|
Hibiscus and
Bays Local Board
06 May 2021
|
|
Decision-making
responsibilities policy
File No.: CP2021/04914
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
endorse the draft decision-making responsibilities policy for inclusion in the
long-term plan.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The Governing Body is required by legislation to allocate
decision-making responsibility for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland
Council to either itself or local boards. This allocation is outlined in the
Decision-making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and
Local Boards policy that is published in each long-term plan and annual plan.
3. The
policy also records delegations given to date by the Governing Body to local
boards and provides a list of statutory responsibilities that are conferred on
both governance arms.
4. An
internal review of the policy was undertaken in early 2021 and considered by
the Joint Governance Working Party at its meeting on 22 March 2021. The review
outlined some proposed changes to the policy as well as some recommendations on
how to take forward other issues that do not yet lend themselves to a policy
amendment. The recommendations adopted by the Joint Governance Working Party
have informed the proposed changes in the draft policy. (Attachment A of the
agenda report).
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local
Board:
a) endorse
the draft Decision-making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s
Governing Body and Local Boards policy.
Horopaki
Context
5. The Governing Body and local boards obtain their
decision-making responsibilities from three sources:
· statutory
responsibilities - functions and powers directly conferred by the Local
Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) 2009
· non-regulatory
activities that are allocated to local boards and the Governing Body in
accordance with a set of principles (section 17(2) LGACA)
· delegations
– these can be regulatory or non-regulatory responsibilities; the
Governing Body has delegated some of its responsibilities to local boards.
Allocation of non-regulatory responsibilities
6. The
primary purpose for the policy is to set out the allocation of non-regulatory
decision-making responsibilities. However, it incorporates other sources of decision-making
authority for completeness and context, including a register of key delegations
which have been given by the Governing Body to local boards.
Joint Governance Working Party
7. To
facilitate a review by the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP), staff
provided an analysis of issues raised, mainly by local boards, and proposed
recommendations in relation to those issues. The report containing this advice
can be found in the record of the Joint Governance Working Party Meeting, 23
March 2021.
8. The
JGWP carefully considered the issues that were in scope for the review as well
as the staff advice and raised some questions and issues that staff are
exploring further. These are discussed in the advice below.
9. This
report only covers the discussions relating to the recommended changes to the
policy. A memo will be provided to each local board with a summary of the
issues considered in the review and outlining a staff response to specific
issues, if any, that individual local boards raised in their feedback.
10. Following
their review, the JGWP agreed as follows:
That the Joint Governance Working Party:
(a) note the feedback from local boards on the decision-making
responsibilities policy
(b) request the following
amendments to the decision-making responsibilities policy:
(i) request
that staff report with urgency that local boards can be delegated approval for
developing and approving area plans, provided the governing body can make its
views known on such plans
(ii) that
the local boards can take responsibilities for decision-making over drainage
reserves provided such decisions are constrained to those that will not
negatively affect the drainage functions and stormwater network operations.
(iii) provide
for local boards to tailor locally
delivered projects within
regional environmental programmes,
subject to advice from staff on the types of projects that can be tailored
(iv) provide explicit reference to Health and
Safety obligations and requirements that local boards and Governing Body must
consider in their decisions
(v) local boards can object to a special liquor
license and this be enabled by an appropriate administrative process.
(c) note the recommendations
that the next phase of the Waiheke pilot should consider some of the issues that have been raised
including:
(i) trialing delegations from Auckland Transport on
decision-making relating to street trading for roads and beaches, placemaking
and urban design decisions
(ii) Identifying
opportunities and
non-regulatory decision-making elements in relation to town centres that the
Governing Body can consider when making allocation
(d) recommend
that Auckland Transport consider if there are types of community activities
that can take place on road reserves without impacting the roading network.
(e) Request
staff scope out a review of the role of the governing body in regional
governance within the shared governance model of Auckland Council, taking into
considerations the recommendation of the CCO Review.
The following members requested that their dissenting votes
be recorded as follows:
Cr A Filipaina against e)
Member R Northey against e)
The following members requested that their abstention be
recorded as follows
Cr S Henderson against (b)(i)
Cr R Hills against (b)(iii)
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Request for further advice or implementation support
Area plans
11. Local boards
requested that the responsibility for adoption of area plans, which is
currently allocated to the Governing Body, be assigned to them. This can be
done through allocating the responsibility to local boards or through the
Governing Body delegating this allocated responsibility to local boards to
exercise on their behalf.
12. Staff have
considered this request and advised the JGWP as follows:
· area
plans are an important tool in council’s spatial planning framework. It
is used to strategically plan an area usually for the purpose of seeking and/or
supporting changes to the Unitary Plan. The responsibility for the Unitary Plan
rests with the Governing Body
· area
plans, as a stand-alone non-regulatory tool and decision, appear
‘local’ in nature given their focus on local planning which is a
responsibility allocated to local boards
· however,
area plans also meet the exceptions in section 17(2) of the LGACA: specifically
that for these decisions to be effective, they require alignment or integration
with other decision-making responsibilities that sit with the Governing Body.
These include plan changes and amendments to the Unitary Plan, infrastructure
prioritisation and regional investment
· during
the Waiheke pilot, the Waiheke Local Board sought a delegation to sign off the
Waiheke Local Area Plan. This delegation was granted with conditions that
included a requirement to ensure the involvement of a member of the Independent
Maori Statutory Board. This suggests
delegations on a case-by-case basis can be possible and provides an alternative
route if a standing delegation is not given to local boards.
13. The JGWP
carefully considered the advice of staff but were not all in agreement with it.
Members had strong views about the need to empower local boards in their local
planning role and have requested staff to reconsider their advice and to
explore the risks and possible risk mitigation of enabling local boards to
adopt the plans through a delegation from the Governing Body.
14. Whilst the
practice already ensures high involvement of local boards in the development of
these plans, it was the view of the JGWP members that delegating the adoption
decision with relevant parameters is more empowering for local boards. JGWP
members felt that this would enable local boards to make local planning
decisions that are aligned with their local board plan aspirations and other
community priorities without requiring further approval from the Governing
Body, whose members may not be as familiar with these local priorities.
15. JGWP members
agreed that area plans, while local, often require funding and alignment to
other plans that are developed by the Governing Body. Keeping the
responsibility and accountability allocated to the Governing Body ensures the
decision continues to sit at the right level but that this does not necessarily
need to be exercised by the Governing Body on all occasions.
16. The JGWP have
requested advice from staff on how to pursue a Governing Body delegation. Staff
will seek to provide further advice to the JGWP. If the JGWP considers
recommending a delegation from the Governing Body on this issue, staff will
present the request to the Governing Body for consideration. A delegation can
be given at any time and it will have immediate effect.
Special liquor licence administration process for notifying
local boards
17. One of the issues
raised in the local board feedback is special liquor license applications. On
this matter, the request was for clarification that local boards can object, as
per the delegation from Governing Body granting the ability to make objections
under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. Elected members perceived this
is not being enabled as notifications on these licences are not proactively
shared with them in the same way that information about other applications (on,
off and club licences) are.
18. The JGWP has
recommended that this be clarified in the policy and request that staff enable
notifications to be sent to local board where public consultation is required
for special licence applications.
Proposed changes to the allocated decision-making responsibilities
(part c)
Local purpose (drainage) reserves
19. During
discussions with local boards on the scope of the review, many local boards
raised concerns about the interpretation of the policy.
20. An example
raised by Upper Harbour Local Board demonstrated the need for clarity,
especially in areas where decision-making authority allocated to both
governance arms overlap. During the development of the board’s local park
management plans, staff had advised that those reserves that are primarily dedicated
to stormwater drainage should be treated as part of the stormwater network.
This advice appeared to suggest that local boards do not hold any
decision-making over a subset of local parks since it is the Governing Body
that is responsible for management of the stormwater network.
21. Through
discussions with staff as part of this review, the advice has been revised.
Staff accept this is an example of where there is clear overlap in activities
and decision-making responsibilities. Staff will need to work closely with
local boards to develop protocols that enable decision-making by the Governing
Body on stormwater issues to be exercised efficiently and effectively.
22. The JGWP were
supportive of the staff recommendation to clarify that the exercise of decision-making
in relation to stormwater network and how it functions must be properly enabled
on local parks. This is done by acknowledging that these considerations and
decisions about the stormwater network constrains local board decision-making
over local parks (or parts of local parks) that have a stormwater drainage
function. This clarity will also help staff to understand that the local board
continues to retain the decision-making responsibility over all other
activities of local parks.
Role of local boards in environmental programmes and grants
23. Some local
boards feel the current policy wording and ways of working does not provide a
meaningful role for local boards on regional environmental issues, specifically
regional environmental programmes. These local boards have also requested that
local boards be enabled to monitor the progress of any locally delivered
projects (funded by regional environmental programmes) through the established
work programme reporting mechanism.
24. Local board
input into regional environmental programmes is at the policy and/or programme
approval stage. The approved programme direction provides sufficient guidance
to staff, acting under delegation from the Governing Body, when developing an
implementation plan and prioritising projects for delivery.
25. At the
operational level, where identified priorities and project ideas are to be
delivered in local parks or other key locations within the local board area,
local board input is sought by staff at workshops. This is to ensure locally
delivered projects are tailored to local circumstances. While it is possible to
capture this current practice in the policy, this needs to be done in a way
that continues to enable relevant local boards to add value to projects without
too many administrative requirements. A member of the JGWP also expressed
concern about signalling all projects can be tailored to local circumstances as
this is not the case.
Other changes
Health and Safety – parameters for decision-making
26. Council decisions
need to take account of Health and Safety considerations, as well as reflecting
a shared approach to risk.
27. Staff advise
that Health and Safety considerations should be explicit in the policy to
protect the council from liability. The JGWP supports this recommendation and a
reference to complying with health and safety legislation and plans has been
inserted in the policy.
Issues relating to delegations
28. The review
considered requests for new delegations or additional support to implement delegations
given to local boards. Some of these were requests for delegation from Auckland
Transport.
29. The review
considered that before recommending or agreeing any new delegation, the
delegator, whether it be Governing Body or Auckland Transport, must first weigh
the benefits of reflecting local circumstances and preferences (through a
delegation) against the importance and benefits of using a single approach in
the district (through itself retaining the responsibility, duty, or power
concerned).
30. Staff advised
the JGWP to recommend that the Waiheke pilot (part of the Governance Framework
Review) which is about to enter another phase, expands to include a trial of
delegated decision-making on key issues raised in this review. They include
several issues that relate to Auckland Transport, namely street trading and
town centre/urban design. Piloting these delegations can help Auckland
Transport to identify any practical issues that need to be considered before a
formal delegation to all local boards can be given on any of the issues
identified.
Other issues
JGWP resolution on role of governing body
31. Some members
of the JGWP expressed concerns about what they perceived to be a heavy focus on
local board responsibilities.
32. Both sets of
governors were invited to identify issues to be examined in the review. The
Governing Body, in workshop discussions, did not identify any major issues that
it wanted to review but was open to including any issues raised by local
boards. As a result, almost all of the issues raised were suggested by local
boards and the majority of them relate to their areas of decision-making
responsibility. This may have given the impression of a bias towards examining
the role of local boards.
33. To address
this concern, the JGWP requested that staff scope a review of the role of the
governing body. Staff will provide advice to the JGWP in response to this
request at an upcoming meeting.
Escalation process for any disputes relating to the Allocation
of decision-making responsibilities for non-regulatory activities
34. The process
for resolving disputes relating to allocation of non-regulatory
responsibilities (including disputes over interpretation of the allocation
table) will vary depending on the issue at hand. The chart below outlines the
basic escalation process.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
35. This report
relates to a policy and does not have any quantifiable climate impacts.
36. Decisions
that are taken, in execution of this policy, will likely have significant
climate impacts. However, those impacts will be assessed on a case-by-case
basis and appropriate responses will be identified as required.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
37. Council
departments support and implement decisions that are
authorised by this policy.
38. Feedback received to date from some departments reinforces the need
for guidance notes to aid interpretation of the allocations in the
decision-making policy. This work will be done in consultation with
departments.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
39. This report
canvasses issues that had been raised by local boards and focuses on those
issues that warrant an amendment to the policy.
40. All other
issues raised by local boards in their feedback were canvassed in the staff
advice that formed part of the review. This information is available to all
local boards.
41. Staff have
also prepared responses to specific issues raised by local boards and have
shared this information in a memo.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
42. There are no decisions being sought in this report that will have a specific
impact on Māori.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
43. There are no
financial implications directly arising from the information contained in this
report.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
44. The are no
identified risks other than timeframes. The Governing Body will be adopting
this policy in June as part of the Long-term Plan. Local board feedback is
requested in early May in order to provide time to collate and present this to
the Governing Body for consideration.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
45. Staff will
prepare guidance notes to aid the interpretation of the decision-making policy
following its adoption.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Decision making responsibilities policy
|
15
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance
Strategy
|
|
Authorisers
|
Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board
Services
Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager
|
|
Hibiscus and Bays
Local Board
06 May 2021
|
|
Local board consultation feedback and
input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031
File No.: CP2021/05113
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
receive consultation feedback from the Hibiscus and Bays
Local Board area on:
· proposed
priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Hibiscus
and Bays Local Board Agreement 2021/2022.
· regional
topics for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.
2. To
recommend any local matters to the Governing Body, that they will need to consider
or make decisions on in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 process.
3. To
provide input on the proposed regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
4. Local
board agreements set out annual funding priorities, activities, budgets, levels
of service, performance measures and advocacy initiatives for each local board
area. Local board agreements for 2021/2022 will be included in the
council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031.
5. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 22 February to 22 March
2021 to seek community views on the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.
This included consultation on the Hibiscus and Bays
Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2021/2022, and
advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031 to be included in their local board
agreement.
6. Auckland Council received 19,965 submissions in total across the
region and 1,397 submissions from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. There
were 1,237 written submissions, 154 submissions at the two events held by the
local board and 6 submissions received from Mana Whenua entities.
7. 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.
8. The
Governing Body will consider these items as part of the 10-year Budget
decision-making process in May/June 2021.
9. Local boards have a statutory responsibility to provide
input into regional strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. This report
provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s
proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local
Board:
a) receive consultation feedback on the
proposed Hibiscus and Bays Local Board priorities and activities for 2021/2022
and key advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031
b) receive
consultation feedback on regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 from
people and organisations based in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area
c) approve
the following advocacy initiatives for inclusion to its 2021/2022 Local Board
Agreement:
i) to
seek funding and delivery for the next phase of the Ōrewa Beach Esplanade
Enhancement Project
ii) to
seek equitable regional funding for local arts, culture, and community centres
iii) to
allocate sufficient funding to ensure the the Regional Land Transport Plan can
continue to fund the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, the Community Safety
Fund and the Glenvar / East Coast Roads improvement project
d) provide
the following input on regional topics in the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031
to the Governing Body:
i) provide
support for the proposed increase of five per cent in average general rates for
the 2021/2022 financial year as a one-off increase whilst noting community
concerns over the continuation of the increase for longer than the next financial
year
ii) note
the concerns from submitters regarding the increase in rating needed to fund
$31 billion package of spending and investment over the next 10 years, and in
particular that efficiencies be found wherever possible, and increases in fees and
charges need to consider the financial ability of residents to pay
iii) support
the proposal to invest $31 billion in infrastructure, following the deferral of
this funding in the 2020/2021 Emergency Budget to support recovery, and seek
further attention on asset renewals rather than funding new assets.
Asset recycling
iv) request
that the asset recycling process work similarly to the service optimization
process thereby involving local boards and ensuring proceeds from asset
recycling are equitably distributed both regionally and to local board areas
v) support
that formal local board views are being given more weight in any final
decisions on asset recycling in the relevant local board area
vi) note
that the current process for service optimisation is too lengthy, especially
given the projected increased cost of renewing council assets
vii) support
that current strategic assets including council-controlled organisations are
utilised in a manner that yields the best possible return.
Infrastructure for growth
viii) support
the proposal to increase the debt to revenue ratio to 290 per cent as long as
the current credit rating is protected
ix) request
that the $90 million of operational savings in the Recovery Budget does not
negatively impact on the delivery of core services and that local priorities
are considered in accordance with Auckland Council’s shared governance
model
x) support
the “focused approach to providing growth infrastructure” with
additional support for continued spending in existing and recent local board
growth areas as ongoing investment is required to support the establishment of
essential community assets
xi) support
actions such as utilising the Infrastructure and Funding and Financing Act
2020, and request that current reserve contributions be set to the maximum
allowed under the Local Government Act 2002
Climate action
xii) support
increased expenditure to deal with the impacts of climate change as much of
this investment creates long-term infrastructure or a positive environmental
outcome
xiii) support
an increase in Council’s Zero Waste resource recovery network, the
improvement of current sites in the network, and the development of new sites
in locations where there are identified gaps, such as the need for a larger
facility central to the North Shore
Environmental Protection
and a resilient water supply
xiv) support
the extension of the Water Quality Targeted Rate for a further three years to
2031 in order to fund projects such as the monitoring of, and improvements to
the North Eastern Beaches
xv) support
initiatives by Watercare to improve leak detection, and seek a commensurate
emphasis on maintaining current assets as well delivering for growth
xvi) support
the extension of the Natural Environment Targeted Rate for a further three
years to 2031 in order to fund increased activity, both at a local and regional
level, on pest control and monitoring
xvii) Request
financial rebates be considered for households utilising water from rainwater
tanks as the stormwater detention provides financial savings in stormwater
infrastructure networks
Community services and
facilities
xviii) strongly
support “an alternative approach to community service provision and asset
management” and agree with this being connected the Governance Framework
Review, as well as accelerating the delivery of this workstream
xix) Support
the inclusion of funding to deliver the Ōrewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement
Project and note that this funding should not be delivered via service
optimisation or asset recycling as this project is a climate action priority
and any proposed sale of underperforming local service assets is unlikely to
match the projected cost
xx) request
confirmation that local board views are taken into account before finalising
the priority of projects in the Capital Prioritisation Framework
xxi) request
reinstatement of the Local Board Locally Driven Initiatives capital funding to
levels comparable to those planned prior to the 2020-2021 Emergency Budget
enabling local boards to progress local shovel ready priority projects not
included in renewal or growth funding
xxii) request
that the options to set local service standards for Project Streetscapes be
fully funded through regional funding, not local board budgets, in alignment
with the Auckland Council Weed Management Policy for Parks and Open Spaces 2013
xxiii) due to the
provision of regional services offered by the Hibiscus Coast Youth Council Inc
strongly support council providing regional funding to support the ongoing
delivery of youth services.
Social Investment
xxiv) support the
retention of contestable grants such as the Sport and Recreation Facilities
Fund, as this directly contributes to organisations that support wellbeing in
the local board area
xxv) support the
Homelessness operational fund, as it provides a longer-term solution to reduce
problems facing communities in the local board area, specifically for Hatfields
Beach, Ōrewa and Gulf Harbour in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area
xxvi) recommend
that the social procurement process be able to be used in Locally Driven
Initiatives budgets, by local boards, in order to support local economic
development.
Horopaki
Context
10. Each
financial year Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed
between the Governing Body and the Hibiscus and Bays
Local Board) for each local board area. This local board agreement reflects
priorities in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan
2020 through local activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures
and advocacy initiatives.
11. The local
board agreements 2021/2022 will form part of the Auckland Council’s
10-year Budget 2021-2031.
12. Auckland
Council publicly consulted from 22 February to 22 March 2021 to seek community
views on the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031, as well as local board priorities and proposed advocacy initiatives to be
included in the local board agreement 2021/2022.
13. Due to the
impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, significant pressure has been
placed upon the council’s financial position. This has created
significant flow on effects for the council’s proposed 10-year Budget
2021-2031, in particular in the first three years.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
14. This report includes analysis of consultation feedback, any local
matters to be recommended to the Governing Body and seeks input on regional
topics in the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.
Consultation
feedback overview
15. As part of
the public consultation Auckland Council used a variety of methods and channels
to reach and engage a broad cross section of Aucklanders to gain their feedback
and input into regional and local topics.
16. In
total, Auckland Council received feedback from 19,965 people in the
consultation period. This feedback was received through:
i. written feedback
– 18,975 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters
ii. in person - 607
pieces of feedback through 61 Have Your Say events (38 in
person and 23 online webinars), 2 of which were held in the Hibiscus and
Bays Local Board area (Attachments A and B of the agenda report), and two
independently managed phone interviews. Due to the COVID-19
lockdowns 26 events were affected (either cancelled, postponed or moved to an
online platform) social media – 78 pieces of feedback through
Auckland Council social media channels
17. All feedback will be made available on an
Auckland Council webpage called “Feedback submissions for the 10-year
Budget 2021-2031” and will be accessible from 3 May 2021 through the
following link: akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/submissions-budget-2021-2031.
Feedback
received on the Hibiscus
and Bays Local
Board’s priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives
18. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board consulted on the
following priorities for 2021/2022:
i. Priority 1: Advocate to the Governing Body for
funding and delivery of the next phase of the Ōrewa Beach Esplanade
Enhancement Project
ii. Priority
2: Advocate to the Governing Body for equitable regional funding for local
arts, culture, and community centres
iii. Priority
3: Advocate to the Governing Body to allocate
sufficient funding to ensure that the Regional Land Transport Plan can continue
to fund the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, the Community Safety Fund and
the Glenvar / East Coast Roads improvements project
19. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board also consulted on the
following key advocacy initiatives:
i. Initiative
1: Continue our support for
local community groups, especially those working with youth development, family
support and helping to build resilience among the most vulnerable in our
community
ii. Initiative 2: Funding environmental
groups such as Restore Hibiscus and Bays, and other initiatives in schools and
neighbourhoods to assist our communities to look after our environment
iii. Initiative 3: Improve our economic
wellbeing by actively working with our Business Improvement Districts, Business
Associations and event organisers to create a stronger local economy
20. 1397 submissions were received on the Hibiscus and Bays
Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2031 and key advocacy initiatives. The
majority of local respondents supported all or most of the local board
priorities.
21. The graph below shows support for priorities on the local
board.
fig 1. Support for priorities
of the local board:
22. Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be
considered by the local board when approving their local board agreement
between the 14-18 June 2021. Local board key advocacy initiatives will be
considered in this report.
23. The graphs below indicate the demographic categories people identified
with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided
demographic information.
fig 2. Age and ethnicity of submitters
in the local board area:
Key themes
24. Key themes of note across the feedback received (through
written and in-person channels) included:
i. support
for youth development
ii. support
for the work done by environmental groups in the area
iii. support
for cleaner beaches and waterways
iv. support for
town centre improvements.
Feedback on other local topics
25. Some organisations within the Hibiscus and Bays Local
Board area gave feedback that was pertinent to their concerns
26. The Long Bay Okura Great Park Society and the Friends of
Okura Bush requested that Auckland Council urgently purchase the 3456m2 land
parcel comprising of two farm cottages at 1165 Beach Road, Long Bay. This area
is located within the Historic Heritage Overlay of the Long Bay Regional Park.
This request is a matter for the Governing Body to assess and consider.
27. The Highgate Business Park Limited submitted that the
roading project known as the Curley Avenue Connection in Silverdale, should
proceed and funded. This is one of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s
advocacy projects within the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.
28. The Weiti Boating Club have requested an annual grant,
for upgrading their facilities and to improve their grounds. The local board
has a contestable community grants programme and the Club can apply through the
grants process in accordance with the guidelines.
29. Key themes across feedback received on other local topics
included:
i. Theme
1: a number of submitters mentioned the Ōrewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement
Project, of note were questions about the amount of funds allocated to this
project.
ii. Theme
2: there were a number of submissions on the topic of fiscal prudence, and
spending on Arts was singled out as a lower priority for a recovery budget
iii. Theme
3: transport was a common theme, with support in particular for improvements to
the Glenvar/East Coast Road intersection, as well as public transport and
ferries.
Requests for local funding
30. Requests
for local funding through the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 consultation included:
i. Request
1: There was a request from the Hibiscus Coast Youth Council Incorporated
(HCYC) seeking a $100,000 annual operating grant from the Governing Body, as
per the previous allocation within the financial years, 2018/2019, 2019/2020
and 2020/2021. This was requested to meet approximately 28% of their normal
annual costs and to secure their services for their future. The HCYC sought a
further commitment from council to a $100,000 per annum and for a longer term,
each year commencing within the Auckland Council Annual Plan Budgets 10-Year
Budget 2021/2031.
Overview of feedback received on
regional topics in the 10-year Budget from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area
31. The
proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 sets out Auckland Council’s priorities
and how to pay for them. Consultation on the proposed 10-year Budget asked
submitters to respond to five key questions on:
· the proposed investment package
· climate change
· water quality
· community investment
· rating policy
32. The
submissions received from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area on these key
issues are summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of
feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.
Key Question 1: Proposed investment package
33. Aucklanders were asked about a proposed $31 billion capital
investment programme over the next ten years, allowing the council to deliver
key services and renew our aging assets. The proposal includes a one-off 5 per cent average general rates
increase for the 2021/2022 financial year, rather than the previously planned
3.5 per cent increase, before returning to 3.5 per cent increases over the
remaining years.
34. The proposal also includes higher borrowings in the short term, a
continuation of cost savings and the sale of more surplus property. Without the
greater use of rates and debt, around $900 million of investment in Auckland
would be delayed from the next three years.
35. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Hibiscus
and Bays Local Board area:
Fig 3.
Support in the local board area for key question 1
Key Question 2: Climate Change
36. Aucklanders
were asked about a proposal to provide additional investment to respond to
climate change challenges. This includes enabling a quicker transition from
diesel to cleaner electric and hydrogen buses, diverting more waste from
landfill and enabling significant planting initiatives.
37. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Hibiscus
and Bays Local Board area.
Fig
4. Support in the local board area for key question 2:
Key Question 3: Water quality
38. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to extend and increase the
Water Quality Targeted Rate for another three years – from 2028 until
2031 – as well as increasing the targeted rate annually in line with
proposed average increases in general rates. The Water Quality Targeted Rate
funds projects to improve water quality in Auckland’s harbours, beaches
and streams.
39. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Hibiscus
and Bays Local Board area.
Fig 5.
Support in the local board area for key question 3:
Key Question 4: Community investment
40. Aucklanders
were asked to provide feedback on a proposal that would see council adopt a new approach for
community services to enable them to reduce building and asset maintenance
related expenditure. The proposal involves consolidation of community
facilities and services, increased leasing or shared facility arrangements, and
an increased focus on providing multi-use facilities and online services in the
future.
41. The
graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Hibiscus and Bays Local
Board area.
Fig 6.
Support in the local board area for key question 4:
Key Question 5: Rating policy
42. Aucklanders were asked for their feedback on a raft of proposed
rating changes impacting different
properties across Auckland differently. Proposed changes also included, for
example, the extension of the Natural Environment Targeted Rate until June
2031, along with options to extend the Urban Rating Area and reinstatement of
the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate.
43. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Hibiscus
and Bays Local Board area.
Fig 7. Support in the local
board area for each part of key question 5:
Recommendations on local matters
44. This
report allows the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body
for consideration as part of the 10-year Budget process, in May 2021. This
includes:
i. any new/amended
business improvement district targeted rates
ii. any new/amended
local targeted rate proposals
iii. proposed locally
driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making
responsibility
iv. release of local board
specific reserve funds.
v. approve
its advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to its 2021/2022 Local
Board Agreement
Local targeted rate and business improvement district
(BID) targeted rate proposals
45. 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. Note that these proposals must have been consulted on
before they can be implemented.
46. Local
boards then recommend these proposals to the Governing Body for approval of the
targeted rate. There was no proposed targeted rate proposals for the Hibiscus
and Bays local board area nor are there any amended or new Business Improvement
District rates.
Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)
47. 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:
i. operational
LDI funding is to be converted into capital LDI funding
ii. the
release of local board specific reserve funds is requested, which are being
held by the council for a specific purpose
iii. a LDI capital
project exceeds $1 million.
48. There are no
instances of this in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area for the 2021/2022
financial year.
Local board advocacy
49. Local
boards are requested to approve any advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as
an appendix) to their 2020/2021 Local Board Agreement, taking into account the
consultation feedback above. This allows the Finance and Performance Committee
to consider these advocacy items when making decisions on the 10-year Budget
2021-2031 in May/June.
Local board input on regional topics in
the 10-year Budget 2021-2031
50. Local
boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the
interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to
Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws, and any
proposed changes to be made to them. This report provides an opportunity for
the local board to provide input on council’s proposed 10-year Budget
2021-2031.
51. Local
board plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents
that guide the development of local board agreements (LBAs), local board annual
work programmes, and local board input into regional plans such as the 10-year
Budget.
Tauākī
whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
52. The
decisions recommended in this report are part of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031
and local board agreement process to approve funding and expenditure over the
next 10 years.
53. 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 council’s rigorous reporting requirements.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā
tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
54. The
10-year Budget 2021-2031 is an Auckland Council Group document and will include
budgets at a consolidated group level. Consultation items and updates to
budgets to reflect decisions and new information may include items from across
the group.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me
ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
55. The
local board’s decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. The
local board has a statutory role in providing its feedback on regional plans.
56. Local
boards play an important role in the development of the council’s 10-year
Budget. Local board agreements form part of the 10-year Budget. Local board
nominees have also attended Finance and Performance Committee workshops on the
10-year Budget.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
57. Many
local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local
board agreements and the 10-year Budget are important tools that enable and can
demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori.
58. Local
board plans, developed in 2020 through engagement with the community including
Māori, form the basis of local board area priorities. There is a need to
continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and the wider
Māori community.
59. Consultation
feedback received on the proposed 10-year Budget includes submissions made by
mana whenua and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe /
local board area is at the end of this report in Attachments C and D
60. Of
the six mana whenua who submitted to the local board, the following fully
supported the local board priorities and advocacy: Te Runanga o Ngāti
Whātua, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngaati Whanaunga, and
Te Ākitai Waiohua
61. Ngāti
Manuhiri supported most of the priorities, but had questions about their lack
of involvement, so far, in the Ōrewa Beach Esplanade Enhancement Project,
and were undecided around the proposal for funding environmental groups such as
Restore Hibiscus and Bays, and other initiatives in schools and neighbourhoods
to assist our communities to look after our environment
62. Some
mana whenua sought further information on how success and progress is tracked
(Ngaati Whanaunga and Te Ākitai Waiohua),
63. Two
mataawaka entities fully supported the priorities and advocacy initiatives that
they considered applicable: Te Roopu Waiora and Whenua Warrior
64. Both
Te Roopu Waiora and Whenua Warrior raised questions about the connections
between their priorities and those of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.
65. Ongoing
conversations between local boards and Māori will assist to understand
each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and
encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.
66. Some
projects approved for funding could have discernible impacts on Māori. The
potential impacts on Māori, as part of any project progressed by Auckland
Council, will be assessed appropriately and accordingly as part of relevant
reporting requirements.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
67. This
report is seeking the local board’s decisions on financial matters in the
local board agreement that must then be considered by the Governing Body.
68. The
local board also provides input to regional plans and proposals. There is
information in the council’s consultation material for each plan or
proposal with the financial implications of each option outlined for
consideration.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā
whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
69. The
council must adopt its 10-year Budget, which includes local board agreements,
by 30 June 2021. The local board is required to make recommendations on these
local matters for the 10-year Budget by mid May 2021, to enable and support the
Governing Body to make decisions on key items to be included in the 10-year
Budget on 25 May 2021.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
70. The
local board will approve its local board agreement and corresponding work
programmes in June 2021.
71. Recommendations and feedback from the local board will be provided
to the relevant Governing Body committee for consideration during decision
making at the Governing Body meeting. The final 10-year Budget 2021-2031
(including local board agreements) will be adopted by the Governing Body on 22
June 2021.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Attachment A Hibiscus and Bays HYS Asian Inspired HYS
|
41
|
|
b⇩
|
Attachment B HYS Family Day Out
|
43
|
|
c
|
Attachment C Local Board Hibiscus Bays - Mana
Whenua (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
d⇩
|
Attachment D Local Board Hibiscus Bays -
Mataawaka
|
45
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Matthew Kerr – Senior Local Board Advisor –
Hibiscus and Bays
|
|
Authorisers
|
Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board
Services
Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager
|
