I hereby give notice that an extraordinary meeting of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 5 May 2021

5.00pm

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Office
Shop 17B
93 Bader Drive
Māngere

Or via Skype for Business

 

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Lemauga Lydia Sosene

 

Deputy Chairperson

Tauanu’u Nanai Nick Bakulich

 

Members

Makalita Kolo

 

 

Christine O'Brien

 

 

Papaliitele Peo

 

 

Togiatolu Walter Togiamua

 

 

Harry Fatu Toleafoa

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Janette McKain

Democracy Advisor

 

29 April 2021

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 262 5283

Email: janette.mckain@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Decision-making responsibilities policy                                                                     7

5          Local board consultation feedback and input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 29

 


1          Welcome

 

 

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.

 

 

 


Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

Decision-making responsibilities policy

File No.: CP2021/04900

 

  

 

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 as provided in Attachment A.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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 (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

Decision making responsibilities policy

15

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

 


Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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


Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

05 May 2021

 

 

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

File No.: CP2021/04804

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To summarise consultation feedback from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area on:

·     proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Mangere-Otahuhu 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 seek 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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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 19,975 submissions during the public consultation period, with 442 submissions specific to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area.

7.       In summary, the submitters supported the local board’s local priorities and advocacy items.

8.       Insights on regional topics is located in the Analysis section of this report, and summary of local results to the regional topics are:

i)     Proposed investment package             Do not support

ii)    Climate change                                             Support

iii)    Water Quality                                                Support

-       Extension and increase                          Support

-       Extension only                                       Support

iv)    Community Investment                                  Support

v)    Rating policy…                                             Support

9.       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.

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

11.     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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a)      receive consultation feedback on the proposed Mangere-Otahuhu 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 Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board area

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

d)      recommend any new or amended local targeted rate proposals to the Governing Body

e)      recommend that the Governing Body approves any proposed locally driven initiative (LDI) capital projects, which are outside local boards’ allocated decision-making responsibility

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

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

h)      provide input on regional topics in the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 to the Governing Body.

 

Horopaki

Context

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

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

14.     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.

15.     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

16.     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 

17.     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. 

18.     Auckland Council received 19,975 submissions through:

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

·     In person, Have your say activities (61 events) – 607 pieces of feedback 

·     Online webinars (23 sessions) - one hosted in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board area

·     Phone interviews (3 sessions) - two independently managed and one council hosted interviews

·     Social media - with 78 pieces of feedback received through Auckland Council’s social media channels.

19.     Due to the Covid-19 lockdowns 26 events were either cancelled, postponed or moved to an online platform.

20.     On 27 February, five days after the public consultation had commenced, Auckland went into Level 3 lockdown for seven days, followed by a drop to Level 2 on 7 March, and back to Level 1 on 12 March. This would have a significant impact on the level of public participation. In total, 60 events were held: 37 in-person events and 23 online. And 25 events were affected by the lockdown. These were either cancelled, postponed - falling outside the consultation period, or rescheduled (face to face or online).

21.     Auckland Council received feedback from 417 organisations (including 26 presentations from the regional stakeholder event). These came from a variety of organisations, including those who potentially represent a group of Aucklanders, for example Residents and Ratepayers Associations, Churches, and Sports Associations.

22.     The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board received 15 submissions from organisations for the local area: 

                        Eva Moore Sheetmetals Ltd                           Māngere Mountain Education Trust

               Barton Growers Limited                                  Mafutaga Savavali Magele Tutoatasi (MSMT)

                        South Auckland Fijian Aoa Church                Counties Manukau Rugby League

                        Mabgeree East Family Services                    Boon Young Ltd

                        Jet Park Hotel                                                 Mangere Hawks Netball Club

                        Shepherds Park Squash Club                        Penrose A.O.G

                        Te Motu A Hiaroa                                           Otahuhu Tongan Trust

                        Mangere East Rugby League Football Club and Sports Inc.

23.     Auckland Council cannot verify how many individuals supported the feedback from the various organisations. They have each been counted as a single submission, but it is noted that they may be representing multiple people. Again, it is up to elected members to determine the weight that is given to this feedback.

24.     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 Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives

25.     The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board consulted on the following local priorities for 2021/2022:

·        Fund business partnerships to help recover from the effects of COVID-19.

·        Support local community to help aspire to achieve zero emissions by 2050.

·        Enhance youth leadership capacity to participate on local matters.

·        Improve the car park and accessibility to onsite facilities at Seaside Park.

·        Deliver full refurbishment of Mangere East’s Massey Homestead.

·        Maintain or improve facility networks - to meet local needs of all ages and abilities.

26.     The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board also consulted on the following key advocacy initiatives:

·        Complete Ōtāhuhu Streetscape and deliver a safer, attractive, vibrant town centre.

·        Continue funding Māngere Mountain Education Trust’s education programmes.

·        Reinstate the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to pre-Emergency Budget levels.

·        Budgets to develop the Māngere East Precinct into a thriving livable community.

·        Allocate long-term funding for the Ōtāhuhu Portage route project as a priority.

27.     Of the local submissions received 294 highlighted the Norana walkway and Boggust Park improvements as local achievements.

28.     Local submitters also supported the local board’s advocacy of upgrading Seaside Park and completing the Ōtāhuhu Streetscape project.

29.     Local submitters commented on the cost-of-living, the effects of COVID-19 and asking Auckland Council to be better stewards of rate payers contributions.

30.     Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board when approving its local board agreement between the 14-18 June 2021. Local board key advocacy initiatives will be considered in this report.

Information on submitters

31.     The following table and graph identify local submitters who provided their demographic information.  

32.     More individuals made submissions compared to organisations. The online platform was preferred by the community when making a submission

33.    

Of the total 442 local submissions received, there were 273 online submissions, 115 offline/hard copies, 54 were pro forma, and fifteen from organisations.

 

 

 

 


 

34.    

The graph and table below show the gender and age breakdown. There were more female submitters than males. The gender breakdown are as follows, 203 submissions from female submitters, 159 from male submitters and two submitters who identified themselves as gender diverse. The total submissions received across the 15 – 54 age groups were fairly even, and age cohorts under 15 years and over 55-year-olds had fewer submissions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35.    

The ethnicity graph and table below have the local Pasifika cohort with the highest number of submissions, followed by Pakeha/ Europeans. Within Pasifika, Samoan had the highest proportion followed by Tongan. Maori had 7% or 26 submissions received.


 

Key themes

36.     Key feedback themes across the local submissions received included:

·        Financial pressures exacerbated by COVID-19. 

·        The need for fit for purpose parks and facilities.

·        Explore further financial efficiencies within Auckland Council.

 

Requests for local funding

37.     Funding requests through the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 consultation included:

·        Completion of the Ōtāhuhu Streetscape Project.

·        Upgrade Seaside Park.

 

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

38.     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.

39.     The submissions received for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area on these five 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

40.     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 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.

41.     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.

42.     The graphs and tables below provide an overview of the responses from local submitters.

43.    

For question one, there were 35% in support, 49% do not support, Other and Don’t know had 7% and 9% respectively.

 

 

 

 

 

 


44.     Submitters that supported the proposed investment package highlighted the need to continue maintaining council assets and build infrastructure to keep pace with Auckland’s population. Submitters that answered this question were in favour of council cutting down unnecessary services however, no services were identified.

45.     Submitters that didn’t support the proposed investment package, cited the financial stress COVID-19 had placed households under. Expense efficiencies were also highlighted specifically decrease in council wages, sticking to core services and reprioritisation of projects.

46.     Submitters that commented in the ’Do not know’, or ‘Other’, said that Auckland Council wages were too high, and that more information was needed to make a comment. 

 

Key Question 2: Climate Change

47.     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.  

48.     The graph and table below provide an overview of the responses from the submitters from the local area.

49.     Overwhelmingly, 66% support the focus on climate change, 23% do not support, while the Other and Don’t know were 7% and 4% respectively.


 


50.     Submitters that supported the proposed investment viewed this as a high priority and future generations will benefit from this invest. Carbon emissions by vehicles were identified as the biggest contributor to climate change in Auckland.

51.     Those who do not support the climate change proposal, did not view this as a key issue for them.  Comments also received included:

·        that central government needed to take responsibility for climate change

·        negative effects of electric bus emissions 

·        the Te Puna Maunga Authority cutting down trees at Māngere Mountain.

Key Question 3: Water quality

52.     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.  

53.     The graph and table below provide’ an overview of the submission’ responses from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area

54.     The results are, 47% support the extension and increase, while 27% support the extension only, and 15% do not support either. The Other and don’t know categories are 4% and 6% respectively.

55.    

Most submitters supported the water quality targeted rate highlighting that this is a priority and Aucklanders are enjoying cleaner beaches and water. There were minimal comments from those who selected did not support, did not know or other.


 

Key Question 4: Community investment

56.     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

·        an increased focus on providing multi-use facilities and

·        online services in the future.

57.     The graph and table below show an overview of submissions received for Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area.

58.    

Just over half 56% of the submissions received for this question support the proposal, and 28% said they did not support this investment. With Other and Don’t know were 7% and 9% respectively.

 

 

 

 

 


59.     Submitters that supported the community investment package highlighted:

·     Community facilities to be as hubs and keeping communities connected

·     Child friendly and accessible fit for purpose facilities

·     Consolidate facilities to be like, ‘Te Manawa’ hub west Auckland; however council selling local assets were a concern for submitters.

60.     Submitters that did not support the community investment proposal also valued community development as a priority. There was also a view against selling council assets.

61.     Other comments included exploring partnerships arrangements to coexist and the need to maintain and renew local facilities.

Key Question 5: Rating policy Extending natural environment targeted rate

62.     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.

63.     The graph and table below provide’ an overview of the submission’ responses from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area.

64.     The results are, 56% support, 29% do not support and Other and Don’t know were 12% and 4% respectively.

65.    

Minimal commentary was received by submitters on this question, however, feedback highlighted that kauri dieback was not a community priority in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local area and council should redirect this budget to other activities.


Extending the urban rating area

66.     The graph and table below feature extending the urban rating area.

67.    

There were 139 submitters that support, and 57 do not support the urban rating area. Commentary was minimal. In general, submitters that do not support expressed their mistrust in managing core services in the local community.


 

 

 

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

68.     The graph and table below provide an overview of the submission responses from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area.

69.    

There were 129 submitters that support while 58 do not support charging farm and lifestyle properties in the urban rating area. Commentary was minimal. Submitters that do not support this highlighted that farms do not have access to the same or even a similar level of service to those in urban areas so they shouldn’t have to pay the same rates. They also  identified that farms are much bigger and have a lot less people on them to finance the rates.

Extending the city centre targeted rate

70.     The graph and table below feature ‘extending the City Centre Targeted Rate’.

71.     There were 114 submitters that support and 87 do not support extending the city centre targerted rate. There were no comments received, which could potentially indicate a lack of interest in the subject or more information is requested to make an informed decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Introducing the Rodney Drainage Targeted Rate

72.     The graph and table below feature ‘Rodney drainage targeted rate’. There were 111 submitters that support and 41 do not support the introduction of the Rodney drainage targeted rate. 75 submitters recorded that did not have a position on this subject and there were no comments received which could potentially indicate a lack of interest in the subject or more information is required to make an informed decision.

 

 


 

Other feedback received

73.     Aucklanders were asked what is important to them and if they had any feedback on any other issues. Submitters highlighted five key local themes in their commentary as follows:

·        Develop fit-for-purpose facilities – inclusive of playgrounds, sports fields and community centres. Facilities also generate social benefits like local connectedness, pride and safety.

·        Affordable housing and concerns about intensification and the negative effects on the local community.

·        Transport – most common theme mentioned by submitters asking for relevant bus routes and better road infrastructure.

·        Lower rates - highlighted financial stresses further impacted by COVID-19 asking for no change or lower rates.

·        Environment - total elimination of single use plastic bags, cleaner waterways and more tree planting were key initiatives highlighted by submitters.

 

Recommendations on local matters 

74.     This report allows the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body for consideration as part of the 10-year Budget process. 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

75.     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.

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

77.     There are no new or amended targeted rate proposals for the local board to consider for the 2021/2022 financial year.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

78.     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.

79.     These conditions do not apply to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board for the 2021/2022 financial year.

Local board advocacy

80.     Local boards are requested to approve any advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to their 2020/2021 Local Board Agreement after considering the consultation feedback. 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

81.     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.

82.     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

83.     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.

84.     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

85.     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

86.     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.

87.     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

88.     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.

89.     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.

90.     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.

91.     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.

92.     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.

93.     Seven mana whenua entities as listed below have made submissions specifically to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

·     Ngāti Whātua- Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua (Regional Body)

·     Ngāti Tamaterā- Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust

·     Ngāti Whanaunga - Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society

·     Waikato- Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated

·     Ngāti Tamaoho- Ngāti Tamaoho Trust

·     Te Ākitai Waiohua- Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority

·     Te Ahiwaru Makaurau Marae Māori Trust.

94.     All mana whenua entities that submitted to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board have generally supported the local board’s identified priorities and advocacy items. They also commented on the other aspects of the long-term plan as provided in Attachment A to this report.

95.     Four Maatawaka organiations as listed below have made submissions specifically to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

·     Te Pu-a-nga Maara

·     The Cause Collective

·     Te Roopu Waiora

·     Whenua Warrior.

96.     All mataawaka organisations that submitted specifically to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board generally support of the local priorities and advocacy of the local board. They also commented on the other aspects of the long-term plan as outlined in Attachment B to this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

97.     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.

98.     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

99.     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

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

101.   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.

102.   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

Mana Whenua submissions

47

b

Mataawaka submissions

97

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Albert Scott - Local Board Advisor

Cicili Dwe – Engagement Advisor

Daniel Poe – Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

 


Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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