been updated.

96.     The council can meet its compliance obligations for existing customers but is not set up to be a creditor and take on new customers under the CCCFA. Accordingly, we are not going to take on new customers but will reinstate interest for existing customers.

Recommendation

97.     Staff recommend that the council re-instate interest on the following loan repayment targeted rates:

a)   Riverhaven Drive targeted rate

b)   Retro-fit Your Home targeted rate

c)   Kumeū Huapai Riverhead wastewater targeted rate

d)   On-site wastewater systems (septic tank) upgrades targeted rate

e)   Point Wells wastewater targeted rate

f)    Jackson Crescent wastewater targeted rate.

Clevedon reticulated water connection scheme

98.     A reticulated wastewater and water supply system has been installed in the Clevedon village to support growth. As a result, around 140 existing properties with private onsite systems will be able to connect to the reticulated network from April 2021. The council adopted a financial assistance scheme as part of the Emergency Budget 2020/2021 to support property owners to connect to the system.

Proposal

99.     As part of consultation on the 10-year Budget, the council consulted on replacing the current financial assistance scheme for the Clevedon wastewater and water connection scheme with a fixed targeted rate for a period of 15 years. Under the new structure, council would be responsible for engaging Watercare to install the connections up to the boundary of participating properties. The targeted rate would recover the cost of providing connections up to the boundary of participating properties together with council’s financing and administration costs in connection with the scheme.

Feedback

100.   Three pieces of feedback were received on this topic. Two supported the proposal. The other commented that residents needed more information on connection costs before they could make the decision. It also raised that some landowners would find it hard to connect because of existing gardens and concrete paths.

Local boards

101.   The Franklin Local Board supports the proposal for an opt-in Clevedon water connection targeted rate. No other local boards provided feedback on this proposal.


 

 

 

Consideration

102.   Staff have undertaken further work to assess and develop the proposal since consultation. As a result of this work, a number of complexities and risks have been identified, in particular around the potential applicability of the Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) to the proposed targeted rate. In light of our experience with the Retrofit Your Home scheme officers consider that the council is not set up to be a creditor and take on new customers under the CCCFA. Although it may be arguable that the targeted rate structure would sit outside the CCCFA, there is a risk that in substance the scheme may be found to be a credit product for the purposes of the CCCFA.

103.   Other issues with the proposed targeted rate include the methodology to be used to calculate council’s future finance costs which would be recovered through the targeted rate and the inability to enable homeowners to pay off future years’ targeted rates, effectively locking them into the targeted rate for the full 15 year term (unless after further public consultation a policy for payment of rates in anticipation of rates for subsequent financial years is adopted). Proceeding with the targeted rate would have the potential to lock homeowners into a scheme which does not meet their needs and exposes council to significant compliance obligations. This would subject the council to legal and reputational risks.

104.   The scheme has not yet been open for application so no ratepayers would be affected if the scheme is removed. Ratepayers in Clevedon who would like to connect to Watercare’s reticulated network can still apply to Watercare directly for connection. They will need to arrange for their own finances and pay Watercare the full connection cost upfront.

Recommendation

105.   Staff recommend that the Clevedon wastewater and water connection scheme and targeted rate that was adopted by the council as part of the Emergency Budget 2020/2021 be removed. Staff also recommend that the council make the consequential amendments required to the Revenue and Financing Policy.

Rodney Drainage Targeted Rate

106.   Following amalgamation, the council retained responsibility for three drainage districts in the former Rodney District Council (RDC) area; Glorit, Te Arai and Okahukura. These remain the only areas of rural Auckland where the council provides stormwater management services.

107.   The services had historically been funded by a targeted rate since their establishment in the 1950s. This was converted to general rates funding by the RDC in the 1990s. The funding inherited is no longer sufficient to maintain the assets and the council recently invested $260,000 in upgrades.

108.   At its 9 December 2020 meeting, the Governing Body agreed to reallocate decision-making responsibility for the Te Arai, Okahukura, and Glorit drainage districts from the Rodney Local Board to the Governing Body.   

Proposal

109.   As part of consultation on the 10-year Budget, the council consulted on:

a)      jointly managing the stormwater assets in the Te Arai and Okahukura drainage districts in association with the relevant communities, to be funded by a targeted rate for Te Arai and Okahukura, as set out in Table 2 below


 

 

Table 2     Proposed targeted rate for Te Arai and Okahukura drainage districts

Drainage district

Rate for each square metre of Class A land for 2021/2022 (including GST) ($)

Rate for each square metre of Class B land for 2021/2022 (including GST) ($)

Rate for each square metre of Class C land for 2021/2022 (including GST) ($)

Te Arai

0.00184463

0.00092231

0.00000000

 

Okahukura

0.00266984

0.00133492

0.00000000

 

b)      local landowners managing and self-funding drainage assets in the Glorit drainage district, under an agreement with the council.

Feedback

110.   11,668 submitters provided feedback on this proposal. Overall, 52 per cent of feedback supported the proposal, whilst 18 per cent did not support the proposal. A further 2 per cent selected ‘Other’ and 28 per cent selected ‘Don’t Know’ or made another comment without a clear stance.

111.   While most of those who supported the proposal did not provide a comment or reason, those who did commented that users or beneficiaries should pay.

112.   The key themes from those who did not support the proposal included:

·      stormwater management is an essential service that should be funded from general rates

·      rural properties are paying too much in rates and receiving limited services.

113.   The wording of the responses indicates that around 76 per cent of the submitters who provided a specific comment opposing the proposal lived in one of the drainage districts affected by the proposal.

Stakeholders

114.   Five of council’s regional stakeholders responded to this proposal with four supporting it. One other stakeholder submitted as ‘Don’t know’ on this proposal.

Local boards

115.   The Franklin and Ōrākei local boards supported the Rodney Drainage Targeted Rate. No other local boards provided feedback on this proposal.

Consideration

116.   The council retains ownership and legal responsibility for the stormwater assets in each drainage district. The general rates funding provided for the districts was managed by the Rodney Local Board and has been insufficient to maintain the assets. The council has recently invested $260,000 to upgrade the assets, but the current funding model is not sustainable.

117.   The landowners in the three drainage districts are the beneficiaries of the stormwater services and officers consider it is fair that they should meet the costs of maintaining the assets, given that the three drainage districts are the only areas of rural Auckland where the council provides stormwater management services, and other rural properties manage their own stormwater.

118.   A targeted rate should be used to fund the joint management model for Te Arai and Okahukura drainage districts. It is proposed that the rate be assessed based on land area and location (class of land) which would provide a direct and strong link between targeted rate charged, benefit and costs caused.

119.   Four properties are located within the Glorit Drainage District. A private management model is appropriate as council involvement adds little value with the small number of properties in this district.

120.   Proceeding with this proposal will require amendments to the Revenue and Financing Policy to include Rodney Drainage Districts Targeted Rate as a funding source for council services.

Recommendation

121.   Staff recommend that the council and the landowners of the Te Arai and Okahukura drainage districts jointly manage the respective drainage assets, to be funded by a targeted rate on the properties that benefit from, or contribute to, the need to maintain the drainage assets, as set out in Table 2 above. Staff also recommend that the council enter into a management arrangement for the Glorit drainage district to be funded directly by the private landowners benefiting from the scheme.

Changes to the Business Improvement District Programme

122.   Business improvement districts (BIDs) support improvements to local business areas and help attract new business and customers.

Proposal

123.   As part of consultation on 10-year Budget, the council consulted on options to extend the Manurewa BID, Glen Innes BID, and Dominion Road BID targeted rate boundaries and adjust the targeted rates for the BIDs proposed by their business associations.

Feedback

124.   170 pieces of feedback were received on the Manurewa BID expansion. Over 60 per cent of the feedback received s