I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Kaipātiki Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 5 May 2021

10.00am

Kaipātiki Local Board Office
90 Bentley Avenue
Glenfield

 

Kaipātiki Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

John Gillon

 

Deputy Chairperson

Danielle Grant, JP

 

Members

Paula Gillon

 

 

Ann Hartley, JP

 

 

Melanie Kenrick

 

 

Cindy Schmidt

 

 

Andrew Shaw

 

 

Adrian Tyler

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Jacinda Short

Democracy Advisor

 

30 April 2021

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 484 6236

Email: jacinda.short@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       6

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          6

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                           7

12        Notice of Motion - Chip Seal                                                                                         9

13        Decision-making responsibilities policy                                                                   31

14        Local board consultation feedback and input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 53

15        Input into Auckland Council submission to central government - Inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland                                                                               105

16        Kaipātiki Local Board Chairperson's Report                                                          107

17        Members' Reports                                                                                                      109

18        Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members' Update    111

19        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Welcome / Karakia

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          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.

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy.  The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i)       A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

ii)      A non-financial conflict of interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component.  It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968.  The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request. 

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Local Area Manager in the first instance.

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 21 April 2021, as true and correct.

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.


 

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

 

7          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Kaipātiki Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.

 

9          Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

 

10        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.”

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

Under Standing Order 2.5.1 (LBS 3.11.1) a Notice of Motion has been received from Chairperson John Gillon for consideration under item 12.

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

Notice of Motion - Chip Seal

File No.: CP2021/04931

 

  

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1.       Chairperson John Gillon has given notice of motion that they wish to propose.

2.       The notice has been signed by Chairperson John Gillon and Deputy Chairperson Danielle Grant as seconder.

3.       Supporting information is appended in Attachment A, B, C and D.

 

Motion

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      note that according to the Auckland Transport Reseal Guidelines that were adopted in 2014, the chip seal method “must” be used to reseal all roads unless specific criteria apply (as listed in section 5.1 of the guidelines), meaning that most suburban roads across Auckland will be resealed in chip seal, or be partially resealed in chip seal, under this policy, even where they were previously sealed in asphaltic concrete.

b)      note the considerable concern and anxiety from Kaipātiki residents over the effects that chip sealed roads are currently having on the community and environment, including (but not limited to):

·    vehicles having windscreens cracked, brake discs damaged, brake pad sensors and ABS sensors damaged, and paint scratched by loose chips flicked up when driven over (even at slow speeds)

·    cars, motorbikes and bicycles skidding on loose chips

·    children having difficulty skating, scootering, trike-riding and bike-riding on footpaths covered in loose chips

·    damage caused to carpets, wooden floors and decks after loose stones are tracked into houses

·    loose chips on the berm grass flicked up by lawn mowers at pedestrians, cyclists and passing vehicles

·    loose chips accumulating in the gutter and stormwater network

·    increase in noise to neighbouring residents from vehicles driving over loose chip seal

·    bare patches on roads where chips have shed.

c)      express concern at the numerous safety issues that the Auckland Transport Reseal Guidelines are having on the users of suburban roads that have been resealed with chip seal in the last few years, including pedestrians, school children, cyclists, motorists, skaters, scooters, prams and dogs.

d)      express concern that for many chip-sealed roads, loose chips continue to travel onto footpaths and grass berms, down driveways, into houses, and onto neighbouring asphalt-sealed roads for weeks, months - and in some cases years – after they are laid, and after multiple sweeps of the road.

e)      express concern that the grade of stone used in chip seal surfaces appears to be a smaller chip than used in the past, and that the current method used is resulting in much more loose chip shedding from the road than in the past, acknowledging that some roads have always been chip-sealed but that the extent of shedding (and resulting problems) has never been at the level per road that we are now seeing.

f)       considers that a change from asphaltic concrete to a loose chip seal surface is effectively a downgrade to an inferior quality of road seal and a drop in standard of a core council responsibility, even where it complies with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency’s "M6 Chip Sealing Standards".

g)      request that Auckland Transport immediately stop resealing suburban roads in chip seal, and update the Auckland Transport Reseal Guidelines with a revision that endorses asphaltic concrete (or equivalent) road surfaces as the default surface, rather than chip seal.

h)      request that Auckland Transport and Auckland Council prioritise spending in the 2021– 2031 Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) to ensure that all of Auckland’s suburban roads are sealed to a safe, useable and quality standard, such as asphaltic concrete (or equivalent), acknowledging that this will require a considerable increase in budget allocation and may not qualify for subsidy from Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.

i)        note that while Auckland Transport is empowered with governance, management and decision-making of Auckland’s road corridors, it does not own the roads (Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, Section 46, Clause 4), and it is the duty of elected members to raise concerns about Auckland Transport’s decisions and management on behalf of the people of Auckland who do own the roads via the Auckland Council.

j)        request that this resolution and the associated Notice of Motion report and attachments are circulated to the Auckland Transport Board, the Mayor and Auckland Council Governing Body members, the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and all Local Board members for their information and action.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

5 May 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Notice of Motion - Chip Seal

9

b

5 May 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Auckland Transport General letter to Boards AC vs CS

21

c

5 May 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - CAS-259316-X0M0H7_Redacted

23

d

5 May 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Reseal Guidelines_Feb2014

25

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 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


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

Decision-making responsibilities policy

File No.: CP2021/04970

 

  

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 (LTP).

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 (the policy) that is published in each Long-term Plan (LTP) 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 upon 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 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      endorse the draft Decision-making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and Local Boards Policy as presented as Attachment A to the agenda report.

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); and

·      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 (JGWP)

7.       To facilitate a review by the 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 providing 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 licence 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

5 May 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Decision making responsibilities policy

37

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 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


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

Local board consultation feedback and input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

File No.: CP2021/05183

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive consultation feedback from the Kaipātiki Local Board area on:

·      proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Kaipātiki 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 Kaipātiki 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 837 submissions from the Kaipātiki Local Board area. Kaipātiki submitters accounted for approximately 4% of all submitters across the region, with a majority of 67% mostly supportive of the identified local board priorities. However, support to investigate a future locally targeted rate to contribute to major local projects received only a slim majority of 47%, with 42% of 606 respondents opposing any further exploration.

7.       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.

8.       In the 10-year Budget process there are matters where local boards can 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; and

·      any local board advocacy initiatives.

9.       The Governing Body will consider these items as part of the 10-year Budget decision-making process in May/June 2021.

10.     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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

c)      approve its advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to its 2021/2022 Local Board Agreement

d)      provide local board feedback on regional topics in the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 to the Governing Body.

Horopaki

Context

11.     Each financial year Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed between the Governing Body and the relevant local board) for each local board area. This local board agreement reflects priorities in the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2020 through local activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and advocacy initiatives.

12.     The local board agreements 2021/2022 will form part of the Auckland Council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

13.     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.

14.     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

15.     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 

16.     As part of 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.    

17.     In total, Auckland Council received feedback from 19,965 people in 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), 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.

18.     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 Kaipātiki Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives

19.     The Kaipātiki Local Board consulted on the following priorities for 2021/2022:

·      Priority 1: developing more meaningful relationships with Māori, starting with a hui in 2021

·      Priority 2: continuing to support Pest Free Kaipātiki Restoration Society with its community-led conservation work

·      Priority 3: working to address the flooding and seawater inundation at Little Shoal Bay

·      Priority 4: finalising the Kaipātiki Connections Network Plan to outline key walking and cycling links

·      Priority 5: working with businesses in the Wairau Valley to better understand their issues and opportunities.

20.     The Kaipātiki Local Board also consulted on the following key advocacy initiatives:

·      Initiative 1: implementing the Birkenhead War Memorial Park Masterplan, which includes developing a new multi-sport facility and improved aquatic play

·      Initiative 2: implementing measures to minimise the spread of kauri dieback disease

·      Initiative 3: expanding investment to improve water quality, particularly within the catchment of the Wairau Estuary

·      Initiative 4: delivering the Northcote redevelopment to support a successful and integrated community

·      Initiative 5: improving travel options and infrastructure to support safe journeys to and from school

21.     678 submissions were received on the Kaipātiki Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2031 and key advocacy initiatives. The majority of local respondents, 67% or 459 submitters, were generally supportive of the proposed local board priorities, with 22%, or 151 submitters, supporting all the identified priorities. 14% of Kaipātiki submitters did not support most of the proposed local board priorities, and 5% were unsupportive of all of them.

22.     Five mana whenua organisations submitted on the Kaipātiki Local Board’s proposed priorities. These were Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua (Regional Body), Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust, Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society, and Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority. All five mana whenua organisations were supportive of most of the identified local board priorities, and unanimously expressed interest in closer collaboration with the Kaipātiki Local Board.

23.     The Ngāti Tamatera Treaty Settlement Trust requested to be kept informed of upcoming projects and programmes to facilitate this, while the Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society and Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority advised that the proposed hui in 2021 should be focused on achieving tangible outcomes in order to be useful. Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority further asked for more information regarding the proposal to investigate a future locally targeted rate in order to better understand the possible impact on them.

24.     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 the current report.

Information on submitters

25.     The tables and graphs below indicate the demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information:

Kaipātiki submitters by gender and age group

Age

Male

Female

Gender Diverse

< 15

1

6

0

15-24

9

13

2

25-34

43

37

0

35-44

78

71

2

45-54

77

59

0

55-64

51

69

1

65-74

51

38

0

75 +

28

15

0

Total

338

308

5

 

Kaipātiki submitters by ethnicity

Ethnicity

 

 

#

%

European

505

66%

 

Pakeha/NZ European

424

55%

 

Other European

81

11%

Maori

28

4%

Pacific

10

1%

 

Samoan

3

0%

 

Tongan

2

0%

 

Other Pacific

5

1%

Asian

143

19%

 

Chinese

98

13%

 

South East Asian

13

2%

 

Indian

19

2%

 

Other Asian

26

3%

African/Middle Eastern/Latin

18

2%

Other

18

2%

Total people providing ethnicity

764

95%

 

Key themes

26.     Key themes of note across the feedback received (through written and in-person channels) included:

·      Local planning – Housing and increasing intensification in the Kaipātiki Local Board area, traffic congestion, cycleways, investment in existing infrastructure, more investment and provision of sports and recreation opportunities

·      Governance and support - Prioritisation in a fiscally constrained year, mixed views on areas for focus

·      Range of comments on other topics, including other areas proposed to be prioritised and the narrow benefits of the identified priorities.

Overview of feedback received on regional topics in the 10-year Budget from the Kaipātiki Local Board area

27.     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:

1.   The proposed investment package

2.   Climate change

3.   Water quality

4.   Community investment

5.   Rating policy.

28.     The submissions received from the Kaipātiki 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.

29.     Two groups submitted pro forma in the Kaipātiki Local Board area. These were the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance and Generation Zero, from which 104 and 8 pro forma submissions were received respectively. The Auckland Ratepayers Alliance pro forma mainly concerned the proposed 10-year budget, while Generation Zero’s pro forma was on the proposed increased climate change investment and Water Quality Targeted Rate extension and increase. Of the 794 Kaipātiki submitters that responded to the proposed 10-year budget, the 104 Auckland Ratepayers Alliance pro forma account for approximately 13% of responses.  

Key Question 1: Proposed investment package

30.     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 its 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.

31.     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 across the next three years.

32.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Kaipātiki Local Board area:

Kaipātiki submitters’ responses to the proposed 10-year budget

 

 

Kaipātiki submitters comments by theme

Kaipātiki submitters’ responses without pro forma

Q1 - Proposed 10-year budget

Count

%

What do you think about our proposal? 

 

Support

336

49%

 

Do not support

257

38%

 

Other

50

7%

 

Don't know

41

6%

 

TOTAL

684

100%

 

Key Question 2: Climate Change

33.     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.  

34.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Kaipātiki Local Board area:

 

Kaipātiki submitters’ responses to the proposed increased climate change investment

 

Kaipātiki submitters’ comments by theme

 

Kaipātiki submitters’ responses without pro forma

Q2 - Climate change

Count

%

What do you think about our proposal? 

 

Support the proposed increased investment

439

64%

 

Do not support increased investment

179

26%

 

Other

50

7%

 

Don't know

22

3%

 

TOTAL

690

100%

 

Key Question 3: Water quality

35.     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.  

36.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Kaipātiki Local Board area:

Kaipātiki submitters’ responses to the Water Quality Targeted Rate proposal

 

Kaipātiki submitters’ comments by theme


 

Kaipātiki submitters’ responses without pro forma

Q3 - Water Quality Targeted Rate

Count

%

What do you think about our proposal? 

 

Support the extension and the increase

311

45%

 

Support the extension only

200

29%

 

Do not support either change

122

18%

 

Other

18

3%

 

Don't know

33

5%

 

TOTAL

684

100%

 

Key Question 4: Community investment

37.     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.

38.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Kaipātiki Local Board area:

Kaipātiki submitters’ response to the proposed community services approach


Kaipātiki submitters’ comments by theme

 

Key Question 5: Rating policy

39.     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.

40.     Kaipātiki submitters did not make a significant number of comments on the proposed Natural Environment Targeted Rate extension (19 comments), Urban Rating Area extension (18 comments), residential rates for farm and lifestyle properties in the Urban Rating Area (12 comments), City Centre Targeted Rate extension (7 comments), Rodney Drainage Targeted Rate (2 comments), reinstatement of the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate (12 comments), and Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate (30 comments). The proposed Upper Harbour Local Board targeted rate to fund a new bus service between Paremoremo and Albany, however, received 210 comments. There were no responses from Kaipātiki submitters on the proposed changes to the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate or the Clevedon Water and Wastewater Connection Targeted Rate.

41.     The tables below give an overview of the responses from the Kaipātiki Local Board area:

Extending the Natural Environment Targeted Rate 

Support

425

64%

Do not support

161

24%

Other

56

8%

Don't know

17

3%

TOTAL

659

100%

 

Extending the Urban Rating Area 

Support

428

65%

Do not support

111

17%

Other

9

1%

Don't know

106

16%

TOTAL

654

100%

 

Charging farm and lifestyle properties in the Urban Rating Area residential rates

Support

404

63%

Do not support

133

21%

Other

10

2%

Don't know

99

15%

TOTAL

646

100%

 

Extending the City Centre Targeted Rate 

Support

373

57%

Do not support

196

30%

Other

70

11%

Don't know

16

2%

TOTAL

655

100%

 

Introducing the Rodney Drainage Targeted Rate 

Support

360

56%

Do not support

93

14%

Other

7

1%

Don't know

185

29%

TOTAL

645

100%

 

Accommodation provider targeted rate 

Support Option 1

1

8%

Support Option 2

0

0%

Support Option 3

2

17%

Other

4

33%

Do not support

5

42%

TOTAL

11

92%

 

Electricity network resilience targeted rate 

Support

8

32%

Do not support

10

40%

Other

7

28%

Don't know

0

0%

TOTAL

25

100%


 

Kaipātiki submitters’ response to the proposed Upper Harbour Local Board Targeted Rate for a new bus service

Kaipātiki submitters’ comments on the proposed Upper Harbour Local Board Targeted Rate for a new bus service by theme

 

Recommendations on local matters 

42.     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:

·      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.

·      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

43.     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.

44.     Local boards then recommend these proposals to the Governing Body for approval of the targeted rate.

45.     The Kaipātiki Local Board consulted on the investigation of a proposed targeted rate for major local projects beyond currently available existing funding.  Residents were asked to indicate their level of support from $0 to more than $150 annually for the proposed targeted rate, and their preference of project to be funded by it. These identified projects were:

·      Addressing flooding and seawater inundation at Little Shoal Bay, Northcote

·      Multi-sport facility and improved aquatic play space at Birkenhead War Memorial Park

·      Commuter and recreational walking and cycling links, such as shared paths, bush tracks and connections to the Northern Pathway (to be prioritised in the update of the Kaipātiki Connections Network Plan)

46.     A total of 606 Kaipātiki submitters responded on the investigation of a proposed targeted rate. For the identified projects to be funded by the proposed targeted rate, 518 responded on ranking Little Shoal Bay’s flooding and seawater inundation as a project to be funded, 510 on a multi-sports facility at Birkenhead War Memorial Park, and 509 on commuter and recreational walking and cycling links. 596 submitters indicated the proposed targeted rate they were willing to support.

47.     Close to half of all Kaipātiki submitters who responded to this question supported investigating a future locally targeted rate at 47%, or 282 individuals. However, 42%, or 254 individuals, were unsupportive of the proposal, while the remaining 70 individuals, forming 12% of the total, did not know either how they felt, or enough about the proposal itself:

48.     Submitters were asked to rank the three identified projects. 49%, or 264 of the 539 respondents that provided a ranking for commuter and recreational walking and cycling links, submitted it as their most preferred project to be funded by the proposed locally targeted rate. 30%, or 164 of the 549 submitters that provided a ranking for Little Shoal Bay’s flooding and seawater inundation, placed it as the top project for funding by the proposed locally targeted rate. 138 residents, forming 26% of the total 538 that provided a ranking for a multi-sport facility at Birkenhead War Memorial Park, identified it as their most preferred option.

49.     A multi-sports facility and improved aquatic play space at Birkenhead War Memorial Park was ranked as the second most preferred project to be funded by the proposed locally targeted rate by 39%, or 212 respondents, followed by commuter and recreational walking and cycling links at 33%, or 179 respondents, and addressing Little Shoal Bay’s flooding and seawater inundation at 27%, or 148 respondents.

50.     Consistent with its placement as the most preferred project to be funded by the proposed locally targeted rate, commuter and recreational walking and cycling links were ranked as the least preferred initiative by the fewest number of respondents, 96 or a proportion of 18%, followed by the multi-sports facility at Birkenhead War Memorial Park at 35%, with 188 submitters. Addressing Little Shoal Bay’s flooding and seawater inundation was ranked as the least preferred project by 43% of respondents, receiving the largest proportion of responses, or 237 individuals, among the three identified projects.

 

51.     Submitters were also asked to indicate the locally targeted rate amount they would be willing to support, ranging from $0 to more than $150. The largest proportion of respondents, at 42% or 252 individuals, were unwilling to pay any amount for the locally targeted rate, with the second largest group of respondents, 22% or 130 submitters, willing to support a locally targeted rate between $0 and $50. A locally targeted rate between $100 to $150 was supported by 9%, or 54 respondents, and a similar number of 62 submitters, or 10%, were willing to pay even more than $150.

52.     A drop-in Have Your Say event was also held on 13 Mar 2021 at Little Shoal Bay to provide residents an opportunity to have a spoken interaction with a decision maker. 21 comments were received from the event, 5 of which were on addressing the flooding and seawater inundation at Little Shoal Bay.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

53.     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 LDI funding is to be converted into capital 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.

These conditions do not apply to the Kaipātiki local board for the 2021/2022 financial year.

Local board advocacy

54.     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

55.     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.

56.     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

57.     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.

58.    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.

59.     One of the possible projects for funding through the locally targeted rate that was proposed for investigation is addressing the flooding and seawater inundation at Little Shoal Bay. The seawater inundation is a result of rising sea levels from climate change while the flooding is due to Little Shoal Bay’s location at the bottom of a stormwater catchment. The flooding and seawater inundation, if allowed to continue, would result in a loss of amenity at Little Shoal Bay.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

60.     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

61.     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.

62.     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

63.     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.

64.     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.

65.     Analysis provided of 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. Five mana whenua organisations submitted on the Kaipātiki Local Board’s priorities, while 4% of Kaipātiki submitters identified as Māori.

66.     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. The Kaipātiki Local Board has identified more meaningful relationships with its Māori community, starting with a hui in 2021, as a key initiative for the 2021/2022 financial year.

67.     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

68.     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.

69.     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

70.     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

71.     The local board will approve its local board agreement and corresponding work programmes in June 2021.

72.     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.

73.     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

5 May 2021 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Mana whenua feedback to the Long-term Budget 2021-2031

71

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Daniel Han - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 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


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

Input into Auckland Council submission to central government - Inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland

File No.: CP2021/04772

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the local board with an opportunity to provide input into Auckland Council’s submission to the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Kaipātiki Local Board received a report on its 21 April 2021 business meeting agenda seeking input into Auckland Council’s submission to the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland. At this meeting the local board delegated members Paula Gillon and Andrew Shaw to prepare draft input on behalf of the local board (resolution number KT/2021/33):

“That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)    receive the report and its attachments as follows:

i)    Attachment A - memo provided to Auckland Council Planning Committee and local board members dated 1 April 2021; and

ii)   Attachment B - findings report produced by ‘The Congestion Question’ project (TCQ) dated July 2020.

b)    nominate member(s) Paula Gillon and Andrew Shaw to prepare draft input into Auckland Council’s submission to the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland on behalf of the local board, noting that:

i)     the draft feedback will be presented to the local board’s 5 May 2021 business meeting for final approval; and

ii)    feedback received from local boards by 10 May 2021 will be considered for incorporation into Auckland Council’s main submission.

CARRIED”

3.       Central government’s Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee (the committee) is calling for public submissions on its inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.  Congestion pricing involves implementing a charge (or charges) to manage demand on the road network.  This can encourage users to change their travel behaviour, such as the time, route, or mode by which they travel. 

4.       Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (AT) will make a combined submission to the inquiry.  The Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee is interested in hearing people’s thoughts on the idea of introducing congestion pricing in Auckland, and will be guided in its inquiry by the below terms of reference:

·    Using ‘The Congestion Question’ (TCQ) reports as a base, developing a thorough understanding of how a congestion regime could be implemented, including the use of technology, which routes would be included, and how charging could be structured and facilitated.

·    Through the submissions process, lead a constructive public dialogue to ensure all affected groups and individuals have an opportunity to have their say.

·    Ensuring that equity and mitigation issues are identified and how any scheme could be structured to ensure that any one group, particularly those on lower incomes, are not unreasonably impacted.

·    Focusing on how any revenue raised would be used and would integrate with other revenue streams derived from fuel taxes, road user charges, and other fiscal factors.

·    Identifying and evaluating comparative congestion charging models internationally and identifying best practice.

·    Confirming the likely behavioural change and benefits from a congestion charge in Auckland, including evaluating the impact of behavioural change on existing alternative transport modes, especially public transport.

·    Provide the opportunity for those outside Auckland to engage with the issue through the submissions process.

·    Understanding the impact of a congestion charge on emissions and air quality.

·    Understanding the options for legislative change to enable congestion pricing.

5.       Central government’s Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee announced it was calling for public submissions on its inquiry on 25 March 2021.  Submissions close on Thursday 20 May.  Due to the timing of the submission deadline in relation to Auckland Council’s Planning Committee schedule, council staff will be asking for a delegated sign off at the 6 May Planning Committee meeting.

6.       Feedback received from local boards by 10 May will be considered for incorporation into the main submission.  Feedback received from local boards by 17 May will be appended to the council submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      provide formal feedback on Auckland Council’s submission to the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

Kaipātiki Local Board Chairperson's Report

File No.: CP2021/04446

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       An opportunity is provided for the Kaipātiki Local Board Chairperson to update members on recent activities, projects and issues since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      note the chairperson’s report.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

Members' Reports

File No.: CP2021/04448

 

  

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1.       An opportunity is provided for members to update the Kaipātiki Local Board on the projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      note any verbal reports of members.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members' Update

File No.: CP2021/04787

 

  

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

1.       An opportunity is provided for Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board members to update the board on Governing Body or Independent Maori Statutory Board issues, or issues relating to the Kaipātiki Local Board.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      note the Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board members’ verbal updates.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jacinda Short - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Local Area Manager